Man accused of hacking into county computers speaks in Santa Cruz, says he's innocent

Oct 1, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Santa Cruz Sentinel

A homeless activist facing federal charges for allegedly hacking Santa Cruz County computers in December is out of custody.

Comments
1 - 20 of 36 Comments Last updated Oct 31, 2011
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Craig

New York, NY

#1 Oct 2, 2011
So Doyon admits he is "Commander X".

Thanks should go to BECKY for providing the information about where to find the audio of the "interview" of "Commander X" by Robert Norse. During that interview "Commander X" admits to the crime. He even goes into detail about how he did it.

Great job BECKY and Robert! Not only did you record his "confession", you also made it accessible on the internet and told everyone where to find it. I'm sure your friend BumFest2010 co-founder and spokesman Chris Doyon really appreciates it.

On a side note: Doesn't Doyon have an outstanding arrest warrant for a failure to appear in court? Why wasn't he immediately taken into custody for that? And he was standing on the courthouse steps no less, across the street from the jail.
Robert Norse

Walnut Creek, CA

#2 Oct 2, 2011
Craig is ill-informed and hostile to homeless civil rights as usual. For my comments see http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19020319...
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#4 Oct 2, 2011
In Reality wrote:
Funny how BJ and Khan always skitter back into the walls when the big guns come out.
Rather like roaches.
Buzz

Capitola, CA

#5 Oct 2, 2011
Robert Norse wrote:
Craig is ill-informed and hostile to homeless civil rights as usual. For my comments see http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19020319...
Glad your massive ego causes you keep your past outpourings. It will really be a hoot if your archived drivel is what the FBI uses to convict Doyon. But, then again, Doyon stole your thunder by declaring himself "chief spokesbum" for Bumfest 2010. I've a hunch that you and your co-loony BJ, are big grudge holders and this is your chance for payback.
Free Load

Santa Cruz, CA

#6 Oct 2, 2011
The difficulty with Mr. Doyon's approach is that it is based on mob rule tactics, not due process of law.

Is Mr. Doyon wealthy? If he leaches off the system, how does he justify the contradiction?
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#7 Oct 2, 2011
Free Load wrote:
The difficulty with Mr. Doyon's approach is that it is based on mob rule tactics, not due process of law.
Is Mr. Doyon wealthy? If he leaches off the system, how does he justify the contradiction?
That same question could be asked of the parasites BJ and Norse.
Free Load

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Oct 2, 2011
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
That same question could be asked of the parasites BJ and Norse.
Don't agree. Neither support mob rule tactics.
Free Load

Santa Cruz, CA

#9 Oct 2, 2011
The main difference is COWARDICE. "Anonymous" hackers are cowards. There is no civil disobedience COURAGE in anonymous cyber attacks. Norse and Johnson put themselves on the line, personally.

Whether you agree with them or not, both exhibit the courage of civil disobedience. Neither engages in anonymous attacks, hiding behind some political cover to justify their cowardice.
Ruff ruff

Santa Cruz, CA

#10 Oct 2, 2011
Free Load wrote:
The main difference is COWARDICE. "Anonymous" hackers are cowards. There is no civil disobedience COURAGE in anonymous cyber attacks. Norse and Johnson put themselves on the line, personally.
Whether you agree with them or not, both exhibit the courage of civil disobedience. Neither engages in anonymous attacks, hiding behind some political cover to justify their cowardice.
Doyon and the Catguy are similar. They anonymously spammed messages to get their point across. Once caught, they blame the government for not doing enough to help them.
Craig

New York, NY

#12 Oct 3, 2011
Robert Norse wrote:
Craig is ill-informed and hostile to homeless civil rights as usual. For my comments see http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19020319...
Ill informed? Really?

Let's go over the points I made in my post.

1. Did you, or did you not, interview "Commander X" on your little "radio show"? You did. That is not disputed. Nothing ill informed about that.

2. Did "Commander X", or did he not, confess to committing the crime on your little "radio show"?
He did. He spoke to you immediately after the event happened. He told you how they did it, and how your listeners could download the tools to do so themselves. He gave the URL for the "laser topedos", which you repeated for clarity. Nothing ill informed about that.

3. Did you, or did you not, store the audio of your little "radio show" online so that people could hear it? You did. Nothing ill informed about that.

4. Did BECKY, or did she not, tell all of us that you "interviewed" "Commander X" on your little "radio show" and how to find it online? She did. Nothing ill informed about that.

5. Did Chris Doyon, or did he not, admit to being "Commander X". Yes he did. In an interview printed in The Sentinel. Nothing ill informed about that.

