FCC Mistakes Angry Americans for Hacker DDoS Attack

Status
Not open for further replies.

Azphira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,854
Let the tech companies control content, the easiest fix is no longer afford them Section 230 of the DMCA. And let them get sued to insolvency.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
In all fairness, many of us know that it was less about Angry Americans wanting to be heard and more about people setting up automated websites to robo-submit character by character exact copies of the same complaint over and over again. Come on, if it hadn't been for people posting the link to that site where you typed in your email address or name or whatever it was and clicked submit, no where near that volume of traffic would have hit them. Someone made it easy and pointed everyone to it and beig good little Americans we all went there and clicked it to be heard cause we all know that if it took any real effort to draft out own email most wouldn't have sent a thing.


Yes, and those 'bots' all sent messages supporting net neutrality, copied almost word for word just like you said. The thing you're missing though, it it was done via API key, and the FCC could easily check who that API belonged to, and who used it for access. Hmm I wonder why they don't want to release that info......
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
Haters always have a way to rationalize their hate. The Klan, the Nazis: they all had their reasons.
But it's no excuse.

Hate is the opposite of love, and like love, it should be reserved for people you know, who matter in your life.
Hating or loving a complete stranger is pure cray-cray BS, but we're seeing an epidemic of it.

Right. I'm sure all the Jews that died personally knew Hitler.
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
676
You're just making that crap up out of nothing, aren't you? Pulling it out of your Trump-hating ass.
Oh well. Haters gotta hate, I guess. Sad.

I read the article, exactly what you were chastising people about when they replied to you earlier.

Article holds the same position I do, that he had plenty of time to clear up this misunderstanding before now and instead waited until the last minute.

You can keep your partisan crying to yourself, maybe try to actually defend your position instead.


Screenshot_20180807-142222.png
Screenshot_20180807-142250.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20180807-142250.png
    Screenshot_20180807-142250.png
    722.3 KB · Views: 0

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
And here we have yet another commenter that reached a conclusion without reading past the headline.
Is that what happens to people who read to many tweets? Do they wind up unable to read anything more than 132 characters long?


Because I don't care what he's said. He's lied/backtracked on this issue how many times, it's pretty obvious that just like our rambling toddler-in-chief, that anything that dribbles out of his face anus is complete bullshit. But sure, go ahead and keep sticking your head in the ground, ignoring what's going on and just continue blaming Obama/hillary/deep state.....
 
Last edited:

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
I read the article, ... he had plenty of time to clear up this misunderstanding before now and instead waited until the last minute.

There was an active investigation. Did you want him trying to influence it by making public statements about it?
No, you would have reamed him a new one if he had, I'm pretty sure.
 

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
Because I don't care what he's said. He's lied/backtracked on this issue how many times, it's pretty obvious that just like our ramping toddler-in-chief
You come here, fingers jammed tightly into your ears and ranting proud in your ignorance ....
and you call someone else a toddler?

Sad.
 

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
It's a private company and 1A does not apply. Don't like their filtering, don't use the platform..... People using those platforms for news/info are the problem anyway.
Don't like your ISP charging Google and Netflix more to carry their traffic because it violates "net neutrality"?
"It's a private company and 1A does not apply. Don't like their pricing structure, don't use the platform."
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,862
So, all of those jokes Billy Wilson used to make about his site running off an old broken down Volkswagen apply to this scenario? :D
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
676
There was an active investigation. Did you want him trying to influence it by making public statements about it?
No, you would have reamed him a new one if he had, I'm pretty sure.

There was an investigation because the claim was so ludicrous. It was obvious that it was a lie to distract from how much Americans DONT support repealing NN. The FCC GIO investigation started after the GAO one, when it wasn't possible to avoid one.

They could have come clean with what was obvious, they lied to make their unpopular decision seem more palatable.

..or did I just pull that out of my ass too?
 

TordanGow

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,483
And here we have yet another commenter that reached a conclusion without reading past the headline.
Is that what happens to people who read to many tweets? Do they wind up unable to read anything more than 132 characters long?

Oh, I can read quite well. Apparently your dry humor detector has gotten wet and requires service.
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,734
So they admitted what everyone with half a brain already knew. Legit!!

And then they blamed it on Obama for supposedly leaving them with hardware unable to shoulder the load of processing all the comments made in response to the bad idea being proposed.
 

viper1152012

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,025
Here's one. Pai's tantrum video sucked and irritated me so he has no professionalism to me.

The finger pointing is a lack of ownership and deflection = weak.

Acting on bad intelligence if you want to use a cop out for his actions also just paints him as impulsive and not being well informed. Why only use one source?

Blames system overload on ddos instead of old systems, deflected again.

