unfounded rumors not a good basis for FPP

October 17, 2003 12:00 PM

unfounded and stupid
posted by angry modem to Etiquette/Policy at 12:00 PM (73 comments total)

if I have to explain this one, I'm going to kill a kitten.
posted by angry modem at 12:07 PM on October 17, 2003

No argument, angry modem, especially when a representative of the hosting company attacked says they aren't attributing this to anyone in particular.
posted by tommasz at 12:09 PM on October 17, 2003

Careful there, angry ... they've already linked to ceder's post over at the home of little green foil hats (loved that line). You don't want them starting some kinda holy war on us do you?

I do agree with you. The assumptions in that post are outragious. But still, I saw a bin Laden face in my Cheerios milk this morning, so ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:10 PM on October 17, 2003

My main beef with it is besides the site being linked to (I could give a rat's ass about LGF), it has the potential to further a completely unfounded and retarded presumption based on baseless claims.

Someone could see an arab country code in their access logs and assume all sorts of things.

Not only that, the thread is already digressing into the pit of LGF bashing that any person with any mental cohesion could've predicted by even mentioning the place here in a thread.

I normally don't do callouts, but I'm feeling generous today.
posted by angry modem at 12:18 PM on October 17, 2003

poor little kitten :(
posted by angry modem at 12:18 PM on October 17, 2003

Poor little kitten, indeed, 'cause nobody else asked you to explain. ;-)
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:21 PM on October 17, 2003

I do have to wonder how this latest Al Quada attack relates to that hit G.W put out on his brother's babysitter.
posted by dgaicun at 12:23 PM on October 17, 2003

Wait a minute.

My post had *nothing* to do with LGF. It was my intention to address the damage that a DoS against one site could do to others. I thought it was notable that 3000 sites were taken down for ~four hours.

The owner of the site attacked stated the whos and whys. That's about as close as I can get to the source. It's unfortunate that those comments were made in an LGF thread, however, the fact remains Aaron makes a good case.

The fact that a representative from the host chooses not to blame anyone in particular is not surprising, but it also does not mean it isn't true. The site owners interests are quite different than those of the hosting company. This is not a reflection on Hosting Matters, they just got unlucky and I'm fully aware that it could have happened to any company.

You can choose to use it as a chance to attack me or LGF, or you can choose to use it as an opportunity to discuss how fragile the infrastructure of the 'net can be. I really don't give a fuck *what* site got attacked and it was never my intention to make a political post.
posted by cedar at 12:28 PM on October 17, 2003

dgaicun, the babysitter found out that the Bush kids were diverting their allowances to offshore banks to avoid taxation. It so happens that some of bin Laden's grandchildren hide their allowances at this same bank, and occasionally send money to him from these accounts.

In other words, she knew too much.
posted by trondant at 12:33 PM on October 17, 2003

tommasz, - actually, according to a person over at Dean's List, claiming to be "Annette" from Hosting Matters, says that this was a specific attack on a particular site. They aren't making a claim on who made the attack, but they seem to be leaning on a particular target.
posted by djspicerack at 12:36 PM on October 17, 2003

Seriously people, don't link to LGF, it brings out people wanting to bash it for no reason and starts some pointless pissing matches between the sites. I have no problem with that site running as it is, but anytime anyone on metafilter so much as mentions their name, it is often perceived as an attack on them, regardless of who said it or the merit.

In the past I deleted stupid LGF bashing threads and comments, and LGF made a point to name me and point it out (as if I had done something wrong), even when folks at LGF agreed that I should have deleted it. So I'm personally damned if I do, damned if I don't, and I would ask people just not to post anything about the site since it's almost always a fruitless effort marked by pointless infighting on both sides.

The original claim in cedar's post is a bit far-fetched but we'll all have to wait and see what really prompted the attack and what the target was, etc.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:43 PM on October 17, 2003

I sense a trend - Posters stringing together unrelated links to create a post about a conspiracy, even though none of the links hint at any conspiracy.

Henceforth these types of posts will be known as "CrazyJubs". As in, "Wow cedar. Nice CrazyJub. You totally pulled that one out of your bottom."
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:52 PM on October 17, 2003

My post had *nothing* to do with LGF

Then linking the words "intended target" to LGF was perhaps not such a hot idea.
posted by ook at 12:56 PM on October 17, 2003

Matt: So basically you're going to allow them to intimidate you into creating an LGF criticism-free zone? We criticize all sorts of groups and all sorts of websites around here, but because one fights back they're off limits?

