For a non-profit, I'd like to see tax records, financial statements or the CoS accountant's proof of this suposed financial, profit-oriented loss that was suffered by an INFORMATION site (non-commercial) over the time period of the DDOS.

The point here is not that some internet pranksters did a HARMLESS denial of service attack in RETALIATION to the cult.. oh excuse me.. the church's legal team's attempt to violate free speech and freedom of information online.

The point here is that the leaders and legal vultures of Scientology decided that a harmless and pathetic prank caused enough "emotional stress" that they would hunt down and prosecute the bored teenagers involved.  Grow a pair Scientology.  Also, get over yourselves.

by Catherine Longfellow (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:16:43 PM

  (0+)

The group Dmitriy Guzner claimed to be a member of was 4Chan, as Anonymous is not actually a group (per se), but rather a concept for thousands of human rights activists & protesters all across the world. 

I completely understand your confusion though. 4Chan did start this idea, but the protests are no longer related to their website.  

Guzner was not charged with "DDoS attacking a website", because a DDoS is a harmless trick that simply makes a site unavailable (but I already sourced all of that). It occurs all the time naturally and it's easily fixed - as you may know when your own servers switched to Prolexic Technologies.

The charges pursuant the US State Attorney's Office were "computer fraud & damages there of".  Unless you want to add on to that.

The Church of Scientology pushed this issue as an act of terrorism and the Federal & California government were forced to take it seriously.  Logically this is kind of a dark time to be using the word terrorists so freely. 

Guzner agreed to a plea bargain in $37,500 of some $70,000 the Church claimed in "damages", but what damages there were I don't know.  Again a DDoS doesn't cause any destruction. 

I'd assume the judge wanted to make an example here, but clearly as a participant with several other members of 4Chan involved; Guzner should not be liable to pay the full amount on his own. 

I would have fought it in court, but I doubt this kid has the finances to do so and I'm sure he worried about ending up in prison for 10 years because of a dumb joke.

Honestly, it would have been a better idea if the Church of Scientology had overlooked the matter.  Seriously without any financial loss or serious damage the whole event could have been laughed off and your church could have looked like the good guy.

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:01:45 PM

  (0+)

I've read two differences; Dmitriy Guzner claimed to be Anonymous in one source and a member of 4Chan in another, which means I guess it depends on which report you read.  Guzner was a participant of the 4Chan DDoS of the scientology website - therefore I go with the report of Guzner as a member of 4Chan.

The WhyWeProtest site explained the history, timeline & differences between them.  Such as Anonymous being a concept, but 4Chan did create that concept.  But, I can see the differences myself from a comparison of actual protest videos to the comments on 4Chan message boards.

If Anonymous is not a group why are there Anonymous groups then, like Anonymous Boston, Anonymous SoCal, Anonymous DC etc? Disorganized and leaderless? That is a protective statement to cover up who is responsible for what. Which makes it even worse, "not being accountable for one's actions" is a good description for psychotics.

It's a fair question.  Apparently Anonymous-Boston and Anonymouse-SoCal are not referring to groups but events.  Anonymous Boston would be for the individuals actively protesting in Boston or areas near there.  You might use Anonymous Cambridge or Georgetown also, but not Anonymous  Massachusetts. Again it's explained on whyweprotest(DOT)com

"Guzner was not charged with DDoS attacking a website"

"Actually he was charged with exactly that. Did you read the press release of the US State Attorney?"

It reads, "Dmitriy Guzner, 18, of Verona, New Jersey, has agreed to plead guilty to computer hacking ..."   Which computer hacking is the key words for me;  I sourced the court description and  law codes defining Guzner's computer hacking as computer fraud, damages and one other I don't recall.  

"Not very harmless, DDOSing is intended to crash servers and create a lot of costs for increased bandwidth etc"

Well, I can agree with this,  it would cost money to upgrade and/or switch to Prolexic.  But I also see the otherside of the coin;  If there's a flaw that can crash your server, eventually you'd need fix that defect.  That idea is why hackers define it as an exploit. 

It's like a garage door opener that can be utilized through walkie-talkies; the neighbor kids did this to me as a joke. They laughed & bragged about it all the time.  We fixed it so the door opens manually now.  I could have bought an improved one for a huge cost, but what would be the reasoning for me to sue those kids or their parents to pay for it ?

