Dartmouth College

Distributed Denial of Service HacktivismBringing Power to the Individual

Emily Luy Tan

Writing 5

Case Study

February 18, 2017

1

To whomever is reading this,

The purpose of this paper is to lay out the case and unfair punishment of Eric Socol, a ordinary

Wisconsin man who was prosecuted for taking part in an Anonymous DDoS protest against

Koch Industries. I found it most difficult to integrate the narrative of Socol into my ultimate

thesis argument: that the punishments of online protest such as DDoS are very much so out of

proportion when compared to penalties for the offline DDoS equivalent. The focus of my

revisions was mostly to make sure the timeline of the narrative was clear throughout and that the

many different elements of the subject of DDoS hacktivism were as well explained, backed by

evidence, and organized as I could make them. I tried to bring in as much narrative as I could in

light of the fact that I had barely any information about the sensory specifics of Socol’s case. For

this reason, I feel that there may be less narrative than was originally requested.

-Emily Luy Tan

2

“Target URL:  Kochind.com.” On February 26, 2011, a Wisconsin man named Eric

Socol typed these words into a commonly used hacking software known as Low Orbit Ion

Cannon (LOIC) and pressed the “IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER” button. By doing so, Socol

participated in a collectively organized Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS), a technique

used to shut down any target website. DDoS attacks incapacitate a site from responding to

legitimate users by overloading its servers with many requests from multiple computers

repeatedly over a short period of time. With a successful attack, the target website could be

rendered useless temporarily, depending on the security precautions put in place by the website’s

owner. Socol, a 38-year-old truck driver, was by no means an experienced hacker, but he didn’t

need to be in order to take part in a DDoS action (Reilly). LOIC is a tool that helps make

DDoSing easier for the amateur hacker–its interface is specifically designed to be user friendly.

A user like Socol only needs to type in a target URL, press the launch button, and let the

program do the rest.

DDoS attacks are a go-to mode of protest and harassment by one of the most well-known

hacker groups on the internet–Anonymous. Maintaining anonymity as part of its trademark,

Anonymous is comprised of a group of international hackers who, after starting out as a “trolls”

of the internet “concerned with [their] own amusement often at the expense of outsiders,” have

more recently shifted to an “open activist culture adept at attention-building” (Sauter 78). Some

critics of the hacker-collective would deem their actions of hacking as online harassment or even

terrorism, but Anonymous (at least some of its more politically and morally aware members) and

its supporters would call themselves “hacktivists.” Hacktivism, a lexical combination of

“hacking” and “activism,” is one of the most popular forms of online dissent; although there is

constant debate over the scope that “hacktivism” entails, Xiang Li, the executive editor of

3

Harvard Law School’s Journal of Law & Technology, defines it broadly as “politically motivated

hacking” or “the combination of grassroots political protest with computer hacking through the

nonviolent means of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools [to pursue] political ends” (Li).

According to professors Mark Manion and Abby Goodrum of Drexel University, Anonymous’

goals are consistent with those of most other hacktivist groups–to stimulate debate and draw

attention to “the commodification of the internet at the hands of corporate profiteers and

violations of human rights at the hands of oppressive governments” in the most public ways

possible (Manion, Goodrum).

To this end, Anonymous posted a press release dated February 26, 2011 on 4chan, an

online image board site, calling fellow Anon members to take part in an operation dubbed

#opWisconsin. Proving that its operations were not solely concerned with trolling or even limited

to the sphere of internet censorship alone, Anonymous called for DDoS attacks on websites

sponsored by the multi-billion-dollar company Koch Industries which seemed to be infringing on

the democratic process in Wisconsin. On that day, by clicking a single button in the LOIC

program and seemingly innocently dipping his toe into the pond that was #opWisconsin, Socol

made a very rich and powerful enemy.