Sorry if we've had this argument before, I didn't really follow the last LGF battle.
posted by jpoulos at 12:57 PM on October 17, 2003

Matt,

It was never my intention for this to turn into such a shitstorm... I know, I keep saying that... but it's true, dammit!

I thought that if this was an orchestrated attack that it was worth posting. At no time did I say that it was, hence the question mark at the end of my original post. I don't know if it was, all I did was parrot the words of someone claiming their site had been attacked.

Ya gotta admit, if a DoS (and it was a serious one, 150mbs takes a pretty fat pipe and/or is distributed) on one fringe site brings down 3000 others it's interesting in a geeky kind of way. To me, it highlighted how vulnerable we all are.

The LGF link I have no excuse for. I should have known better and wasn't thinking.
posted by cedar at 12:58 PM on October 17, 2003

y6 - make sure you add that to the MeFi wiki - CrazyJubGuy
posted by djspicerack at 1:01 PM on October 17, 2003

ook: "Then linking the words "intended target" to LGF was perhaps not such a hot idea"

Yeah, I'm getting that.

I linked to a particular comment because Internet Haganah was/is down. The owner of the site claiming to be attacked posted his side of the story in that comment.

In retrospect, it was ill-advised.
posted by cedar at 1:06 PM on October 17, 2003

The thing I never understood about LGF is how a web design company gets business when the have a caustically hateful blog linked from their front page.

Weird.
posted by xmutex at 1:38 PM on October 17, 2003

"if I have to explain this one, I'm going to kill a kitten."

WHAT?????!!!
Must we drag helpless kittens into this?
I say we impose a ban on kitten threatening and killing.
posted by batgrlHG at 1:41 PM on October 17, 2003

How will masturbating explain this, angry_modem?

I gotta agree. If speculation on LGF is post-worthy, I am so outta here.
posted by scarabic at 1:46 PM on October 17, 2003

Matt: So basically you're going to allow them to intimidate you into creating an LGF criticism-free zone?

If I can hazard a paraphrase, I think the big guy is saying: just ignore them.
posted by scarabic at 1:49 PM on October 17, 2003

"I linked to a particular comment because Internet Haganah was/is down. The owner of the site claiming to be attacked posted his side of the story in that comment.

In retrospect, it was ill-advised."

No it wasn't. If people took the time to actually follow the FPP link to Aaron (of Internet Haganah)'s comment on LGF, and read the damn thing, instead of just seeing that it was an LGF link, they might not have jumped up with the same repetitious "violent anti-muslim prejudice blah blah blah" that a mention of LGF always seems to spawn here.

Internet Haganah was the supposed target of a DOS big enough to bring down 3000 sites at a major ISP for 4 hours. Aaron of Haganah posted as much on LGF because his site's still down. He claims that Hosting Matters did inform him that his site was the target, but Hosting Matters is mum on the matter for now and won't confirm where the DOS came from. Haganah's history, veracity thus far, and gov't connections are not of the tin-foil hat variety, and it's not inconceivable that there may something to this, especially since terrorist and terrorist sympathizer sites have made documented threats against Haganah and Aaron specifically in the past.

So yeah, I'd have to disagree that it was "unfounded and stupid". I think that's a perfectly fine subject for a FPP, but hey, I've only ever posted one myself.
posted by Asparagirl at 1:59 PM on October 17, 2003

scarabic: "If speculation on LGF is post-worthy, I am so outta here."

I'd swore to myself I would leave this alone, but this is ignorant bullshit.

Why not throw a few facts into the mix?

A) Hosting Matters went down last night due to a DoS (denial of service attack).

B) Hosting Matters states that it was due to an attack on a particular site, a site that will be moved to an undisclosed location.

C) Every site on the server comes back up with the exception of one.

D) An individual posts to a forum stating that his site was the target, and has... surprise, surprise... been moved to an undisclosed location.

E) Host responds on the same forum stating that, "By the time the network came back up, everyone was already well aware of the site that was the target, so that's hardly telling people something they don't know..."

Those are facts.

