4 ms·

The Curious Case of Mercedes Renee Haefer

32 points by nrcha 15y ago

Wikileaks tweeted this today. A story about alleged Anonymous member.

erikb 15y ago
I feel like helping these people. Is ther some kind of public legal fund for these guys?
- idonthack 15y ago
  for Mercedes specifically, there is http://freemercedes.org/ http://freemercedes.org/ i can't attest to its legitimacy, i just did a google search.
  - erikb 15y ago
    Yeah, I also found that and hoped to get some validation.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
michaeldhopkins 15y ago
You got me to click but the title is misleading. "Paypal convinced 7000 people to attack Paypal" sounds like entrapment but it's just a quote from the defendant in the FBI's case -- a way to say that Paypal brought the DDoS on themselves by their own unjust actions. The defendant is a completely innocent 19-year-old woman who was bullied by FBI thugs, and that would have been an equally compelling and more accurate headline.
wwalser 15y ago
I find it hard to understand how being a Mod of an IRC channel where a crime is being organized and committed could be interpreted by anyone as innocence. If a bunch of thugs planned and organized at Mr. Smith's house before walking down to the local grocery store and through some illegal tactic prevented people from shopping, Mr. Smith is guilty of 'aiding and embedding' and 'conspiracy to commit a crime'. Even if it's not your house that they organize at, if you are in the conversation with a group of people who are planning a crime, you are guilty of `a` crime. Not particularly the same crime as the people who committed the planned crime, but you are guilty of a crime. Then she goes on the record and admits to everything they need to convict her, brilliant.
- guelo 15y ago
  I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you are either. You seem to think that if you hear of a crime being committed you are obligated to report it. I do not believe you are right, it is legal to not be a snitch, if nothing else there is the 5th amendment right to keep your mouth shut. There's also the right to free assembly. On a side note let me ask you a question. What do you think about the fact that the WikiLeaks website has been attacked constantly for a couple years now including with many DDOS attacks, but the FBI has not opened an investigation into it, in fact it doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar? On the other hand this short-lived attack on paypal has been investigated aggressively with several raids and arrests, why would that be? Anonymous isn't attacking wikileaks, who in the US has an incentive to take down WikiLeaks?
  - Wilya 15y ago
    A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. If we assume that the network's sole purpose is to help anonymous, she is, technically, supporting anonymous. I won't assume these (the problem is a bit more complex,of course). But that's the line of thought the FBI is following, and I can understand it. The woman in the article doesn't strike me as an obvious innocent.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. No, just no. There's a fundamental difference between a channel and a network operator. The former has absolutely zero to do with network maintenance - it's simply someone who happens to have a specific flag (+o) set on a specific channel. A network operator (often called Opers) is someone who has - as the name implies - administrative privileges over the network or parts thereof. However, if we now follow the line of argument that a network operator should be held liable for the actions of his or her users, we're in the same boat as the people who claim that ISPs or other service providers should be held liable for the action of their users - which is ridiculous. she is, technically, supporting anonymous. In what way is that a crime? Anonymous is simply a decentralized, anarchistic and extremely loose collective of people who have chosen to affiliate themselves with it. You cannot hold people who affiliate themselves with it liable for the actions (legal or not) of others with the same affiliation. The problem is that no one in organizations like the FBI can even grasp the notion of a collective that does not rely on authority or centralization. It's like quantum physics are to a mere mortal - utterly incomprehensible.
Triumvark 15y ago
> since when did associating with types considered unflattering or considered dangerous make YOU guilty of the supposed crime they committed? RICO was passed in 1970.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  Harbouring a known criminal is often illegal.

32 points by nrcha 15y ago

Wikileaks tweeted this today. A story about alleged Anonymous member.

erikb 15y ago

I feel like helping these people. Is ther some kind of public legal fund for these guys?

idonthack 15y ago
for Mercedes specifically, there is http://freemercedes.org/ http://freemercedes.org/ i can't attest to its legitimacy, i just did a google search.
- erikb 15y ago
  Yeah, I also found that and hoped to get some validation.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

michaeldhopkins 15y ago

You got me to click but the title is misleading. "Paypal convinced 7000 people to attack Paypal" sounds like entrapment but it's just a quote from the defendant in the FBI's case -- a way to say that Paypal brought the DDoS on themselves by their own unjust actions. The defendant is a completely innocent 19-year-old woman who was bullied by FBI thugs, and that would have been an equally compelling and more accurate headline.

wwalser 15y ago

I find it hard to understand how being a Mod of an IRC channel where a crime is being organized and committed could be interpreted by anyone as innocence. If a bunch of thugs planned and organized at Mr. Smith's house before walking down to the local grocery store and through some illegal tactic prevented people from shopping, Mr. Smith is guilty of 'aiding and embedding' and 'conspiracy to commit a crime'. Even if it's not your house that they organize at, if you are in the conversation with a group of people who are planning a crime, you are guilty of `a` crime. Not particularly the same crime as the people who committed the planned crime, but you are guilty of a crime. Then she goes on the record and admits to everything they need to convict her, brilliant.

guelo 15y ago
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you are either. You seem to think that if you hear of a crime being committed you are obligated to report it. I do not believe you are right, it is legal to not be a snitch, if nothing else there is the 5th amendment right to keep your mouth shut. There's also the right to free assembly. On a side note let me ask you a question. What do you think about the fact that the WikiLeaks website has been attacked constantly for a couple years now including with many DDOS attacks, but the FBI has not opened an investigation into it, in fact it doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar? On the other hand this short-lived attack on paypal has been investigated aggressively with several raids and arrests, why would that be? Anonymous isn't attacking wikileaks, who in the US has an incentive to take down WikiLeaks?
- Wilya 15y ago
  A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. If we assume that the network's sole purpose is to help anonymous, she is, technically, supporting anonymous. I won't assume these (the problem is a bit more complex,of course). But that's the line of thought the FBI is following, and I can understand it. The woman in the article doesn't strike me as an obvious innocent.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. No, just no. There's a fundamental difference between a channel and a network operator. The former has absolutely zero to do with network maintenance - it's simply someone who happens to have a specific flag (+o) set on a specific channel. A network operator (often called Opers) is someone who has - as the name implies - administrative privileges over the network or parts thereof. However, if we now follow the line of argument that a network operator should be held liable for the actions of his or her users, we're in the same boat as the people who claim that ISPs or other service providers should be held liable for the action of their users - which is ridiculous. she is, technically, supporting anonymous. In what way is that a crime? Anonymous is simply a decentralized, anarchistic and extremely loose collective of people who have chosen to affiliate themselves with it. You cannot hold people who affiliate themselves with it liable for the actions (legal or not) of others with the same affiliation. The problem is that no one in organizations like the FBI can even grasp the notion of a collective that does not rely on authority or centralization. It's like quantum physics are to a mere mortal - utterly incomprehensible.

Triumvark 15y ago

> since when did associating with types considered unflattering or considered dangerous make YOU guilty of the supposed crime they committed? RICO was passed in 1970.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
Harbouring a known criminal is often illegal.