******************************************

The republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was elected into office in 2010,

campaigning on a plan to cut the state’s rampant deficit. When it came down to it, Walker cut

funding to public schools and universities and proposed eliminating all collective bargaining for

unions. This is what brought many people in Wisconsin to rise up and protest the governor’s

proposals. “Kill the bill” reverberated around the rotunda of the Madison Capitol building as

more than 100,000 protesters assembled to demonstrate disapproval of Walker’s “Wisconsin

4

Budget Repair bill.” Behind the scenes, some began to question whether the Koch brothers,

billionaires David and Charles Koch, had a hand in the success of the governor’s election. CNBC

reported that the connection between Walker and the Koch brothers could be traced back to at

least 2010:

The money is difficult to trace because reporting donors is not required, but open governance groups in Wisconsin estimated that one Koch-funded group, Americans for Prosperity, spent about $3.7 million in television advertisements alone that benefited Walker, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. That doesn't include the money spent on organizing efforts and other activities that AFP in that tangentially helps a candidate (Cadwell).

While this is already suspicious, it also raises the question of why the Koch brothers were so

invested in Walker’s campaign.

What stakes does Koch Industries have in Wisconsin? Many. Think Progress, reports that

“Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and

Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state;” (Greenberg) “an oil pipeline …; and

Georgia-Pacific, a paper and wood manufacturing company owned by Koch Industries, is home

to numerous offices in the Badger State” (Cadwell). With this, Koch Industries has been building

up a practical vertical monopoly over Wisconsin’s utility industry and Scott Walker’s bill

proposals to end public employees’ collective bargaining rights can only further their goals.

Koch’s blatant use of donation money to promote corporate interests in the state is

exactly what Anonymous had qualms with. As a decentralized group of international hacktivists,

Anonymous generally aims “to combat censorship, promote freedom of speech, and counter

government control that sparks people in the so-called collective into action,” according to

former Anonymous member, Gregg Housh (Sands). In the press release from February of 2011,

Anonymous states its grievances over Koch Industry’s casting of a reality distortion field on the

Wisconsin government:

5

Koch Industries, and oligarchs like them, have most recently started to manipulate the political agenda in Wisconsin. In a world where corporate money has become the lifeblood of political influence, the labor unions are one of the few ways citizens have to fight against corporate greed. Anonymous cannot ignore the plight of the citizen-workers of Wisconsin, or the opportunity to fight for the people in America's broken political system. For these reasons, we feel that the Koch brothers threaten the United States democratic system and, by extension, all freedom-loving individuals everywhere. As such, we have no choice but to spread the word of the Koch brothers' political manipulation, their single-minded intent and the insidious truth of their actions in Wisconsin, for all to witness (Anonymous).

Anonymous saw Koch Industries as a source of fuel for the unrest in Wisconsin since the

corporation had so much to gain from Walker’s bill; the union-busting plan contained a clause

that would allow the sale of publically owned utility plants to private parties, like Koch

Industries. While this may not have been the sole reason so many protestors assembled in the

capitol, the Koch brothers’ unwarranted involvement in the Wisconsin democratic process was

the catalyst leading to Anonymous’ call to action on 4chan.

While hordes of Wisconsinites stormed the capitol building in the largest and most

sustained protest the state had ever seen, others such as Eric Socol took to the internet and used

DDoS as a mode of protest. A seemingly insignificant individual in the operation, Socol, as

many others had been, was attracted to Anonymous because its “power . . . is built out of the

concept of the hoard, the mass, the unstoppable wave” (Sauter 81). With every member keeping

their identity hidden, a hive mentality is forged amongst the contributors of Anonymous; the

group’s unofficial motto plays off of the phrase, “I am legion, for we are many,” as stated by the

demon in the Gospel of Mark. Joining the voluntary server, Socol and others “[were] able to add

[their] individual digital voice[s] to the stream of other voices being controlled by an overarching

persona: ‘I am legion, for we are many’” (Sauter 82). With Anonymous and DDoSing, the little

man gets his voice heard while maintaining the security of anonymity in the power of numbers.

Or so it was assumed.

6

Partly the fault of the higher-ups in Anonymous for falsely advertising the certainty of

anonymity when using software like LOIC and partly due to the sheer naivety of inexperienced

hackers like Socol, many ill-informed participants took part in the DDoS protests under the

impression that the software recommended by Anonymous would hide their identities. However,

LOIC “makes no effort to cover its users’ digital tracks . . . tagging each packet sent with the IP

address of the sender” and leaving them vulnerable to detection (Sauter 101). These IP addresses

are linked to the user’s real name and even physical address. Even taking part in a DDoS action

for 60 seconds as Socol had before he closed the LOIC program, it is possible to trace the

records of protest participants who fail to take the extra precaution of utilizing additional security

measures. While experienced digital protestors would have had the insight to “run LOIC through

a proxy or spoofed IP address, [providing] some measure of protection from the security flaws in

the tool,” majority of actors in #opWisconsin–inexperienced participants, or “n00bs” as