I know, I know - "it's illegal"  ^_^  they're breaking the law.  But (come on) it is up to me to define my own victimization here and determine the harm done.  Sure, I have every right to sue them, but I could also not make a big deal out of it - See, only one of these reactions would have made me look like a jerk, and I we both know how most kids react to that.

Now in the case of several Scientologists being threatened.  Yes, I've also read about the bomb threats, death threats etc.  I've read it comes from both sides of the fence to be honest.  I can't imagine anyone that is capable of threatening people with harm or anything and finding humor in it. 

I completely believe, no matter what evidence is brought to the table; Scientology and Anonymous would both state in their defense, "That is not what we're about." and I for one can accept that.

 Sincerely, Kate

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:13:01 PM

  (0+)

I wouldn't say WhyWeProtest is backpeddling, I think (like myself) they're being optimistic & reasonable rather than negative & combative.  With two sides to every story they are simply telling their version. They're certainly more reasonable than other such sites.

I for one read Scientologist opinions when it comes to their own actions, because none of us can accurately interpret what people are thinking when they do anything.  It's why I'm oppossed to "hate crime" laws, because it insists that one person's action came from what they were thinking at the time.

"I have seen that the /b/tards somewhat finished the subject of Scientology or so they say."

I know what /b/ is and yes they're finished with any connection to Anonymous, especially the protests.  By the way I'm not familiar with the term "oldfags" (?) and I just didn't want to visit encyclopediadramatica to read what it means ^_^

I think it's common knowledge, that 4Chan members poke fun at the protests (they deems them lame) - and that's part of why it's necessary to remind others that the online hacking community is not the civil rights activists in the streets.

"The Garage Door Opener"

I do understand why you remember the DDoS as threatening & scary, but the garage door opener story was me having you understand the other perspective.  I still stand by the opinion that it would be better for The Church of Scientology if Scientologists understood my perspective.  Seriously, as with the prank done to my garage when you make a big deal out of it, it can actually make the situation worse.

The bomb threats ?  I answered that one with my comment to JayCKat.  When I mention that "I've read it comes from both sides of the fence" it just isn't that unreasonable to understand why these claims are made.  But it's also unimportant to me. 

"There is no table, however, and a complete refusal by most Anonymous members to dialog."

I wrote you about that.  There are representatives for Anonymous that are very willing to have an open dialogue with spokespersons from Scientology.  I've spoken with a few of them, some like Mark Bunker didn't leave me with a good impression, but there's several others that are quite friendly. 

Jason Beghe has commented on several videos about his wishes to speak with Scientology representatives.  I remember a video where he walked up to the door of a church and was refused entry by security.  He even made a public appeal to David Miscavige about returning records of his auditing sessions.

If you would like to contact Jason Beghe and invite him for a sit down I can probably arrange that.If you don't want Jason then there's plenty of Anonymous supporters available that would make time for dialogue with you or anyone in Scientology.

Sincerely, Kate

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:45:41 PM

  (0+)

Means what? I heard that the Church of Scientology supposedly sends itself bomb threats and then calls the police. Who says that exactly? Anonymous? Nice Red Herring. I would want to see at least a little bit of hard evidence other than unsourced, anonymous allegations on a anonymous board before I remotely start to consider the possibility. Once upon a time in a secret operation called Freakout, also known as Operation PC Freakout. It aim as a contemporary memorandum sent between two Guardian's Office staff members (the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, the intelligence arm of Scientology) so elegantly put it, was to " entrap Mrs. Lovely into being arrested for a felony which she did not commit. She was arraigned for the crime." And dear Mrs Lovely referred to an investigative reporter named Pauline Cooper, who investigated an organization called Scientology. And what was this felony? Why, it was a fake bomb threat. In December 1972, a woman ostensibly soliciting funds for United Farm Workers stole a quantity of stationery from Cooper's apartment. A few days later, the New York Church of Scientology "received" two anonymous bomb threats. The following May, Cooper was indicted for making the bomb threats and arraigned for a Federal grand jury. The threats had been written on her stationery, which was marked with her fingerprints. The charges were eventually dropped in 1975 with the filing of a Nolle prosequi order by the local US Attorney's office, but it was not until the fall of 1977 that the FBI discovered that the bomb threats had been staged by the Guardian's Office of Scientology. So for 3 year Pauline Cooper's fate hanged in the balance. One step from going to jail for a crime she did not commit. And then 2 year later... we find out the real story. So like the boy who cried wolf, I and perhaps many of the villagers of the Internet are now rather sceptical of Scientology's cry of bomb threats. P.S: I saw the Scientology bomb threat video on Youtube. An intention to detonate 5kg of liquid nitro-glycerine at every scientology building? Please... obviously somebody did not do their homework and has not the slightest clue what nitro-glycerine is like. Making this compound is highly dangerous as nitro-glycerine can explode from the slight vibration or increase in temperature. The bomber is unlikely to survive making the first 100ml, let alone 5kg and moving in!