The motives and identity of the attacker don't really matter, what matters is that one site being attacked took down 3000 others. This is not a reflection on any individual or company (except whoever did it) but rather something that should concern all of us who maintain websites, depend on websites for entertainment or information, or earn a living in this medium.

Hosting Matters has made it clear they are not going to provide further information. They are not obligated to and one would hope that the reason for their silence is due to an ongoing criminal investigation rather than a lack of knowledge. Nonetheless, the fact remains that there is little preventing this exact same thing from happening to my host, your host or a server in a Boston hallway.

That, is the point. To blow it off as 'speculation on LGF' is foolish. Forget the petty LGF vs. MeFi nonsense (yes, I started it and you have no idea how much I regret my wording) and start casting your net a little wider.
posted by cedar at 2:16 PM on October 17, 2003

Hey, if they can post about common every-day DOS attacks, we should be able to post daily recipes-of-the-day. ;-P
posted by mischief at 3:00 PM on October 17, 2003

No it wasn't. If people took the time to actually follow the FPP link to Aaron (of Internet Haganah)'s comment on LGF, and read the damn thing,

I wouldn't be so quick to call "read the damn links" on this one. In-page anchor links are tricky: if you don't wait for the entire page to load -- which for this page takes a minute or two for me -- before you touch the scrollbar, you won't get dumped out at the right spot on the page. I followed the link, and read this:

Hosting Matters was the target of a major Denial of Service attack tonight; not specifically against LGF, but apparently against a site on another server on their network.

...followed by a page full of not-apparently-related content. I followed the other two links, which seemed similarly irrelevant. Homepage of a hosting provider, and a vaguely-related story about "the real risks of cyberterrorism".

This could have been a fine subject for a post -- but only if there were more to it than a single paragraph in the middle of a long thread of unrelated content, obscured by misleading text and unrelated links.
posted by ook at 3:07 PM on October 17, 2003

mischief: "common every-day DOS attacks"

Oh, you mean the kind that take down three thousand sites on a reputable and well managed host? Gee, I must be missing something since I didn't notice one today and also missed the one the day before yesterday. Actually, I don't recall the last time an otherwise reliable host was brought down in totality by a DoS attack on one site.

Feel free to refresh my memory.

ooK: "This could have been a fine subject for a post ..."

Yeah, okay, I fucked it up. I'm tired of flagellating myself and rather than throw stones you could have just as easily fixed it by posting compelling links or thoughtful comments all by your little self.

"In-page anchor links are tricky: if you don't wait for the entire page to load."

Knowing this... did it ever occur to you to wait for the entire page to load?
posted by cedar at 3:18 PM on October 17, 2003

"In-page anchor links are tricky"

Fair point. Not everyone has broadband. But you can still see from the link that it goes to an anchor on the page, presumably a comment.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:22 PM on October 17, 2003

But you can still see from the link that it goes to an anchor on the page, presumably a comment.

FWIW, all I saw was dozens of blank comments. I don't know if it was a malformed HTML problem or what, but I thought the link was pointing out that the database was hosed or something.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:31 PM on October 17, 2003

That could be it; the page has an XML 1.0 Strict DOCTYPE, but the w3c validator didn't pick it up automatically, and when finally given a hint, it found tons of issues.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:59 PM on October 17, 2003

Choose one: Pasta, rice, thinly sliced potatoes
Choose one: Beef, chicken, pork
Choose one: Marinara, butter/cream, sour cream

Cook and mix.

Yeah, cedar, I would say this was a fairly ordinary event.
posted by mischief at 4:25 PM on October 17, 2003

it found tons of issues.

user-generated content is often malformed, that's the danger of running a community. Every so often MetaFilter will be hosed because of an unclosed tag in a member's post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:33 PM on October 17, 2003

mathowie, your reason doesn't matter. Asparagirl obviously feels passionate about this issue ... so much so that she paints wild "sky is falling" pictures, while linking to LGF again, though you've asked people not to. She wants this to keep going. She posted to LGF well after you asked people at your site not to do that. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be ... rude in the extreme.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:43 PM on October 17, 2003

/me reads LGF daily, just like he reads Metafilter and Fark and CNN and FOX news and Drudge and TONS of other sites, and thinks that all the whining about "linking to (X)" needs to stop.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:55 PM on October 17, 2003

Ain't nobody gonna tell me what I can and can't link.

