Ok, so this hacker hacks Staples website and redirected its customers to Staples' competitor Office Depot. Office Depot's response, "We're not that dumb."

Same exact words as the Russian Secret Service rep that was asked about reported Defense computer break-ins originating in the former Soviet Union. "We're not that dumb."

In lue of any evidence linking the hack attempt to Office Depot, Staples has filed a federal lawsuit against "John Doe, the hacker"

The USA Today Article

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctg777.htm

Response 1: Armadon

hahahaha that's fuckin hilarious.

Yet some how that lets you get an image as to how market competition is gonna start being like on the net. Man i remember when i first realized that the net was going to be commercialized. I really didn't want it to happen at all, but at the same time i knew it was inevitable. Alwell...

Want to increase online profits? Hire a hacker and eliminate the competition.

Response 2: ne0

the really fucked up part is they are suing an unknown hacker.

keyword = unknown

how the hell do you sue an unknown person????

I just find it hilarious that they are admitting they know nothing. How is that filed as a docket in the case of Staples.com v <fill in name of hacker> how far along can you take this case down our legal system without actually accusing anyone in particular?

'Now that we have a conviction, we have to find the bastard so he can serve the sentence.'

Exactly what effect do you think this will have on the guy who did it? If he was in hiding before, he sure as hell isn't going to come anywhere near the surface now that he knows the intentions of staples.

Of course maybe office depot IS behind the whole thing. The "we aren't stupid enough to do something that obvious" excuse is a good decoy. Actually my favorite part of the article is "Office Depot says it is outraged by the vandalism and denies any knowledge of it."

What they left out "... but we really appreciated the extra traffic and business. Our profits are actually up over the whole thing and we'd like to contribute to the defense fund of this programmer. Remember he's innocent until proven guilty. We really just want to give him the benefit of the doubt"

Response 3: Shyster@collusion.org

some states have allowed lawsuits to go forward even though the defendant's identity was not known. This is so that the plaintiff can secure a judgment against the person before the statute of limitations runs out. Later, If the defendant's identity becomes known, then the judgment is supposedly enforceable. There is a problem, however, in that the defendant has not been given notice and an opportunity to put forward a defense. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the judgment would be enforceable.