
United States Sentencing Commission website hacked - throwaway2048
http://www.ussc.gov/
======
olefoo
Dudes. This is not at all helpful. Website defacements just create more of an
excuse for a crackdown. If you're going to risk your life and freedom hacking
things; make it worth your goddam time. Hack the prison industrial complex and
get the evidence that shows that crimes are being created so that prisoners
can be kept at a profit. Expose the email trails of corrupt judges who put
away kids for kickbacks. Dox the modern plantation owners who order up
prisoners to work at slave wages.

Putting a press release on a website where it doesn't belong has been done;
it's old news. We know you can hack a drupal site owned by the .gov, we get
it. Don't blow your wad on something obvious, get documentation that would
make Woodward and Bernstein cream their pants over how many pageviews it'd get
and publish that.

Hack the FBI and find out who was talking about killing protestors at Occupy
Houston; hack Corrections Corporation of America and find out what they talk
about during their board meetings; get their financials and spill them to the
foreign press. Any or all of those would change things, possibly for the
better. But this, this is a waste of your time and ours.

~~~
hermannj314
Exposing emails, hacking the FBI? This is not at all helpful.

Murdering politicians, assassinating police officers and judges, freeing the
wrongly imprisoned by force. A willingness to die fighting. Any or all of
those would change things, possibly for the better. But this, this is a waste
of your time and ours.

~~~
twoodfin
hernmannj314, this comment could be read as encouraging the ("helpful") deaths
of a variety of civic officials. Even if there were an appropriate forum for
such loathsome sentiments, hn is certainly not it.

~~~
mpyne
> Even if there were an appropriate forum for such loathsome sentiments, hn is
> certainly not it.

This behavior is the inevitable result of lynch mobs throughout history
though. Rile up the people enough and stuff like this is a byproduct. Even in
the American Revolution the people started off by torturing unpopular British
officials by tar-and-feathering them. One can't have their cake and eat it
too.

~~~
twoodfin
What's your point? hn is still not the place for such behavior to be framed as
"helpful".

~~~
mpyne
You're right, I wasn't very clear. My point is that HN has been kind of a
rallying point for some of the more intellectual opposition to anything and
everything regarding how Swartz's case was handled (at least, once he killed
himself).

But all of the people calling for heads to figuratively roll need to be really
careful about the effect of their rallying cries. Like "having one more drink"
while carrying your car keys, decisions and actions made now can spiral out of
anyone's control and lead to even more anguish down the road.

Mob rule is very much a package deal, you don't just get to keep the good
parts and disclaim all the rest.

------
Claudus
The site contains links to 9 encrypted files, one for each of the current
Supreme Court Justices.

The files are intended to be concatenated into a single file named: Warhead-
US-DOJ-LEA-2013.aes256

(US-DOJ-LEA = United States - Department of Justice - Law Enforcement Agency)

aes256 is apparently the encryption scheme used to encrypt the files.

File names (and sizes): 1115 MB total

    
    
      Scalia.Warhead1 (150 MB)
      Kennedy.Warhead1 (108 MB)
      Thomas.Warhead1 (150 MB)
      Ginsburg.Warhead1 (150 MB)
      Breyer.Warhead1 (150 MB)
      Roberts.Warhead1 (23 MB)
      Alito.Warhead1 (150 MB)
      Sotomayor.Warhead1 (101 MB)
      Kagan.Warhead1 (133 MB)
    

Relevant quotes pertaining to the file contents:

 _The contents are various and we won't ruin the speculation by revealing
them. Suffice it to say, everyone has secrets, and some things are not meant
to be public. At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media
outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file._

 _Should we be forced to reveal the trigger-key to this warhead, we understand
that there will be collateral damage._

 _It is our hope that this warhead need never be detonated._

Summary: the file contains "various secret contents", the file has one
encryption key to reveal all data, they intend to release previews of the
data, they may not release the encryption key (although chances of this seem
unlikely).

The encrypted data is almost certainly larger than the unencrypted data, my
guess is the unencrypted data is closer to 600MB to 900MB (In the ballpark of
the size of a standard 700MB data CD).

Initially I thought the 9 files may contain data about each of the SC
Justices, or perhaps information intended for each of them. However, I think
their names on files were simply chosen for effect.

