

The Curious Case of Mercedes Renee Haefer - nrcha
http://unlikelyconvergence.com/2011/08/03/the-curious-case-of-mercedes-renee-haefer/
Wikileaks tweeted this today. A story about alleged Anonymous member.
======
michaeldhopkins
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
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
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
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

      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.

~~~
Wilya
It's a bit unclear from the article whether the woman is a channel moderator,
an IRCop (her statements seem to imply so, or someone physically hosting the
network. (The source of her problems seems to be the ips hosting the network).
Besides, the question I would ask is "If an ISP's main purpose is hosting
illegal activities, can we prosecute him ?"

Regarding the decentralized nature of Anonymous, well, okay. What does that
change ? If we consider that Anonymous is an organisation (does it need fixed
members to be called an organisation ?) that uses illegal/questionable
methods, supporting it (as an organisation, I'm not talking about people in
it) is illegal. IANAL, but I suppose it could be seen as incitation or support
to illegal behaviour.

All those are claims, that can and most likely will be analyzed by a jury, and
people who are better informed than us. My point was just that I think saying
she is innocent from the beginning is a bit exaggerated. She did questionable
things.

~~~
slowpoke

      It's a bit unclear from the article whether the woman is a channel moderator
    

I only corrected the claim that moderators have any administrative privileges,
unrelated to the case at hand.

    
    
      If we consider that Anonymous is an organisation
    

Except it isn't, that was my point. Anonymous is more akin to something like a
subculture. Do we prosecute everyone who considers himself, for example, a
Punk, just because some other members of the Punk movement have done
questionable things?

    
    
      and people who are better informed than us. 
    

And that is the problem. No one of the people who make decisions in these
cases even understand Anonymous, how are they supposed to be "better informed"
than us?

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

~~~
idonthack
for Mercedes specifically, there is <http://freemercedes.org/>

i can't attest to its legitimacy, i just did a google search.

~~~
erikb
Yeah, I also found that and hoped to get some validation.

------
Triumvark
> 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
Harbouring a known criminal is often illegal.