by JayCKat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:19:09 AM

  (0+)

You wrote Pauline, Did you mean Paulette Cooper ?   I have read about that, haven't actually read Cooper's book, but I recently read an interview she gave. It was unsettlingly to say the least.

I know this was some 30 years ago, but YES I can understand anyone's skepticism and how it's relative today.  I think it's easy to imagine why people would make quick assumptions that "bomb threats" were probably faked by a Scientologist. 

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:49:46 PM

  (0+)

Yes, I did mean Paulette Cooper. I apologies for getting her name wrong. What amazes me is the string of lawsuits that Scientology filed against Cooper from 1970 to in 1985. Can you imagine 15 years fighting off one lawsuit after another. Just an organization pouring in money to sustain such a barrage of lawsuits, a total of nineteen suits. One after another, as each is defeated or thrown out. Coopers case is best remembered because the case was uncovered when Scientology mission, Operation Snow White was uncovered. However on its own Cooper isn't unique. Scientology has a history of crying wolf. According to experienced protesters (@ Old Guard), they do that quite often for vandalism. So many in Anonymous movement at the time half expected for Scientology to make some sort of cry, probably for vandalism (which we had people on the ground to prevent). So when threats/accusations of vandalism and bombing appeared. We weren't too surprised. It fit Scientology's modus operandi. Furthermore, the threat itself, stated that that the bombing would be carried out by high level division members of Anonymous, under the authorization of the leader of anonymous using 5kg of nitro-glycerine to every scientology building. Of course, at the time Scientology had a very fuzzy idea what Anonymous was. So like a person who didn't catch an in-joke, Scientology exposed itself. The threat pointed to a lack of understanding that any member of anonymous would realize immediately. Anonymous has no leader, and no divisions. People volunteer. The bomb threat also pointed to a lack of understanding in chemistry. It was as childish as a 6 year old saying he will cut down a forest using his super magic ninja laser sword. A real bomb maker would speak differently. In the bomb threat video, there was an attempted to copy the synthetic voice used by the Anon who made the call to arms video. Unfortunately whoever made this video didn't quite get it right. If they had aimed for a totally different voice it would have been fine. But we ended up watching a poor attempt to imitate a famous voice. Just good enough to know it was supposed to sounds like the voice, but not quite all there. And once we got our hand on the DVDs which Scientology was distributing to show the world this threatening message, we found it be better quality (higher pixel) that the 'original' grainy Youtube image. How could that be people asked? The simplest answer was DVD video from Scientology was the original rather than a copy. A copy of this DVD was uploaded to Youtube to give us the grainy image most people saw. Lastly there was scientology's own reaction. It was business as normal for scientology, despite how serious their upper management said they viewed this bomb threat. Some Anons asked, why not close until the police sorted the matter. Were the lives of its followers not important? Not definitive proof. But it did raise a few eyebrows. Why the such a cavalier attitude? Thus, we have a combination of different reasons that cause many to believe Scientology is crying wolf and sending its self bomb threats to falsely accuse its critics.

by JayCKat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:12:03 PM

  (0+)

I didn't know that about the Tom Cruise video.  That makes a huge difference - If you're handing out free DVDs to people how can anyone say somebody stole it ?

What you've told me about Cooper is terrible. Facing 15 years of lawsuits; I think there's a lot to this story that I haven't read. I'd love to write about her.

You also mentioned "Old Guard", which I believe begins with Bob Minton. 

I read about Minton and the Lisa McPhearson Trust.  I know about Lisa's story from both sides it's just horrible.  I certainly would like to do an article on this.

Bob Minton's attorney had asked him to lie, drew up false court records for him to sign and urged him to generate bad publicity for Scientology.  I don't think I can trust what the Old Gaurd says because of this.  What about Lisa's family ? Have they talked about her story ?