That's like telling me not to give out your phone number.
posted by shepd at 4:57 PM on October 17, 2003

Shepd, don't you dare give out my phone number.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:58 PM on October 17, 2003

8675309-e- ine-a
posted by clavdivs at 5:00 PM on October 17, 2003

mischief: I see. A clever non-sequitor makes your point.

You know, this whole thing sucks.

If Internet Haganah was a site that appealed to the mainstream, people would be jumping around like crazed monkeys screaming about repression and the First Amendment.

This story is a big fucking deal that should be plastered all over CNN and MSNBC, but it won't be. You know that, and I know that. Sure, I disagree with his tactics, but, and it's a big one -- I'm also fully aware that this is a two-edged sword and the next victim could just as easily be my favorite left wing site.

The willful ignorance on the part of the larger Internet community to address a threat to all of us is a fucking tragedy. This man is entitled to go about his legal business unhindered on his personal site. This is something the left, right and center should be able to rally around.

Maybe it's time to stop splitting hairs and look out for one of our own.
posted by cedar at 5:09 PM on October 17, 2003

/me reads LGF daily, just like he reads Metafilter and Fark and CNN and FOX news and Drudge and TONS of other sites, and thinks that all the whining about "linking to (X)" needs to stop.

My, my. Let's be honest here. We're not talking about linking to a website for perusal, we're talking about linking to a website to poke fun, or to tell you what the truth is (what you should think). I, too, read LGF regularly. But I don't link editorial websites anywhere as proof of a supposition, or as evidence that my ideological stance is correct.

You want to link to LGF, I think that's fine, unless you're linking to it to support a lousy thesis, and inviting people to cry "racist, trolls, nazis, hatemongers". That's just stupid. It's mental masturbation, and kittens die.

DOS attacks have happened in the past for ideological reasons. They will happen in the future for ideological reasons. Hoisting the terrorism flag just because it may be some dark-skinned ferriner who did it, without evidence, and trying to convince me that I ought to care about your paranoia, is offensive to me ... far more offensive than my host asking me not to take an action which causes him grief and work. Its disrespectful; its rude. I think you oughtn't do it. Bad me, I guess.

On preview, ceder, you're right. Doesn't that apply to mathowie as well? Quit linking LGF. It was a simple request.

DOS attacks are a threat, and should be taken seriously. But I've yet to see any explanation why this one should be more important or fear-inspiring than any other. Because it was leveled at a pro-Israel site? Please. All I ask is proof ... beyond the paranoid.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:16 PM on October 17, 2003

But cedar, if we filled CNN with important news, where would be put all the stories about "people helping people" and "president Bush talking round-abouts"?
posted by shepd at 5:18 PM on October 17, 2003

The willful ignorance on the part of the larger Internet community to address a threat to all of us is a fucking tragedy

like intelligence matters?
posted by clavdivs at 5:19 PM on October 17, 2003

So I'm personally damned if I do, damned if I don't

So why not just, um, ignore them? Who really cares what someone posts on some third-rate site somewhere out there on the net?

Matt: So basically you're going to allow them to intimidate you into creating an LGF criticism-free zone?

If I can hazard a paraphrase, I think the big guy is saying: just ignore them.

Actually, it looks to me like he's saying a great deal more than that.
posted by rushmc at 5:20 PM on October 17, 2003

Wulgar!: "Quit linking LGF. It was a simple request"

And a perfectly reasonable one. You'll notice that I have not linked LGF since my original post, the original post that I'm getting awful tired of apologizing for.

"DOS attacks are a threat, and should be taken seriously. But I've yet to see any explanation why this one should be more important or fear-inspiring than any other."

My only explanation would be that I have yet to see one directed at a personal site that subsequently took down another 3000.
posted by cedar at 5:26 PM on October 17, 2003

"She posted to LGF well after you asked people at your site not to do that. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be ... rude in the extreme."