~~~
nwh
There's something strange about those file sizes. If they were a split set,
wouldn't they all be the same size except for one?

The only explanation I can think of is the data was `tar`d, then `split`, then
compressed (to make the varying sizes), then encrypted, which seems more than
a little insane.

The files are Base64 encoded, which means they are considerably larger than
their equivalent binary.

~~~
Claudus
Yeah it seems strange to me too, it's possible the server I was downloading
from had incomplete files... it seems like Kennedy.Warhead1, Roberts.Warhead1,
and Sotomayor.Warhead1 should be 150 MB... those are the file sizes reported
by the server though.

~~~
nwh

        $ curl --head http://www.easyseattleshortsales.com/Roberts.Warhead1 | grep -e "Content-Length"
        Content-Length: 23883776
    

They all return that size or a 404. It's either intended, or they borked the
uploads to the compromised servers.

------
jlgreco
Only tangentially on topic (but more interesting that the actual content of
the video I think), but I suspect no warhead reentry shield would actually be
shaped as pointy as that.

Although you would think a more aerodynamic shape would reduce the drag and
therefore heat of reentry, the reality is not quite so simple. In fact, the
opposite is actually true. As you make the reentry shield blunter (increasing
the drag coefficient as you do so) the heat load the shield needs to take
actually _drops_. The reason for this apparently is that blunt reentry bodies
form a sort of cushion of air around themselves that separates the shockwave
caused by reentry from the reentry vehicle itself, insulating it.

I suppose sharp pointy warheads are more theatrical though.

~~~
biscarch
It has to be pointy! <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtahqXjFcxU>

~~~
solarbunny
Good one! Is it worth watching the whole movie?

~~~
biscarch
IMO, yes. It helps if you're familiar with Sacha Baron Cohen's sense of comedy
and aren't easily offended.

------
fkeel1
Somewhat off topic, but this has been bothering me for a while now:

about the role of aaron swartz in all this... initially I read he was facing
"up to 35 years" in prison. After his death people started speaking of "up to
50 years". In relation to the USSC hack I have started seeing 50+ years pop
up.

I feel like these exaggerations do not do anyone any good. The actual facts
are horrible enough - bloating them up like that does not support his cause,
rather, imo might undermine it, as it reduces the credibility of anyone
arguing his case.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
35 years was the maximum under the laws he was originally charged with. 50
years was the maximum after the supplemental indictment that added additional
charges. Under the sentencing guidelines a judge shouldn't, but still could
have sentenced him to the maximum.

If the goal is to change the law and the argument is that the penalties are
absurd, the fact that the penalties are absurd is very relevant and not an
exaggeration.

~~~
mpyne
"Win the lottery and you could receive up to $200 million!!! Buy your ticket
today!!!"

And yet we say the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math...

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sentencing guidelines based on the
maximum penalty? In other words, the absurdity of 50 years in theory is what
creates the absurdity of seven or ten years in practice. If the maximum
penalty was one year or less then the guidelines would have discounted that to
something entirely rational for cases like Aaron Swartz, but it wasn't,
causing the disproportionality.