To recap: "Commander X" confessed to committing the crime on your little "radio show". Doyon admitted to being "Commander X". You saved the interview. BECKY told everyone where to find the confession.

What did I get wrong?
not so fast

Gig Harbor, WA

#13 Oct 3, 2011
Craig wrote:
What did I get wrong?
Norse can't find the censor button for Topix, so he's completely unprepared to respond to you, Craig. Honest discussion is not a format he's familiar with.
Buzz

Capitola, CA

#14 Oct 3, 2011
Craig wrote:
<quoted text>
Ill informed? Really?
Let's go over the points I made in my post.
1. Did you, or did you not, interview "Commander X" on your little "radio show"? You did. That is not disputed. Nothing ill informed about that.
2. Did "Commander X", or did he not, confess to committing the crime on your little "radio show"?
He did. He spoke to you immediately after the event happened. He told you how they did it, and how your listeners could download the tools to do so themselves. He gave the URL for the "laser topedos", which you repeated for clarity. Nothing ill informed about that.
3. Did you, or did you not, store the audio of your little "radio show" online so that people could hear it? You did. Nothing ill informed about that.
4. Did BECKY, or did she not, tell all of us that you "interviewed" "Commander X" on your little "radio show" and how to find it online? She did. Nothing ill informed about that.
5. Did Chris Doyon, or did he not, admit to being "Commander X". Yes he did. In an interview printed in The Sentinel. Nothing ill informed about that.
To recap: "Commander X" confessed to committing the crime on your little "radio show". Doyon admitted to being "Commander X". You saved the interview. BECKY told everyone where to find the confession.
What did I get wrong?
Also sounds like Norse/Kahn is aiding and abetting Commander X, or at least a co-conspirator. Norse, like his sycophantic ex-paramour, BJ, might be stupid enough to talk his way into criminal charges.
not so fast

Gig Harbor, WA

#15 Oct 3, 2011
Free Load wrote:
The difficulty with Mr. Doyon's approach is that it is based on mob rule tactics, not due process of law.
That 'Occupy Wall Street' mob rule tactic must really piss you off then, right?

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#16 Oct 3, 2011
A Ddos event is not vandalism, not data stealing, and not data corruption. It is similar to a sit-in at a lunchroom. Were the PLF'ers allowed to visit the website: yes
Did they go into restricted areas of the site? No.
The protesters at the lunchroom occupied the seats and didn't order any food. Did they damage the lunch counter? No. Did they inconvenience the business owner or the other customers? Yes.
but was it illegal? I don't think so.

Should he be charged with a felony for this? I don't think so. WHO was HARMED?????
DBS

Benicia, CA

#17 Oct 3, 2011
Becky Johnson wrote:
A Ddos event is not vandalism, not data stealing, and not data corruption. It is similar to a sit-in at a lunchroom. Were the PLF'ers allowed to visit the website: yes
Did they go into restricted areas of the site? No.
The protesters at the lunchroom occupied the seats and didn't order any food. Did they damage the lunch counter? No. Did they inconvenience the business owner or the other customers? Yes.
but was it illegal? I don't think so.
Should he be charged with a felony for this? I don't think so. WHO was HARMED?????
Sure thing whackjob.

But call the FBI for a piece of fruit in your trashpile Ford's tailpipe.
Donny B

Fairfax, VA

#18 Oct 4, 2011
Becky Johnson wrote:
A Ddos event is not vandalism, not data stealing, and not data corruption. It is similar to a sit-in at a lunchroom. Were the PLF'ers allowed to visit the website: yes
Did they go into restricted areas of the site? No.
The protesters at the lunchroom occupied the seats and didn't order any food. Did they damage the lunch counter? No. Did they inconvenience the business owner or the other customers? Yes.
but was it illegal? I don't think so.
Should he be charged with a felony for this? I don't think so. WHO was HARMED?????
A DDOS attack is a FELONY!!!

Keep yapping, BJ. Your continued commentary just reaffirms your ignorance. It's interesting that in another forum, you say the DDOS attack "was a warning shot across the bow". You say that like you participated in the planning and execution of the event.

IN ANOTHER FORUM, YOU SAID: "No one needed to intervene or act at all."

OH really???? The County systems are attacked and no one needs to react at all??? That's like saying that if you were being physically attacked by an assailant, there would be no need for anyone to intervene.

IN ANOTHER FORUM, YOU SAID: "All systems returned to normal on their own."

And how would you know that????

IN ANOTHER FORUM, YOU SAID: "Hence, the "damage" was so minimal it didn't COST any money, didn't DAMAGE any software or hardware."