How about he starts acting like a leader and not an ex-Verizon retention rep and give me less opertunities to bash him.

+ I know a lot of people (like myself) who wrote nasty grams to the fcc that were personalized.
 

CptCabbit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
262
So here's my question: if the posts were by actual people and not bots, or rather that so many people were against the repeal that the site shut down, does this mean they would actually consider upholding NN or was it all pointless anyways?
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
It's a private company and 1A does not apply. Don't like their filtering, don't use the platform..... People using those platforms for news/info are the problem anyway.
While your comments are true so also are ISP's private companies. Don't be surprised if the fascist running social media are not slapped down by the Sherman Anti-Trust act...
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,862
So here's my question: if the posts were by actual people and not bots, or rather that so many people were against the repeal that the site shut down, does this mean they would actually consider upholding NN or was it all pointless anyways?

Choice for the people in these matters is largely an illusion. I doubt it would have made a difference one way or the other.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
665
Ultimately, this doesn't matter, does it? Pai got what he wanted. Or is there a path on which the decisions will be revisited because there is information that was previously hidden? I did read the article, and I didn't see that mentioned.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
It's not about politics, left fecking right, or Trump. It's about Pai. He's a lying piece of shit. He has no credibility whatsoever.

Read Jessica Rosenworcel's letter. I'll take the word of a drug induced anus selling whore over Pai's word 10 out of 10 times. Not that I think Jessica is. :D


What is it that Jessica Rosenworcel's letter is supposed to tell us?

She wrote that "statement" the same day as the other FCC statement saying that the IG had cleared Pai of any wrongdoing. When Jessica says "The Inspector General Report tells us what we knew all along:....." We is Jessica, an FCC Commissioner, and others within the FCC (leadership I'm assuming, possibly Pai as well).

I do not take that statement as meaning Jessica and others knew it wasn't a DDOS attack, and Pai lied about it.

I take it as Jessica and others in the leadership knew it wasn't a DDOS attack, but the IG had to investigate anyway.

I do not see anything in Jessica's statement that construes a belief that Pai lied about it.

Do you see that in the statement?

Maybe there is something else available on the internet where she says that, but I sort of doubt it.

The wiki page for her says this;
In 2013, Rockefeller led a push to have Rosenworcel named to be the first female chair of the commission when former Chairman Julius Genachowski stepped down, although the position was ultimately given to Tom Wheeler.
Tom Wheeler, the guy that Pai replaced ....

From this wiki page it sounds like she wasn't fond of the recent Title I reclassification of the internet and the abandonment of some of the NN rules.

But she does fly Democrate colors;
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-republican-lawyer-for-fcc-commissioner-seat

Maybe this is a more accurate article;
https://www.fedscoop.com/david-bray-lied-fcc-cyberattack/

It also supports what I said earlier about the automated commenting.
In the days following the incident, multiple cybersecurity experts told FedScoop’s sister publication, CyberScoop, that the claim seemed unfounded. “It appears the issue with the FCC is less of a DDoS attack, traditionally defined, and more of an issue of crowdsourcing comments generated by John Oliver and Reddit,” John Bambenek told CyberScoop.

I know someone here posted that link to "show support", but I'm not sure that's exactly what the system is for anyway. I mean it's not a voting booth, it's a commenting tool to allow citizens to voice concerns and bring up related issues that the FCC may not have adequately considered previously.

I'll say it again, it's not a voting booth. The fact that a million or twenty million or however many people all "sent" the same message .... well one was as good as millions for the actual purpose of that commenting system.
 
Last edited:

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
Haters always have a way to rationalize their hate. The Klan, the Nazis: they all had their reasons.
But it's no excuse.

Hate is the opposite of love, and like love, it should be reserved for people you know, who matter in your life.
Hating or loving a complete stranger is pure cray-cray BS, but we're seeing an epidemic of it.

Slap it on a bumper sticker. "Progressivism-The Ideology of Hate"

No wonder #walkaway became a big deal...
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,810
Knowing this, are they going to reinstate Net Neutrality? Probably not...
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
Net neutrality doesn't mean shit to me, I lucked out and ended up with an ISP that doesn't throttle or cap anything.

People scream free market when social media bans people, but want non free market net neutrality? :p

I prefer publicly funded broadband supported by a non-profit. Here in Longmont, Co we have 1 gig up/down for $50 / month. No caps. F*ck the free market and all it's profiteers.

7533893378.png
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Ultimately, this doesn't matter, does it? Pai got what he wanted. Or is there a path on which the decisions will be revisited because there is information that was previously hidden? I did read the article, and I didn't see that mentioned.