I was an occasional poster (maybe 15 comments or so?) at LGF long before I started posting at Metafilter, and I don't think it has to be an either/or situation. I believe Matt's request is that we not drag the two sites into more needless back-and-forth name-calling and should let both groups play in their respective sandboxes, which is cool by me, not that we cannot be members of both communities, which isn't. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. :-)

In this situation, the linkage happened because the subject in question, Aaron, is discussing it in a post over at LGF while his site is down. So is the Hosting Matters representative Annette. Simple as that. I'm sorry that Matt gets Bronx cheers from both corners when the site-that-cannot-be-named gets a link. But in this case, until Haganah is back online and links can be be pointed there--since it's the real focus of the FPP--the relevant discussion material is hosted at you-know-where. Short of reposting the content to a personal blog and self-linking, I don't know any other way to discuss the topic, and I've already done the Google cache thing for Haganah over in the blue.

"Hoisting the terrorism flag just because it may be some dark-skinned ferriner who did it, without evidence, and trying to convince me that I ought to care about your paranoia, is offensive to me"

Well, silly me. I thought we were trying to, y'know, discuss the evidence over in the actual thread--not to mention the possible implications thereof. But apparently Aaron's choosing you-know-where to discuss the issue, rather than Metafilter or Fark or Slashdot or his (currently hosed) blog, means to you that there's no credibility to any of this, and that it's just irrational paranoia, his multiple death threats from actual Al Qaeda websites and Hosting Matters' admitting that he was in fact the target not counting for much.
posted by Asparagirl at 5:57 PM on October 17, 2003

cedar, we're cool. I was commenting about someone else's will to continue linking LGF as an authority after number one asked us not to. I understand and accept your purpose and reasoning. And if you don't think that "blaster", which made this look like a picnic, was vastly more significant (the objective being a DOS against MS), well then I can't help you there.

On preview, Asparagirl, what is the difficulty with Aaron discussing this event with the FBI? Can LGF help him restore his site? Can MetaFilter. Can he prove anything that has been claimed over there? Never mind, the answer is "notta". And you still can't explain why this is significant beyond other DOS attacks ... (other than the agenda that we're supposed to be sympathetic to).
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:04 PM on October 17, 2003

If Internet Haganah was a site that appealed to the mainstream, people would be jumping around like crazed monkeys screaming about repression and the First Amendment.

Only if they are morons. This has nothing to do with repression of speech by the American government.

You seem to be laboring under the impression this is the first denial of service attack in the history of the Internet. It's a serious incident, but hardly unique. How could you possibly think CNN and MSNBC should be covering a service outage of a day or two on a site and a host few people had heard of prior to today?
posted by rcade at 6:09 PM on October 17, 2003

"I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short, sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off lightly, 'cos I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once! It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?"
posted by crunchland at 6:21 PM on October 17, 2003

"How could you possibly think CNN and MSNBC should be covering a service outage of a day or two on a site and a host few people had heard of prior to today?"

Let's see... if some organized group affiliated with terrorists (that's what the site owner says happened) attacked a site causing a few thousand others to go down in the process, that would be pretty damn newsworthy.

The host may be better known than you think, there are several people (including Glenn Reynolds and our own O.Willis) maintaining sites on the same host that *have* been mentioned in mainstream media. As far as I know there are others.

Of course it's not the first DoS attack on the Internet, and I'm sure it won't be the last. What it may turn out to be is the first politically motivated one that had a widespread effect. I happened to feel that was worth mentioning, as it turns out I'm in the minority on that.
posted by cedar at 6:21 PM on October 17, 2003

*strangles angry modem's kitten
posted by poopy at 6:28 PM on October 17, 2003

This all really belongs over in the blue, but...

"On preview, Asparagirl, what is the difficulty with Aaron discussing this event with the FBI? Can LGF help him restore his site? Can MetaFilter."

I'm sure he has already talked to the FBI--who already have contacts with him from his ongoing work with the site--as has Hosting Matters, as they've mentioned that a criminal investigation is ongoing. But if someone steps up and says they were the target and talks about it in a public forum and the hosting company confirms it, and the suspicion is that it may have been a terrorist group, what's so wrong with talking about it here at MeFi? It's interesting (well, at least to some of us) and it's timely and people may not have otherwise known about it--I know I didn't. If the only problem is that people don't think there's enough proof yet--which, I hasten to add, is understandable--then that's something that should be discussed within the thread. But there's certainly enough dots here that it's not a total leap of logic to start connecting them, and having a FPP in the first place mentioning what is alleged to have happened is not out of line.

"Can he prove anything that has been claimed over there?"

Again, this belongs in the blue. But the "claims" so far are that...