Buying a $1 lottery ticket would be a whole lot more rational if the rare case
resulting in $200M caused the average case to result in $35M.

~~~
mpyne
As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges
into a single charge. E.g. the "computer fraud" and "wire fraud" charges that
are for some reason separate under CFAA would count as just one conviction
under FSG. So even if we was convicted for 1 or 5 charges relating to the same
underlying accusation you should still get the same recommended sentence.

Since I'm not a lawyer I don't want to try to analyze further but there's also
provisions about whether to make multiple sentences concurrent or sequential
(which can also add time).

You don't have to take my word about the maximum sentence though: Jennifer
Granick was very critical of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the case and her
estimate of the FSG recommendation (based on trumped-up loss calculations) was
1-2 years in prison.

There _is_ a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely to
convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes the
court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges
into a single charge.

Even so, I believe the maximum penalty under the CFAA is still 20 years on its
own. The fact that there are multiple possible charges with such
disproportionate penalties for a single underlying action just underscores the
need for systematic reform.

>There _is_ a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely
to convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes
the court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc.

In other words there isn't a _legitimate_ reason to add charges but there are
a number of cynical and illegitimate reasons.

------
tokenadult
[Shakes his head in disgust.] Hackers, it's time for me to hack the
discussion. You and your first world problems have NO IDEA how to fight for
freedom. This is the wimpy way to protest whatever it is you are protesting.
Unlike most people who post here, I have actually lived under a dictatorial
regime that ruled a territory that later had a peaceful transition to
democracy and legally protected civil rights. Anonymous or whatever the name
of the latest Western hacktivist group is going about things all wrong.

If you really want to learn about effective popular action to bring about more
freedom, point your Web browser to the Albert Einstein Institute publications

<http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html>

and choose your language for titles like _From Dictatorship to Democracy_ and
_The Role of Power in Nonviolent Struggle_ and others. Note that the main
author of these publications has consulted with freedom movements all over the
world and has had notable success in the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, and
other countries, and is credited with much of the mobilization of the two-
year-old Arab Spring movement.

Going after the United States Sentencing Commission website is beyond stupid.
The federal sentencing guidelines were a helpful reform. Before they were
adopted, on the example of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines, federal
sentences were just about wholly indeterminate, making each judge could make
up his or her own law of sentencing at trial. The Minnesota reform, which was
the example for the federal reform, set up guidelines based on a "severity
score" of the offense--so that for the first time legislative statutes from
many different decades were compared as to the actual social harm resulting
from each offense, based on community standards as of the time of the reform--
and on a "criminal history score" of the offender, so that prison time was
reserved only for the most dangerous repeat offenders. (Minnesota imprisons
fewer convicted criminals than most states of the United States, being much
like Scandinavia in this regard. Minnesota spends more dollars per prisoner
but fewer dollars per taxpayer on its prison system than almost any other
state.)

I know actual freedom fighters, that is publishers of opposition magazines and
organizers of nonviolent protests, from Taiwan. Some of them experienced hard
prison time while in the struggle for freedom, with family break up and ill
health and the other consequences of imprisonment. But today they can look at
a much freer country in their homeland than they grew up in. The biggest
problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in
Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) and lack of perspective
(they complain about first world problems that they mischaracterize as
important problems for the common people). It's time for the discussion on
Hacker News to grow up and make more room for the real freedom fighters.

~~~
brendyn
Thanks for the aeinstein.org link. One thing: "no one in Anonymous seems
courageous enough to go prison" - What use is it to go to prison? Maybe you
will get some article produced about you generation some attention, but it
really doesn't seem helpful. Courageous, I agree, but is it rational? Recently
I read about a small protest in mainland China about an instance of media
censorship. A bunch of people singed there names on some document complaining
about it, and Chinese man who was speaking to some journalists got thrown into
a van and taken away. It would not surprise me if some of those people who
signed their names will end up getting attacked, so anonymity is beneficial
here.

~~~
knowtheory
You are comparing apples and oranges.

This was not a protest in rural China where corrupt local communist party
officials are going to come and disappear you.

This was an attack on a US Federal Government website. Whoever defaced the
site might get prosecuted for their endeavor, but the only purpose for
anonymity here is for the instigators to avoid official reprisal and
prosecution (.e.g to get away with it).

Nobody in the US is going to persecute you because you think academic articles
should be free (they'll largely just ignore you).

~~~
vy8vWJlco
_"Nobody in the US is going to persecute you because you think academic
articles should be free (they'll largely just ignore you)."_

What good is the belief without the ability ("freedom") to act on it? Aaron
acted on it, which was arguably a more effective form of protest, and he paid
a high price too, even if one doesn't attribute the suicide to his persecution
(ehem, sorry, "prosecution")...

