3 ms·
I always assume when some vandal/vigilante takes down a service is that they're just interfering with an investigation to actually catch these criminals instead
by hackermailman 10y ago
I always assume when some vandal/vigilante takes down a service is that they're just interfering with an investigation to actually catch these criminals instead of scattering them to new unknown services. Reminds me when Assad, early in the Syrian war was using an insecure private email server to dictate all actions of the military and police, which some idiots discovered so decided to spam it with threats and he shut it down. Meanwhile the opposition (before they became foreign terrorists) had also broken into the server and were able to counter the military and police actions against them until they lost this golden intelligence source from the idiotic actions of vigilantes purporting to be on their side.
- ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago> Reminds me when Assad, early in the Syrian war How persuasive is your example depends on which side the reader takes in this war. (I don't take either)
- hackermailman 10y agoYou can be pro-Syrian government and still see from that example how naive vigilantism can screw your cause more than it does your enemies. A different example would be some terrorist run Telegram channel full of Assad moles who lost their intel access because pro-Assad vigilantes successfully managed to guess a password and showed up to spam shutting the channel down. I'd bet on this Tor host being an active sting operation considering the fate of the previous one, FreedomHosting.
- celticninja 10y agoThe point made is valid regardless.