The courts have upheld the FCC's authority to classify the Internet as they see fit. It was originally Title I, changed to Title II, and back to Title I. It might change back to Title II again some day. But it's the FCC's responsibility to make that decision. The upshot is that under current laws, neither Title I or Title II is ideal. What we need is a little of both. We need the NN protections many people feel are very important, but we also need these companies to remain subject to FTC oversight as well for anti-competative and unfair business practice protections that the FCC is incapable of providing.

If we are being let down here, it's by Congress and not the FCC. Congress is and has the power to fix this mess, they just have to step up and get it done. There are one or two existing laws that need to be rewritten so that either Title I or Tittle II will work correctly. Then the FCC can reclassify the internet to whichever one it was decided is best and that the laws properly support for us.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Oh, and although Pai may have echoed this report, Bray was the original author of this claim.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-cio-denial-service-attack-fcc-comment-system
Media Contact:
Mark Wigfield, (202) 418-0253
mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release
FCC CIO STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTED DENIAL-OF-SERVICE
ATTACKS ON FCC ELECTRONIC COMMENT FILING SYSTEM
--
WASHINGTON, May 8, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chief Information
Officer Dr. David Bray issued the following statement today regarding the cause of delays
experienced by consumers recently trying to file comments on the FCC’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS):
“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to
multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external
actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial
cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it
difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system
remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented
them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our
commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going
forward.”
###
Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500
ASL Videophone: (844) 432-2275
TTY: (888) 835-5322
Twitter: @FCC
www.fcc.gov/office-media-relations
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes
official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
What is it that Jessica Rosenworcel's letter is supposed to tell us?

She wrote that "statement" the same day as the other FCC statement saying that the IG had cleared Pai of any wrongdoing. When Jessica says "The Inspector General Report tells us what we knew all along:....." We is Jessica, an FCC Commissioner, and others within the FCC (leadership I'm assuming, possibly Pai as well).

I do not take that statement as meaning Jessica and others knew it wasn't a DDOS attack, and Pai lied about it.

Then you and I differ. I take it to mean they he did in fact know, and went radio silent about it because he's a fuck. And only an impending report, demonstrating his lies, forced his crooked hand to release a statement saying, in effect, thanks Obama. Christ he's such a piece of shit.

And of Bray's initial release, no difference to me. I'm certain they knew it wasn't DDoS before all of this.
 

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
Then you've set an extremely low bar. I'd request a full refund from whatever courses you took in it. They've failed you.
You're mistaken to think that I consider all of my responses to you arguments.
Why would I put that much effort into it? You're not worth the effort, because you're not going to change your mind. Not today, anyway.

I, on the other hand, can change my mind.
I thought it was wonderful that I had voted for Obama. I was so proud of myself, and of America.
Now I'm just ashamed of my vote for him.
But I won't be fooled again.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,685
Lol wut? He's as red as it gets, and did exactly what pretty much every gop politician wanted.... He's lying to the people and the dems looking into the agencies complete bullshit handling of the whole situation.




And to the people about to flood the thread with ignorant 'NN was killed and nothing happened/sun is still rising. I told you so...' posts, don't kid yourself. The issue is still way too hot for them to start fucking around just yet. They push too hard now and chances are much higher that actual regulations start getting put in place. They'll sit back and wait for it to die down, sheep will go 'see nothing happened!', then the ISPs will start slowly seeing how far they can screw us over. You frog in boiling water and all....

Plus for all the conservatives that cry about liberal MSM, who do you think owns the main ISPs? Is it going to take them filtering/throttling/blocking conservative content before you finally jump up in arms? Remember, they are a private corporation, just like twitter/bookeface/IG etc. 1st Ammendment doesn't apply to them and they can filter whatever they want. With title 2 gone, FCC doesn't have any authority, and that's outside of the scope of the FTC to regulate.
Obama is red?
Anyway, Democrats are as deep in corporate pockets as the Republicans anything to the contrary is wishful thinking
Ajit was appointed to the board by Obama
upload_2018-8-7_16-39-21.png


The NN removal was a 5 person vote all 5 were appointed to the board by Obama. Obama stacked the deck to kill NN under the next president. He made everyone accept the FCC by initially having the popular outcome but stacked the deck for the follow up vote for the rules were to be removed. Excellent planning. Made himself look good, the next president look bad, the public accept the FCC, and ultimately the corporations got what they wanted.
 

El Nacho

Noobie Cheese
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
2,258
Obama is red?
Anyway, Democrats are as deep in corporate pockets as the Republicans anything to the contrary is wishful thinking
Ajit was appointed to the board by Obama
View attachment 94645

The NN removal was a 5 person vote all 5 were appointed to the board by Obama. Obama stacked the deck to kill NN under the next president. He made everyone accept the FCC by initially having the popular outcome but stacked the deck for the follow up vote for the rules were to be removed. Excellent planning. Made himself look good, the next president look bad, the public accept the FCC, and ultimately the corporations got what they wanted.


you have no idea how any of that works.
 