 _"Whoever defaced the site might get prosecuted for their endeavor, but the
only purpose for anonymity here is for the instigators to avoid official
reprisal and prosecution (.e.g to get away with it)."_

If I am reading your correctly, it sounds like you're saying the person
defacing the site should volunteer his or herself for jail (albeit as an act
of protest). That hardly makes sense in the best of scenarios let alone in the
context of the CFAA. No sit-in protester _wants_ to be pepper-sprayed and
hauled downtown, nor would I hold it against them. Suggestion boxes are
anonymous for a reason too. (Mind you, one doesn't see many of those these
days; almost as if noone wants to know when something's wrong.)

~~~
knowtheory
Well, i was responding to the notion that there is nobility in this particular
use of the shield of anonymity.

I just happen to disagree that this is a noble use of anonymity.

And, yeah, if you're going to break the law in an act of intentional protest,
yeah, i hope they have the strength of conviction to own up to what it is that
they're doing. Otherwise it is sort of a cowardly act of opportunity.

The thing that distinguishes aaron swartz's case is that every one thinks it
is insane that he was being threatened with jail time, and it isn't reasonable
for him, or anyone else (save for the prosecutors) to consider 35 years in
prison a proportional response for his circumstances and actions.

Attacking government websites solely for the purpose of defacing them, out of
protest or not, is moving out of the grey area that aaron swartz was operating
in (this information is supposed to be public anyway, and he had a means to
scrape them), into intentional vandalism (even if you think they are a legit
cause).

Anonymity in such a circumstance, again, is just a shield for people who are
breaking the law. I'm not saying anonymity is a bad thing, or that we
shouldn't have it, but imo, this is more an abuse of anonymity than a use.

P.S. Aaron Swartz is a lamentable and reprehensible aberration, but it is an
aberration. Larry Lessig certainly agrees with Swartz's objectives (just not
the means). Nobody is leading a crusade against Lessig, or trying to murder,
injure or incarcerate him for what he believes, or the actions he takes to
further his aims. That's persecution. Abortion providers are persecuted.
Information activists are not persecuted.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
_"a cowardly act of opportunity"_

 _"just a shield for people who are breaking the law."_

I would (naturally) call someone who disagrees with me, and acts on it,
"abusive" too (or opportunistic, for example) even if he or she thought they
were acting morally; moral arguements are hollow when the morality is what's
being argued over. I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, just trying to say
that moral judgement might be moot (except to one's self of course).

That said, we do seem to disagree on the definition of persecution. I do think
people who believe in free access to knowledge, and who act on those moral
principals, including pursuing transparency and accountability, are
"persecuted"... Case(s) in point: Bradley Manning, Assange, and every other
whistle-blower in history. I've said it elsewhere too, but to repeat myself:
it does not feel like a safe time to develop network software, and even simple
things that geeks do can easily be considered threatening or criminal. No,
we're not talking holocaust or even abortionist-level persecution, but geeks
still get treated differently. Ex: the very real possibility of 35 years for a
nonviolent, technically simple, and arguably moral, scripted download
indicates how discriminating IT laws are. As others have noted, murderers get
less in most states. (15 to 25 years, typically, before time off for good
behavior.) It didn't happen to me personally, but it's still pretty close to
home and I guess I'm just not as convinced it's an aberration.

(I'm probably just thinking out loud.)

~~~
knowtheory
I suspect that I'm not making myself clear enough.

I don't disagree with you that computer crimes are prosecuted in a crazy way
and that it's unclear that the legal community has a technical proficiency
adequate to make the sorts of fine grained judgements necessary to identify
"good guys" from "bad guys" (and all of the myriad shades of grey) so they
tend just to throw the book at people. This is less a persecution than it is a
lack of understanding imo.

Regardless of all of that, what I am saying is that the _sort of crime_ that
Aaron Swartz was accused of is not the same sort of crime that defacing a
government website is.

As a consequence the nature of the protest that Aaron Swartz engaged in versus
whoever has hit this particular site are materially different.

So when people say that Aaron Swartz was persecuted, I am sympathetic, but I
genuinely think that things got crazy out of hand and under other
circumstances would not have (which is why MIT's role in this is one worth
identifying and engaging with).

On the other hand, if someone were to say that going after the guys who hit
the ussc.gov site is persecution? That's not persecution. That's going after
someone who's trying to commit a crime and actual inconvenience (however
negligible it is) to others.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
_"This is less a persecution than it is a lack of understanding imo."_

The same could be said of the sentiment that AIDs is "God's way of punishing
homosexuals"... The people "throwing the book" at geeks are coming from the
same place, as you have said (lack of understanding), IMHO as the Westboro
Baptist's who I would consider "persecutive" of homosexuals.