1) Hosting Matters was DOS'ed...
2) ...and Haganah was the target...
3) ...possibly by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups...
4) ...because it has exposed and shut down numerous terrorist websites in the past, and both the site and webmaster/blogger have been targeted by name on Al Qaeda websites for months.

As far as I can see, #3 is the only one still up in the air, with #4 providing both motive and actual incitement to attack the site, and therefore not totally out of left field.

"Never mind, the answer is "notta".

Out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe Haganah's and Hosting Matters' statements? It would be nice if the FBI came out tomorrow and said conclusively that yep, it was one of the sites or people that got shut down by Haganah, but until then, why is discussion of the incident, or even speculation about it, totally off-limits?

"And you still can't explain why this is significant beyond other DOS attacks ... (other than the agenda that we're supposed to be sympathetic to)."

Because it's "sexier" if it's Al Qaeda, considering we're at war with them, rather than yet another bored teenage hacker? Because the outage was unusually heavy? Because terrorist groups targeting individual Americans' blogs might make a good topic for discussion on MeFi?

And, um, "the agenda that we're supposed to be sympathetic to"? As in, Haganah's "agenda" that Hamas and the Al-Aksa Brigades should not solicit donations on a US-hosted web server? Well, we're not even discussing that--didn't really think it was a bone of contention--but hey, if you want to, go ahead. Just do it in the blue already.
posted by Asparagirl at 6:55 PM on October 17, 2003

*gives Asparagirl a big wet sloppy kiss
*dunks angry modem's kitten in a pool of vomit with a sprinkling of asparagus.
posted by poopy at 7:40 PM on October 17, 2003

1) Hosting Matters was DOS'ed...

Yep, that's a MetaFilter post. It affected many people, and was worth noting.

2) ...and Haganah was the target...

Theorized, but not in any way proven without support from the owner's suppositions on LGF. That's part of the problem, here.

3) ...possibly by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups...

Complete and total conspiracy theory assumptive crap unsupported by anything except the site owner's supposition and a will to believe that we're in danger from those awful raghead hackers. You bet it's sexy. It's also totally Farkish, and completely worthy of a MeTa call-out as being what angry_modem called it ... unfounded and stupid.


4) ...because it has exposed and shut down numerous terrorist websites in the past, and both the site and webmaster/blogger have been targeted by name on Al Qaeda websites for months.

This totally relys on a blanket acceptance of number 3. It's a causal link, with no foundation. Yes, this is true (without the "because"), in and of itself, but stating it as justification for a bullshit post to the blue is assuming that number 3 is true. Oh my God, the terra-ist ragheads is out to get our Internet. This has nothing to do with Haganah's agenda, and everything to do with the agenda of those who support supposition and fear-mongering as the proper path of MetaFilter. That makes this appropriate for MetaTalk.

This DOS could easily have been the work of some Chomski following Berkeley nerd. But we're expected to swallow the import of this post because, oh shit, we might be under vicious attack by them damnable terra-ists again. The point that several people have have been trying to make is simple ... if you want to follow that line of thought, go to LGF, or the Rottweiler (who, BTW, has withheld judgement until further information is revealed), or wherever makes your frightened little heart happy. But this was a crappy post to MetaFilter. It assumed too much, and risked another little InterWeb slap fight with a site much more suited to this kind of supposition.

Prove the case, show the significance, and then we have a topic of discussion. Until then, angry_modem said it best before anyone else said a thing.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:01 PM on October 17, 2003

Who the hell is Internet Haganah? Don't bother answering cuz I don't care. The name never peeked over my horizon before today, and after today, I probably won't remember them. They are just another site possibily targeted by a DOS and whose host had implemented inadequate measures. I saw this all the time when I consulted for Tivoli.

BTW: Did you know an accident occurred today at the N. Druid Hills exit of I-85 in Atlanta at about 1:15 pm? I had to drive home using streets rather than the expressway. A MeFi member was seriously impacted. This warrants an FPP?

I have long supported NewsFilter, but first, the story must be news. I doubt this post would merit much attention even on SlashDot.
posted by mischief at 8:20 PM on October 17, 2003

"gives Asparagirl a big wet sloppy kiss...
posted by poopy at 7:40 PM PST on October 17"

Ew...
posted by dgaicun at 8:21 PM on October 17, 2003

"Prove the case, show the significance, and then we have a topic of discussion."