Thanks, Kate

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:41:27 PM

  (0+)

... and thanks for the added info on those bomb threats, I'm getting a clearer picture of it now. 

Honestly, I don't think the average person would see it as a childish prank.  I know the details of the actual bomb were suppossed to be silly, I saw the grainy videos compared to the original and such - but on first view I took it seriously.  

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:51:44 PM

  (0+)

No, I don't see the bomb threat video as a childish prank either. I think the people in the video wanted to be seen as being serious. The tone of the video was certainly serious. Only what they were saying was wrong (and stupid). I think the video was made to scare the average person into thinking that Anonymous was a credible terrorist group. Rather then say TNT (a better explosive and easier to obtain), they said nitro-glycerine. It sounds scientific, more scary, most people know that nitro-glycerine is a very powerful explosive. Although as an explosive, it is nearly impossible to buy and exceedingly dangerous to make. TNT, a better explosive in all aspects (making, buying, moving), sounds like a cartoon. RDX, PETN, HMX, Semtex, Ammonal, ANFO and C-4 would be the explosives a real terrorist bomber would use.

by JayCKat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:33:36 PM

  (0+)

No problem. I am happy tell the story. Whenever the bomb threat is used to show the danger of Anonymous, the whole story should be known. Also both DVDs are now sought after collector items. Scientology could make bit of money selling them on ebay. LOL. The bomb threat DVD used to be free once Scientology has unmasked you. A free accompanying letter threatening legal action is included, as well as the appearance of an unfamiliar car parked in front of your house at all hours of the day. In the early days sudden damage to the ones house would appear, harassment of any senior citizens living in the house (Never visit your grandma after leaving a protest!), and at least one poisoning and death of a pet was reported. That scared a lot of Anons with pets and young children. Scientology has killed family pets to drive home a point; Richard Leiby's rabbits in 1995, Dr. Geertz's dog in 1987, Judge Swearinger's dog in 1984, Janie Peterson's dog in 1980, etc list goes on. As for the old guard, well I would not say it starts with Bob Minton. The old guard is the term used to describe any and all critics of scientology prior to the appearance of Anonymous. Bob Minton would be considered an old Guard, but so too are people like Mark Bunker, the Emmy Award winning television journalist that asked Anonymous to grow up. Tory Christman, a former high level scientologist from the Guardian's office (the intelligence Arm of Scientology now known as the Office of Special Affairs). Prior to her defection in 2000, she could be described as the Scientology's Internet troll. Just imagine a more proactive version of Louanna Lee, who would contact the ISP, throw legal paper at it to close your website and force it turn over your personal details to her. Thankfully overexposure to the Internet got her thinking about the things happening around her, and what she was doing as an officer of the Guardian's Office. Old guards also include Andreas Heldal-Lund, Shawn Lonsdale(dec). Stacy Brooks, and her husband Robert Vaughn Young (dec). This term would include Paulette Cooper, who has kindly refused to participate in any and all current anti-scientology activity. I can't blame her. In many ways the Old Guard is more diverse group of people. Their reasons for protesting Scientology are usually more personal and have suffered more personal attacks (some like Mark Bunker are on video).

by JayCKat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:10:04 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for the details, much appreciated.  I do check what Scientology has to say on their behalf and I make comparisons.  I've noticed a lot of articles online that have become sensationalized, biased and judgmental (from both sides).  I believe if any stories by Anonymous or Scientology are to be taken seriously; it should be without bias and presented as uninsulting. 

The stories of the pets being harmed just unsettles me.  I'm almost hesitant to research it, but it sounds like something the ASPCA needs to know.

Thanks for correcting my thinking about the Old Guard.  I've spoken with Mark Bunker & Andreas Heldal-Lund before (didn't care for them), but I have seen their videos - which were shocking.  Tory Christman was very nice to me though and I like the ExScientologyKids and WhyWeProtest.  I've also spoken with Jason Beghe who was incredibly nice (very friendly).  He would go out of his way to help anybody.

If the DVD is available to the public, I may order one.  If the case may be; My father is a respected lawyer and head of a significant law firm, so I unconcerned about intimidation from anyone.  I've also spoken with Louanne Lee through email and she's been very communicative with me and answered some of my questions.  I don't feel threatened by her, but I've seen her temper in comments ^_^

by Kate Noelle (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:27:57 PM

  (0+)