Anonymous’ culture would dub them–would not be aware that these protocols existed (Sauter

102). From #opWisconsin’s chat logs on the day of the attack, it is clear that many participants

didn’t truly understand the technicalities of DDoSing:

<user 1>: "hmmm... Koch.ind looks down to me." <user 2>: "after it's down, do you have to keep firing?" <user 3>: "YES ALWAYS KEEP FIRING." (Pearce)

Unfortunately, Socol, one of many inexperienced DDoSers taking part in the operation, was the

sole protestor to be traced and caught when Koch Industries investigated the website shut down.

The amount of damage done to Koch Industries by this operation pales in comparison to

the legal backlash Socol was forced to endure. The collective efforts of Anonymous in

#opWisconsin lead to the shutdown of Kochind.com for 15 minutes. It was agreed upon by the

government and by the prosecutor that the total direct loss associated with the attack was only

7

$5,000 (Reilly). To a company like Koch Industries that reported revenues of more than $115

billion in 2013, the cost of the Anonymous DDoS protest was mere change. Nevertheless, the

Koch brothers decided to prosecute Socol, the one participant out of hundreds of protestors that

could be tracked down in #opWisconsin, and as a result, the entire responsibility for the website

takeover was shucked onto the then 40-year-old truck driver. In December of 2013, Socol

pleaded guilty of accessing a protected computer, was sentenced to two years of probation, and

ordered to pay a whopping $183,000 to Koch Industries (Mathews).

If Socol’s penalty for taking part in an online protest for only 60 seconds seems

excessive, it is. Given that DDoS protests have been equated to traditionally recognized activist

activities, it is very telling that Socol’s punishment dwarfed those of its offline equivalents. Jay

Leiderman of the Guardian analogizes the DDoS protests to the free speech exercised by 1960s

civil rights activists during sit-ins in the Jim Crow South. (He goes on to expand, “Certainly, our

contemporary situation is a long way from that struggle against deep, historic injustice – no one

suggests otherwise – but the analogy is apt nonetheless”). If a physical sit-in protest were to

result in charges, they would fall under the category of criminal trespassing. The potential

punishment for trespassing is a misdemeanor “[requiring] from zero to up to nine months in jail,

and from zero to $10,000 fine” (Wood). Additionally, more serious crimes such as arson are

punishable in Wisconsin for only $6,000. Comparing the actual damage done by physical crimes

such as arson or even the offline equivalent of hacktivism to the that caused by a DDoS attack,

one can see the scales of justice seem to be skewed. Socol’s case is a prime example of online

DDoS protests leading to legal punishments which are quite outrageously out of proportion.

8

DDoS protests are prosecuted under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),

an amendment to US Code for computer fraud. Charging violations of the law as frauds, the

CFAA:

Prohibits the intentional accessing exclusive government computers or classified information without authorization, (2) obtaining information from computers through unauthorized access, (3) committing fraud through unauthorized access, (4) threatening to engage in cybercrime as a means of exhortation, and (5) generally taking actions that cause damage to protected computers” (Li).

Xiang Li of the Harvard Law School Criminal Justice Institute writes, “Given the CFAA’s broad

definition of ‘damage’ and ‘loss,’ cyberattacks such as DDoS attacks that do not physically harm

the computer would fall within the scope of the CFAA” (Li). The resultant legal proceedings that

led to Socol’s punishment and other DDoS cases like it are riddled with nuanced interpretations

of vague diction in the CFAA, causing an already gratuitous ruling to seem that much more

unfounded. For example, “for an individual with no previous criminal record, the recommended

sentence for an offence of level 31” (the offence level of the most notorious DDoS legal

prosecutions for Anonymous’ Operation Payback against PayPal) “is 135 months, or more than

11 years. This is without the ‘special skills’ or ‘sophisticated means’ adjustments, both of which

would add several offence levels” (Sauter 143). In the US Sentencing Guidelines, a “special

skill” is defined as “a skill not possessed by members of the general public” and “sophisticated

means” is defined as “complex” or “intricate offence conduct pertaining to the execution or

concealment of an offence” (US Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual). These terms are

inherently subjective and the application of the punishments associated with such legal

adjustments “depends heavily on the discretion, and technical sophistication, of the judge

handing down the sentence” (Sauter 143). To someone with little knowledge on the subject of

computers or the technical side of DDoSing, simply playing a part in a DDoS protest by using