Waall, shucks. There done wouldn't be nuthin' ta discuss if the case was proved.

As far as #2 goes, I call bullshit. The host says a specific site dealing with Israel has been attacked, the owner of a site dealing with Israel says it was him, thos host comes back and say, "we all knew it was anyway" right after that.

People have gone to prison on less evidence than that. Some even guilty.

So if you give the site owner #2, he gains some credibility on #3. Or he doesn't, maybe it was some "Chomski following Berkeley nerd" but the fact remains it was an attack on one site that damaged others and, as you mention in #1 that is "worth noting".

So what's your fucking problem here?

Supposition and fear-mongering? On MeFi? Say it ain't so.

Of course if your so adamantly against this egregious violation of the "proper path of MetaFilter" you could always move on to something that better suits your self-righteous interpretation of the MeFi canon.
posted by cedar at 8:22 PM on October 17, 2003

cedar, I have pretty good reason to believe that in times past my email (my work email) was willfully signed up for porn spam by a MetaFilter member. Was I the object of a terra-ist jihad? Uhhh, no. It was an asshole trying to be l33t.

My fuckin' problem was that a post was made trying to inspire fear 'cause maybe the good folks of our good country, being good and all, were under attack on the IntarWebby thingy by them damn terra-ists, ... based on pure supposition.

And you keep assuming that just because Aaron's site was targeted, it has more significance than any other Intenet flamewar. Talk to skallas some time. The DOS was worth noting, yes; The assumptions accompanying it were just, well, bullshit.

But I think you're right. If anything had been proven, then there wouldn't be anything to discuss, would there? But then again, I think you might have known that all along.

Read the guidelines, cedar, and you might find that MetaFilter is not a discussion site for whatever pet destruction theory you might be quivering about at the moment.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:41 PM on October 17, 2003

Leads? Yeah, the detectives are working in shifts. Leads!
posted by trondant at 8:50 PM on October 17, 2003

I doubt this post would merit much attention even on SlashDot.

... well, except maybe for the involvement of LGF. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:50 PM on October 17, 2003

You guys are all jerkheads.
posted by The God Complex at 8:52 PM on October 17, 2003

cedar, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent to be mean. But a quick objective look will explain why so many in this and the blue thread think there are too many unanswered questions for us to follow the post you wrote.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:55 PM on October 17, 2003

*Stands and applauds Wulfgar!*

Seriously, cedar, you're wiggin' here.
posted by jpoulos at 9:05 PM on October 17, 2003

"2) ...and Haganah was the target...

Theorized, but not in any way proven without support from the owner's suppositions on LGF. That's part of the problem, here."

No. Over at that-other-place, Annette from Hosting Matters confirmed that Haganah was indeed the target. The site is still down (unlike every other Hosting Matters site affected by the DOS) and has been isolated on a different server while the criminal investigation is ongoing. But if you'd read cedar's repeated points on this issue, or followed my link to you-know-where which you called out as "rude", where I point out her and Aaron's comments on this, you'd know that.

(On preview, what cedar said.)

"Oh my God, the terra-ist ragheads is out to get our Internet"

First you write that anyone interested in discussing the possibilty of a terrorist attack on an American blog would only be so because they want to think that we're under attack by "dark-skinned ferriners". Now you move on to outright slurs like "rag-head" and put them in peoples' mouths, all to presumably prove that anyone's concern over the attack is motivated by racism, if not "fear", "paranoia", or an "agenda" (all your words, again). Save for a few loons over you-know-where, the only one even coming remotely near those claims is...you.

Me, I look at the possibility that this was legit and think "oooh, cyberwarfare! on a somewhat cheesy scale, but still. and hey, another boost for the blogosphere." You look at the possibility and write that discussion of the attack even if the story is true must be motivated out of ignorant Hate Of The Other or by The White Geek's Burden or something. That's harsh, dude.

"If anything had been proven, then there wouldn't be anything to discuss, would there?"

Great, so after all this jerking around where you think the post is all supposition and paranoia and therefore illegitimate, you basically say that even if it's true, it's irrelevant and therefore illegitimate. The FPP can't catch a break. I say if it's true, there's tons to discuss, and I already threw out a few examples in the blue.
posted by Asparagirl at 9:30 PM on October 17, 2003

"If anything had been proven, then there wouldn't be anything to discuss, would there?"