 _"I am saying is that the sort of crime that Aaron Swartz was accused of is
not the same sort of crime that defacing a government website is."_

 _"if someone were to say that going after the guys who hit the ussc.gov site
is persecution? That's not persecution."_

I felt that way a few years ago watching the start of the hactivism stuff, and
I would have said it was pretty cut-and-dry vandalism then. Today I find it
harder to view this as strictly vandalism in light of the larger developing
context, only the most recent of which is Aaron Swartz killing himself (to
name, sadly, even only the latest suicide); Aaron's case in particular stands
out to me as walking the line between vandalism, copyright infringement, and
information/civil rights activism, blurring the distinction (to me at least).
The lack of understanding, as you put it, touches all these categories and
when I compare the mandatory minimums in the CFAA to the lack of interest in
banking and financial crimes, for example, it feels a lot like persecution,
even if it's also (in part) vandalism.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just following my train of thought all the
way to the station...

------
gt5050
The text to speech voice seems pretty good. Can anyone point out what TTS
engine they might be using ?

~~~
dandrewsen
It sounds somewhat like 'Brian' <http://www.deskshare.com/text-to-speech-
voices.aspx>

------
Claudus
In terms of effectiveness, compared to other Anonymous campaigns, I feel
pretty safe in saying the visibility of this campaign is going to be very
high.

------
throwaway2048
Link to video for when site is inevitably repaired

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WaPni5O2YyI)

------
oftenwrong
[http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8067849/Anonymous_Warheads_-_...](http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8067849/Anonymous_Warheads_-
_Operation_Last_Resort)

------
cskau
For others wondering; the file names refer to the Justices of the Supreme
Court of the United States:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)

------
mediocregopher
They blackholed the dns it looks like, but <http://www.ussc.gov/> is still up.

~~~
vinhboy
I was impressed when they hacked mit.edu, but geesh, how did they get a .gov
-- that's pretty crazy.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Huh? Have you seen how the various .gov sites are being run? Their security is
generally pretty pathetic. Most of their security comes from the fact that
they will hit you like a ton of bricks if they catch you.

------
Claudus
Here's the introduction from "Anonymous Operation Last Resort 101"

*1. Welcome to #OpLastResort-TwitterStorm!

You have been selected to assist this important Operation because we're pretty
sure you know how to cut and paste. #OpLastResort is a long-term Op devoted to
honoring the memory of Aaron Swartz and continuing his important work.
Anonymous has prepared content that they would like shared with the world, and
it's up to us to make sure it goes everywhere. Other Operatives will be
spreading the news to major MSM outlets, YouTube, Facebook, and other websites
while you participate in the push to bypass the bias and get the word out
directly to the people via Twitter."

(Further details: <http://pastebin.com/d2nvt263>)

------
grey-area
The narration seems to be in the style of v for vendetta, quite amusing to see
such a portentous message on a hacked site. They've also made entire site
editable.

<http://www.ussc.gov/index2.cfm>

~~~
phaus
Don't know if you've seen any other Anon releases, but they almost always
deliver the message in this style.

~~~
rtaibah
That's true, but they are one-upping themselves with every release. I find the
packaging of their message this time is very impactful.

Topiary was the genius behind all the LulzSec antics, before him Anon releases
lacked creativity. Topiary made anon realize the impact of PR.

Is this video part of some game CGI and they just reproduced it? Or did
someone do this from scratch? How much time would it take to do from scratch?

~~~
danabramov
>they are one-upping themselves with every release

This!

Also, I wonder what it's like to be 14 today and watch this. Anonymous would
certainly make a strong impression on me if I was ten years younger.

------
sunwooz
What exactly is the data in the warhead links?

~~~
kristofferR
AES256 encrypted files, apparently juicy stuff

------
littletables
The site has been dropped from DNS but IP still returns. The mirrors are
slow/down, and file keys are the extortion: [http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-
hacks-us-sentencing-commissio...](http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-hacks-us-
sentencing-commission-distributes-files-7000010369/)

------
schappim
Gotta love the trailing: && rm -rf /

Classy ;-)

------
berlinbrown
The cool thing about hacking government sites. No one will be in the office on
the weekend.

