Comments on: Mugu Marauder: Windows Users Asked to Target Nigerian 419 Scammers - Don’t Do It!

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:16:05 +0000

Let’s put the actual legality aside for a minute and ask another question: is a member of aa419 ever going to actually have to “tell that to the judge?” It seems as though the police don’t even have the resources or time to go shut down the 419 scammers and fake banks, so I find it quite improbable that some online Vigilantes (who, let’s face it, are going after the criminals) are ever likely to have the SWAT team show up at their house ready to lock them up and throw away the key. If you were to visit http://www.419eater.com, you’d encounter a few thousand people who like to go and threaten the scammers, waste their time, and even scam the scammers back (this has been done). Virtually none of these “scam-baiters” has ever found themselves in any sort of legal trouble, even if what they have done could be considered illegal, and it is posted online on a site frequented by thousands of individuals.

The legality of taking on the scammers has been discussed there before, quite a few times. (Here is one instance of it occuring: http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126475&highlight=).

When one member asked a policeman here in Australia about the chances of a baiter being prosecuted if a scammer complained, he basially said “no difference to a drug dealer being sold fake drugs…would be laughed out of the police station if he even tried”, to quote a member there. Whilst we obviously can’t take it as professional legal advice, and it isn’t technically the same thing as aa419 is involved in, I’d be prepared to bet that the situation would be very similar. I seriously doubt that any scammers operating these fake banks have ever complained (as they would have to answer some very embarassing questions about being 419 scammers), and I would be extremely surprised if the police really wanted to do anytihng about it.

As far as I know, nobody involved in fighting fake banks with aa419 has ever wound up in any actual legal trouble for doing what they do, and I somehow doubt that law enforcement bodies are about to shut them down any time soon.

(Note: I am neither a cop nor a lawyer, and none of this is real legal advice, just a series of observations)

By: redd baron

redd baron — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:05:31 +0000

You are a dead MUGU my friend.

By: T.L Dutchman

T.L Dutchman — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:14:59 +0000

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

By: Hippy

Hippy — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:42:21 +0000

The person that wrote the artical “Windows users asked to target nigerian 419 scammers dont do it” is an idiot and does not know what a DOS attack is. The idea mentioned by aa419 is no different than normal high access to a site. It is not hitting the site with rubbish attacks like a DOS atack. Read all the info on aa419 moron.

By: iwatch75

iwatch75 — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:10:53 +0000

I am fairly sure that this will not be a popular comment, but is there no distinction between what is “legal” and what is “right”?

What the flashmobbers are doing may be technically on the wrong side of American law but I still approve. It is not done out of malice or for profit, but for a sense of mischevious benevolence. If it does take hundreds of participants to be effective, and given that there is virtually no chance of any of the owners of these sites bringing a complaint to the US authorities, then the flashmobbers are pretty safe from prosecution.

Perhaps its American law that needs to catch up?

By: Jim Brown

Jim Brown — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:45:25 +0000

Yep, The whiners all say to “call the internet police.” Well, the truth is that the hosters (Not ISP’s) have been unresponsive to calls to shut down the scammers. We do not have to take these predators preying on the vulnerabilities of internet noobies, the elderly, and the very young (The most lilely victims) Same fools that will die waiting for the police instead of taking out the punk breaking in the house!!!

By: komsomol

komsomol — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:32:02 +0000

Based on Aunty’s pointless accusations of aa419 advocating/committing/orchestrating a criminal act, specifically a DDoS attack, during their regular flashmob events, some of you got hooked pretty well and apparently decided to ignore the facts. As usual on the internet, the facts are just a few clicks away. They are here: http://aa419.org/content/faq.php and here: http://aa419.org/mm/faq.php

If you care to read the above sources from aa419, you will hopefully understand why the Mugu Marauder does not constitute anything close to a DDoS attack. To put it short, aa419 flashmobs are bandwidth hogging instead of “overwhelming a system”. The idea and the corresponding implementation do not target the host or the hoster, they do not intend to and do not actually disrupt services, overload servers and such. Quite the contrary is true. As soon as the targeted fraudulent site goes down, the load stops immediately. The targeted (fraudulent, illegal) site goes down as soon as the purchased monthly bandwidth will be exceeded or when the hoster, who was previously notified at least twice and who ignored the complaints, eventually decides to take it down, respectively.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:17:59 +0000

Linking to an image on someone elses web site is going to land someone in jail? W T F there are millions of criminals who use HTML capable bulletin boards who are going to the joint. Let’s get real.

By: Mark Twang

Mark Twang — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:34:02 +0000

Aunty, You are unclear on the concept of WAR. Yes, this is a war, and
if this “society” doesn’t wake up, it will collapse. Wake up !!!!!

By: Kelson

Kelson — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:27:52 +0000

That’s a very narrow definition of DDoS. A denial-of-service attack is simply a deliberate attempt to overwhelm a system by sending repeated requests. A distributed denial of service attack is a coordinated DoS from multiple systems. The protocol isn’t important, it’s the intent to overload. (This is why being slashdotted isn’t really a DDOS — the intention is to share or read an article/story/etc., not to take down the target’s site.)

If the intent of the project is to take down websites by overloading them with traffic, well, I’d say that constitutes a denial-of-service attack. Even if not, someone on the “dark side” (if you’ll excuse the pun) could easily argue the point and file charges or a civil lawsuit.

If DOSing the bad guys is legal in your jurisdiction, that’s great. DOS away. But it’s not legal here, and cases like Charles Booher (arrested for making death threats to a spammer, later killed himself) make it clear that even with spammer, breaking the law to stop them is risky. Some people are willing to take the risk. Others are not.

The big mistake, of course, is assuming there’s only one solution to the problem.