9

LOIC–as Socol had–may seem “sophisticated”; merely clicking the “IMMA CHARGIN MAH

LAZER” button could be interpreted as a “special skill.” Consequently, the sentences for crimes

within the realm of technology and the internet, hinged on the subjective interpretation of

ambiguous wording, can easily be based solely on the knowledge, or ignorance, of the presiding

judge.

On top of this, the prejudiced legal and popular perception of hacker groups like

Anonymous perpetuate the tendency for out-of-proportion punishments for hacktivists. The

stereotype of the typical hacker brings to mind a vindictive, anti-social computer geek who,

using technological skills that the general public do not possess, harass and torment the other

unsuspecting and innocent portion of internet users. “Based on apocalyptic techno-paranoia,

popular media stokes common fears that armies of basement-dwelling adolescent males are eager

to dish out mayhem to a society so tied to technology (and yet so clueless as to its inner

workings) that it would be unable to adequately defend itself” (Sauter 85). In its beginnings,

many Anons relished in the attention afforded to them by major news outlets such as FOX News

who dubbed them the “Internet Hate Machine.” However, as Anonymous has more recently

shifted from self-entertaining trolling activity to genuinely productive actions of hacktivism, this

stereotype of “hacker” linked to the organization and the non-Anonymous online hacktivist

community at large has become a detriment. The media and the public perceive DDoSing as a

function of the hacker stereotype, an illegitimate plea for attention performed by an illegitimate

group. The legal system is therefore predisposed to come down hard on DDoS activists due to an

inherent prejudice against “hackers,” especially those associated with Anonymous, a group

whose roots are founded deep within the trolling underbelly of the internet.

10

But hacktivist DDoS actions should be seen as exactly what such a phrase as

“hacktivism” entails–genuine activist protests, forms of free speech, civil disobedience for the

sake of a more productive and transparent democracy. DDoS performed by online

demonstrators is not dissimilar from types of information dissemination and protest that are

already protected by the constitutional right to protest. In his dissertation, Joshua Adams of

George Washington University Law School equates hacktivism to “flag burning and picketing,”

activities that cause no real harm but are more like “expensive irritations rather than a serious

threat to society” (Adams). Professors Manion and Goodrum go so far as to define hacktivism as

“electronic civil disobedience.” They lay out the foundational principles of a civil disobedient

acts: “(1) No damage done to persons or property, (2) Non-violent, (3) Not for personal profit,

(4) has ethical motivations–i.e., the strong conviction that a law is unjust, unfair, or to the

extreme detriment of the common good, (5) willingness to accept personal responsibility.” Citing

statements made by hacktivist groups themselves, Manion and Goodrum claim that hacktivist

attacks, “motivated by belief in the positive forces of democracy and freedom rather than the

mere thrill of vandalism or the nihilism of ‘cyberterrorism,’ . . . can be defined as [acts] of

electronic disobedience [and] the punitive outcomes must be brought into alignment with other

forms of civil disobedience.” Consequently, many hacktivist advocates see DDoS attacks as

justifiable protests that, “enrich[ing] us . . . [with] new and differing views,” should not be

suppressed or stifled by the government or its laws (Leiderman).

What brings about the controversy over the true motivations of DDoS is its novelty;

performed in a new space–cyber space–online protest “has the ability to impact lives of

nonparticipants [on a] potentially unprecedented scale” and this can be perceived as threatening

to those in power (Sauter 27). Disrupting the everyday function of specific pinpoints of the

11

internet, DDoS allows activists “to step directly into the constantly shifting information stream

and take a role in its temporary alterations” (sauter 28). In a capitalist society where money is

power and information is its currency, the dissemination and exposure of information otherwise

kept under wraps is necessary. Hacktivist action and DDoS protest are therefore forms of

exchange between differently empowered groups. “Under communicative capitalism, it is

possible that it is the intentional creation of disruptions and silence that is the most powerful

contribution” and Anonymous is a vehicle for this power inversion.” (29) “As the internet

developed from a pseudo public academic intra-net into a vital part of everyday life for many

people, it was inevitable that those who opposed the privatization of a perceived commons would

be systematically marginalized by both the corporate and state interests that stood to benefit

financially and politically from stabilization of the network” (Sauter 140). This manipulation of

the legal and political system is exactly what Koch Industries intended when it interfered with

the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. This is what Anonymous was trying to and continues

to fight with operations such as #opWisconsin. This is the reason why Eric Socol clicked

“IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER.”