Great, so after all this jerking around where you think the post is all supposition and paranoia and therefore illegitimate, you basically say that even if it's true, it's irrelevant and therefore illegitimate. The FPP can't catch a break. I say if it's true, there's tons to discuss, and I already threw out a few examples in the blue.

Sarcasm, an evil evil thing. Read what I wrote and you might think, just maybe, that I was drawing a juxtaposition between the idea that "they did this and they're out to get us" and "they might have done this and they're out to get us". Which sounds more plausible to you? Which would be more discussion worthy? Which should have been posted to the blue? Which is worthy of LGF and which is MetaFilter material?

You'd like to think that I drew the line between terra-ists and any asshole just fuckin' with Heganah. Uhhmmm, nope. It was there from the outset. The "they" was suggested by the first post in the blue and you wish us to just accept it? Not.

If this was a cyber terrorist attack, we would have something to discuss, (except as suggested by cedar), but all we have here is cyber-wank. Read what I wrote. I was suggesting that someone shot his wad prematurely, not that we didn't have an issue here.

(Don't you just adore all these sexual metaphors?)
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:16 PM on October 17, 2003

*trips over bodies of dead kittens*

Dammit, will you guys stop that? Now who's gonna clean up all these corpses?

And on a serious note - the reason we don't hear about this from the news outlets (yet) is - where do they get confirmation? They have to look for more than one source, determine the reputation of that source, etc. There're some people at each of the major outlets that keep an eye on blogs - but you know, they do have to fact check and that takes time. And they need more proof than I'm reading about here. And then someone has to make a case to their producer/editor that this will mean something to the general population of the country. I hate to mention this but I think there are still quite a good number of people that are wandering around the planet who have no clue what a blog is.
posted by batgrlHG at 10:26 PM on October 17, 2003

"the reason we don't hear about this from the news outlets (yet) is"

The reason we don't hear about this from the news outlets is because it isn't important. Or even interesting.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:56 AM on October 18, 2003

Now who's gonna clean up all these corpses?

They're kittens! They should most of 'em still have 8 more lives. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:34 AM on October 18, 2003

Wait till the mama cat hears about this.
posted by konolia at 9:56 AM on October 18, 2003

*clanks ominously, emits thick black smoke*
posted by quonsar at 12:09 PM on October 18, 2003

it isn't important. Or even interesting.
With some footnotes it would:P
posted by thomcatspike at 1:13 PM on October 18, 2003

Let's see... if some organized group affiliated with terrorists (that's what the site owner says happened) attacked a site causing a few thousand others to go down in the process, that would be pretty damn newsworthy.

The site owner is in no position to know who DOSed his Web host. Even if he did, I think the news value is slim at most. When people are being murdered by terrorists a few times a week, the fact that a Web server was knocked offline for a couple days isn't exactly Page 1 stuff.
posted by rcade at 1:49 PM on October 18, 2003

Oh, you mean the kind that take down three thousand sites on a reputable and well managed host?

If 3000 dumb sites get Dossed on the internet, does anyone care? no.

whats reputable and well managed got to do with it? it's not harder to dos a reputable site than an unreputable site. the only hard part is getting away with it.
posted by carfilhiot at 6:18 PM on October 18, 2003

If 3000 dumb sites get Dossed on the internet, does anyone care? no.

What do you mean by dumb? The sites were all on the same host, so if anything, it's a dumb (or just unlucky) host. As for no one caring, I think its a bit of a stretch to declare that nobody cares.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:16 PM on October 18, 2003

Back in the blue, this "unfounded and stupid" report of Al Qaeda supporters attacking Haganah (and thus all of Hosting Matters) for revenge has apparently been confirmed by several jihadi websites. Seems that the final straw was when eight terrorist websites got dropped from their tertiary DNS provider thanks to Haganah's persistence.

DoS attacks on Hosting Matters sites continued today and intermittently yesterday, and most sites were offline for at least a few hours.
posted by Asparagirl at 4:50 PM on October 21, 2003

revenge has apparently been confirmed by several jihadi websites

Proving nothing whatsoever. Also, regardless of who instigated the first attack, these subsequent attacks are more likely to be copy cats.
posted by mischief at 5:41 PM on October 21, 2003