Again, how would you know that???

With regards to damages... The damage was to the ability of Santa Cruz County to conduct its business. The citizens of Santa Cruz (and anyone else in the world) were prevented from accessing County computer systems, thereby preventing THEM from conducting business with the County. The costs associated with the work by ALL the County system admins and their respective staffs and support activities to react to the DDOS attack, to diagnose any potential damage as a result of the DDOS attack, and the time and costs associated with implementing prevention/reaction mechanisms to protect against similar attacks will cost many thousands of dollars. Add to that the cost of any and all police and investigative agencies to investigate the attack/crime. THAT total cost is what Doyon and all other conspirators are on the hook for.
Buzz

Capitola, CA

#19 Oct 4, 2011
Becky No Merit Scholar Johnson wrote:
A Ddos event is not vandalism, not data stealing, and not data corruption. It is similar to a sit-in at a lunchroom. Were the PLF'ers allowed to visit the website: yes
Did they go into restricted areas of the site? No.
The protesters at the lunchroom occupied the seats and didn't order any food. Did they damage the lunch counter? No. Did they inconvenience the business owner or the other customers? Yes.
but was it illegal? I don't think so.
Should he be charged with a felony for this? I don't think so. WHO was HARMED?????
If someone corrected all the lies you've posted on your wiki page and took over your blog "One Fat Ass Bleating" and ended the censoring by IndyBay, you'd be one the phone to the FBI so fast you'd be dizzy from the exertion.
Scottie

Croydon, UK

#20 Oct 7, 2011
A Ddos event is not vandalism, not data stealing, and not data corruption. It is similar to a sit-in at a lunchroom. Were the PLF'ers allowed to visit the website: yes
Did they go into restricted areas of the site? No.
The protesters at the lunchroom occupied the seats and didn't order any food. Did they damage the lunch counter? No. Did they inconvenience the business owner or the other customers? Yes.
but was it illegal? I don't think so.

A Ddos is a Vandal act of restricting legitimate users access to computer resources it is therefore classed as an offense under the data protection act.

Whilst you say no damage was made to the lunch counter, they lost legitimate customers because those customers could not access the data stored on their services.

But is it illegal?

Umm Yes it is and is also a waste of resources.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#21 Oct 14, 2011
DONNY B WRITES: "you say the DDOS attack "was a warning shot across the bow". You say that like you participated in the planning and execution of the event."

BECKY: Actually, that is what CHRIS DOYON said at his press conference.

DONNY B WRITES: "IN ANOTHER FORUM, YOU SAID: "No one needed to intervene or act at all."

OH really???? The County systems are attacked...

BECKY: I don't call it an "attack". I call it a cyber-incident. What HAPPENED is that for 30 minutes, the County's website had so many hits that it was temporarily disabled. Sometimes VISA goes down just before Christmas for the same reason: too many hits all at once. Is that illegal? I don't think so.

DONNY B WRITES: "... and no one needs to react at all??? That's like saying that if you were being physically attacked by an assailant, there would be no need for anyone to intervene."

BECKY: Except that no one DID "need to intervene." And no PERSON was harmed.

DONNY B WRITES: "IN ANOTHER FORUM, YOU SAID: "All systems returned to normal on their own." And how would you know that????

BECKY: Information Services Director Kevin Bowling said it in the SENTINEL the next day. see: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_16881435...

DONNY B WRITES: IN ANOTHER FORUM, YOU SAID: "Hence, the "damage" was so minimal it didn't COST any money, didn't DAMAGE any software or hardware."

Again, how would you know that???

BECKY: "They're not causing any damage." --Kevin Bowling Dec 17 2010-SC SENTINEL
DBS

San Jose, CA

#22 Oct 14, 2011
Hey BJ, you still haven't told us why the "positive change" meters are unconstitutional????

Or do we have to wait for you to ask the SCPD horses?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
PG&E advises customers to beware of inspectors ... (Feb '10) Aug 12 roy saric 43
Prostitute Who Allegedly Finished Wine As Her C... Jul '14 DBS 14
Santa Cruz to weigh ballot measures on election... Jul '14 Tin_Lizzy 1
KKK Recruiting in Santa Cruz (Jul '08) Jul '14 ANON 14
Beach goers in Santa Cruz warned after man step... Jun '14 DBS 1
Group tracks 5,000 syringes found in 18 months ... Jun '14 whambulance 12
Who Is Your Community Hero? Nominate for United... Jun '14 tin lizzy 9
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Santa Cruz County People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••