However, with the outcome of DDoS cases as seen with Socol, many do not perceive

DDoS protests as activist action at all. One of the key points of contention surrounds the

anonymity of groups like Anonymous. Nikki Williams from the Center from Digital Ethics and

Policy points out this factor as one that greatly distinguishes cyber-protests from real-life

demonstrations during which participants claim their views and cannot hide their identity behind

a screen. Anonymity, Williams claims, opens the door to faceless chaos that can inadvertently

affect uninvolved individuals in the wake of actions taken against corporate, bank, or

governmental entities. She argues that the faceless tactics used by terrorist groups that wreak

12

havoc on communities mirror those used by hacktivists who do not claim responsibility for their

actions, “blurring line between activism and terrorism.” Similarly, Aaron Barr, the former CEO

of private security firm HBGary Federal who personally sought out and threatened to expose the

personal identities of Anonymous leaders, opposes hacktivists’ “abuse of anonymity.” He states,

“Anonymous believes what they’re doing is like holding a virtual sit-in. It sounds good, but it’s

not equivalent. If you want to protest unfair or broken laws, get a lot of people together, involve

the press, and get arrested. Don’t throw rocks from the shadows of an alley. That just looks

mean. With anonymity, . . . there is no . . . personal risk and sacrifice, [no] personal

repercussions, [or] pressure to get the information right, to get the perspective right” (Greene

218). In the opinions of such hacktivist critics, there is a fundamental disconnect between online

and physical protests that cannot and should not be overlooked.

This criticism is to be expected. “An insistence that legal identity be tied to dissenting

speech or disruptive activism benefits a state with an interest in tracking and suppressing those

activities . . . Just as an interruptive DDoS can open an opportunity for dissenting speech, the

ability to engage in anonymous activism can create for individuals the opportunity to dissent.” A

monitored protest lacking anonymity would not thrive and opportunities for dissent would be

stifled. A democratic society that claims to hold personal participation in government, civil

disobedience as a tool for dissent, and free speech as a fundamental right should therefore realize

the necessity of anonymity when it comes to the actualization of such dissent. Following this

logic, the CFAA is a manifestation of hypocrisy in our political and judicial system. Sadly, this

only makes sense; “When the relevant judge [of new disruptive behaviors] is also the target of

disruptive protest, it is in their interests to reclassify legitimate protest as ideological violence”

(Sauter 140).

13

Under the current provisions of the CFAA, DDoS attacks carried out by hacktivists,

motivated by the “good of democracy” or not, are illegal. While some people see DDoS attacks

as intolerable, bordering on cyberterrorism, others view such tactics as forms of protest,

symbolic speech that should be protected under the First Amendment and treated like electronic

civil disobedience. The issue with today’s legislature is that it changes too slowly, having almost

instantaneously fallen behind the rapidly evolving landscape of the cyber-universe. With new

technology comes new forms of communication and organization and the anonymity that is

afforded by such technology has become a point of contention in the electronic activist, hacker,

and legal world. DDoS attacks are a way for the common people to create a power inversion and

making their voices heard over the roar of corporate America. For a democratic society to thrive,

the free flow of information and speech cannot be prohibited nor so drastically punishable by its

government. As such, the punishments associated with DDoS protests should not be so

disproportionately harsh, seeing that protests like #opWisconsin promote the foundational

democratic elements of the United States. Accordingly, the CFAA should be reformed,

recalibrating the scales of justice so that hacktivism is accommodated for or the punishments

associated with methods such as DDoS are put into proper proportions with their offline

equivalents. This is an opportunity to formally legitimize hacktivism in a world where more of

our daily lives and interactions are transferring onto the cyber-stage. This is the time to legally

reinforce the freedom to dissent and to give the individual, like Eric Socol, the opportunity to

talk back to power.