Donald Bell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
160
Obama is red?
Anyway, Democrats are as deep in corporate pockets as the Republicans anything to the contrary is wishful thinking
Ajit was appointed to the board by Obama
View attachment 94645

The NN removal was a 5 person vote all 5 were appointed to the board by Obama. Obama stacked the deck to kill NN under the next president. He made everyone accept the FCC by initially having the popular outcome but stacked the deck for the follow up vote for the rules were to be removed. Excellent planning. Made himself look good, the next president look bad, the public accept the FCC, and ultimately the corporations got what they wanted.

... and fluoride is a government mind-control agent that turns frogs "gay" :rolleyes:
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Then you and I differ. I take it to mean they he did in fact know, and went radio silent about it because he's a fuck. And only an impending report, demonstrating his lies, forced his crooked hand to release a statement saying, in effect, thanks Obama. Christ he's such a piece of shit.

And of Bray's initial release, no difference to me. I'm certain they knew it wasn't DDoS before all of this.

I'm fine with you having your own opinion about it. But tell me, is there any time in which you think Pai made an honest statement based on incorrect information and later didn't correct it?

I mean, how do you think the all unfolded? Some tech tells his boss that some of the servers are jacked, that some of their web services like the comment reporting service are off-line. And while the admins are trying to figure out what the problem is, it's being reported up the line until Bray get's the report and he eventually releases a statement about a DDOS Attack. At what point does this all get reported to Pai? Pai is the nominal head of the entire FCC and at what point is a dysfunctional service inportant enough that the head of that organization has to be informed about it?

Is it two hours? Two day? Is there a requirement to notify the chief at all?

He says Bray lied about it. Anyone see anything that sounds different? Any opposition to the claim at all.

The IG investigated it says Pai is clean of wrong doing. Is there a reason to think this is a lie?

If Pai did lie, is the IG in collusion or just incompetent?

And if Bray isn't at fault, why isn't Bray talking it up looking for vindication?

Why is our Democrat Lawyer Jessica Rosenworcel calling the IG investigation a waste of time? I mean I understand the whole "we knew it wasn't a DDOS Attack ..." line. But where is the accompanying comment claiming Pai lied about it? If that is what she was saying then why didn't she just say it?

These are my questions on it.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Don't like your ISP charging Google and Netflix more to carry their traffic because it violates "net neutrality"?
"It's a private company and 1A does not apply. Don't like their pricing structure, don't use the platform."


Completely different. I'm PAYING the ISP for INTERnet access. Meaning, I'm paying them for access to networks outside of their own intranet. If they stop providing access to any of those services, I'm not getting the service I paid for.

A free service like any of the social network platforms, that you don't pay for is free to filter whatever content they want.
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
^^Bray left, when 2017? Dafuq was Pai doing all this time with the GAO coming down with their own investigation? I'm not saying collusion, I'm saying he must have known and incompetence. And it's also possible Bray will refute Pai's claims. These just came out. Bottom line- I don't believe him one bit. I believe he showed his cards because the GAO's report was coming out and Jessica all but shoved the words in his mouth that he knew. She stopped just short of it.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Obama is red?
Anyway, Democrats are as deep in corporate pockets as the Republicans anything to the contrary is wishful thinking
Ajit was appointed to the board by Obama
View attachment 94645

The NN removal was a 5 person vote all 5 were appointed to the board by Obama. Obama stacked the deck to kill NN under the next president. He made everyone accept the FCC by initially having the popular outcome but stacked the deck for the follow up vote for the rules were to be removed. Excellent planning. Made himself look good, the next president look bad, the public accept the FCC, and ultimately the corporations got what they wanted.


Ah, this ignorant bullshit again..... The president pics the FCC chair and 2 members of the board. The remaining 2 members are selected by the opposing party. No president has opposed the 2 members selected by the opposing party to prevent them from filling the board with partisan members. So no, Obama did not appoint Pai, the republicans did, and just like all previous presidents Obama approved their selection. So please stop regurgitating F(au)X news bullshit talking points that are easily disproved.
 
Last edited:

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
Completely different. I'm PAYING the ISP for INTERnet access. Meaning, I'm paying them for access to networks outside of their own intranet. If they stop providing access to any of those services, I'm not getting the service I paid for.
Sure you are. Where in the contract you didn't read does it say that your ISP is obliged to give you access to the entire Internet? Or that it can't throttle high-bandwidth services unless they pay it?

Stop making crap up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top