------
ComputerGuru
Does anyone have a pic of what it looked like? It is down now. (DNS doesn't
resolve).

~~~
josh_blum
Google cached page:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.ussc.gov/)

------
vinhboy
They made this tweet 10 hours before it went down --
<https://twitter.com/OpGJResisters/status/294901397147766784>

I wonder how this played into the hack...

------
rebrane
I don't want any reforms that come from blackmail and extortion. Any good that
they would do would be wiped out once the really powerful extortionists show
up.

By all means, though, let's see what's in those files.

~~~
KMag
I don't think they actually expect (or fully want, for that matter) their
demands to be met before they release the decryption keys. They want to be
seen as confident enough to present a deal, but their ultimate power trip
fantasy is to see powerful people forced to resign from office, and then for
the reforms to happen after the destruction has happened.

Also, would it have killed them to provide sha-3, or at least sha-1 or md5
sums? People are speculating here (and presumably elsewhere) that some of the
uploads were corrupted.

------
MichaelApproved
It's been a couple of hours since the hack. How does a major gov website not
have a plan to act on this quicker? I wonder if they even have an alert
letting them know something happened.

~~~
lusr
Given the small time window for an attack to be viable I have to wonder why a
more concise and succinct message wasn't used. It does make me wonder if the
bark is bigger than the bite.

------
raverbashing
What about the rm -rf / on the command line?

Tricky, but not a lot of people know how/where to use that command line in the
first place.

~~~
nwh
You can't actually execute `rm -rf /` on most modern systems anyway. There's a
flag to force it, but you'd have to be pretty determined to nuke your system.

~~~
oasisbob
Sure you can. (Just gave it a shot on a Ubuntu VM the other day while
exploring shared library linking.)

Do some systems really have a flag more forceful than -f ?

~~~
nwh
Debian:

    
    
        # rm -rf /
        rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on '/'
        rm: use --no-preserve-root to override this fail safe

~~~
oasisbob
Huh, sure enough, I stand corrected. Must have entirely forgot that I added
that option while rushing to play around while things were being removed.
Thanks!

------
davidroberts
Self-righteous idiots. Who made them judge and jury of the world? Do something
positive.

~~~
davidroberts
Essentially it's a form of terrorism. They are saying do things our way or we
burn your house down. They don't believe in democracy and so what's left? A
world where the best people at malicious hacking rule? The same skills they
used to do this can shut down power plants, bring down air planes, and wreck
general mayhem. They are saying the people in power are corrupt. Some how we
have to trust they will never become corrupt.

Before I posted my original comment. I had a moment of fear. What if I pass
them off and they decide to ruin my life. Maybe as an exercise size for one of
their noobs.

~~~
adamnemecek
>> They are saying do things our way or we burn your house down.

No, they are protesting events that are generally perceived as a gross
injustice of the judicial system.

>> They don't believe in democracy and so what's left?

Says who? To me, they seem to be the very embodiment of civil disobedience
(and thusly of democracy).

>> The same skills they used to do this can shut down power plants, bring down
air planes, and wreck general mayhem.

I don't understand how is that related to anything. Yes, a variety of things
can be used for good AND BAD purposes.

>> They are saying the people in power are corrupt. Some how we have to trust
they will never become corrupt.

In other words, let's not remove the corrupt people because the people who
would replace them COULD be corrupt as well.

>> Before I posted my original comment. I had a moment of fear.

The thing about fear is that it's not necessarily rational.

~~~
sigzero
The very embodiment of civil disobedience? I think not. They are anonymous
thugs and vandals and nothing more.

~~~
adamnemecek
Some examples of said thuggery would not hurt.

------
charonn0
Reminds me of <https://xkcd.com/932/>

------
ForFreedom
One hour since, they have not restored the website.

------
RossDM
BR and FONT tags? What kind of markup is this?

~~~
eksith
HTML6 ;)

But seriously, I think they were either going for maximum compatibility or
didn't really care.

------
ArchD
I notice that justice.gov is down.

------
eksith
This will end well :/

------
nerdfiles
"It is our hope that this warhead need never be detonated."