14

Sources:

Adams, Joshua. “Decriminalizing Hacktivism: Finding Space for Free Speech Protests on the Internet.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, December 15, 2013. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2392945.

“Anonymous Targets Koch Bros with #OpWisconsin.” Why We Protest | Anonymous Activism Forum. Accessed February 4, 2017. http://whyweprotest.net/threads/anonymous-targets-koch-bros-with-opwisconsin.77244/.

Caldwell, Leigh Ann. “Behind the Koch ‘Endorsement’ of Scott Walker.” CNBC, April 22, 2015. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/22/the-kochs-and-scott-walker-an-unknown-future-but-a-storied-past.html.

Chen, Adrian. “Anonymous Attacks Koch Brothers to Support Wisconsin Protests.” Gawker. Accessed February 5, 2017. http://gawker.com/5771854/anonymous-attacks-the-koch-brothers-to-support-wisconsin-protests.

Coleman, E. Gabriella. Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous. London: Verso, 2015. Print.

Greenberg, Andy. “Hackers Vs. Billionaires: Anonymous Takes Down Koch-Supported Websites Amid Wisconsin Protests.” Forbes, February 28, 2011. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/28/hackers-vs-billionaires-anonymous-takes-down-koch-supported-websites-amid-wisconsin-protests/#550838284311.

Haag, Melinda. “Major Achievements in the Courtroom: United States v. ‘Anonymous’ | USAO | Department of Justice,” July 8, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/cyber-crime/major-achievements-courtroom-united-states-v-anonymous.

Leiderman, Jay. “Justice for the PayPal WikiLeaks Protesters: Why DDoS Is Free Speech | Jay Leiderman | Opinion | The Guardian,” January 22, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/paypal-wikileaks-protesters-ddos-free-speech.

Leyden, John. “Wisconsin Man Cuffed over Koch-Blocking DDoS Attack,” March 28, 2013. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/28/koch_blocking_cuffing/.

Li, Xiang. "Hacktivism and the First Amendment: Drawing the Line Between Cyber Protests and Crime." Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Fall 2013 27.1 (2013): n. pag. Web.

Manion, Mark, and Abby Goodrum. "Terrorism or Civil Disobedience: Toward a Hacktivist Ethic." Drexel University: Computers and Society (2000): n. pag. Web.

Mathews, Lee. “Man Fined $183,000 for Helping Anonymous DDoS a Site for One Minute.” Geek.com, December 10, 2013. http://www.geek.com/apps/man-fined-183000-for-helping-anonymous-ddos-a-site-for-one-minute-1579317/.

Pearce, Matt. “Wisconsin Man Indicted in Anonymous Attack of Koch Industries.” Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/27/nation/la-na-nn-anonymous-koch-hack-20130327.

Reilly, Ryan J. “Loading Koch Industries Website Too Many Times In 1 Minute Just Cost This Truck Driver $183,000.” Huffington Post, December 3, 2013, sec. Politics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/anonymous-koch-attack_n_4374365.html.

15

Riberio, John. “US Charges 13 Anonymous Members for DDoS Attacks | PCWorld.” PC World, October 4, 2013. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2052360/us-indicts-13-anonymous-members-for-ddos-attacks.html.

Sands, Geneva. “What to Know About the Worldwide Hacker Group ‘Anonymous’ - ABC News.” Accessed February 19, 2017. http://abcnews.go.com/US/worldwide-hacker-group-anonymous/story?id=37761302.

Sauter, Molly. The Coming Swarm: Ddos Actions, Hacktivism, and Civil Disobedience on the Internet. , 2014. Print.

Umhoefer, Dave. “A Look at Scott Walker’s Campaign Promises.” PolitiFact Wisconsin, January 1, 2011. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2011/jan/01/look-scott-walkers-campaign-promises/.

“Wisconsin Man Sentenced in Kansas for Participating in Anonymous DDoS Attack on Koch Industries.” Office of Inadequate Security, December 3, 2013. https://www.databreaches.net/wisconsin-man-sentenced-in-kansas-for-participating-in-anonymous-ddos-attack-on-koch-industries/.

Wood, Tracey. “Trespass Penalties in Wisconsin Property Crimes.” Tracey Wood and Associates. Accessed February 19, 2017. http://www.traceywood.com/trespasspenaltiesinwisconsinpropertycrimes.html.

16