Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

wsws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 275 posts

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#191

Post by mostlyskeptical »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #172
deadbunny wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the victims? Really?

Why this stigma against acknowledging that potential victims can (and would be wise to) take steps to protect themselves. Yes, dressing a certain way, drinking a lot of alcohol, and attending a party doesn't begin to excuse rape. But that doesn't mean it was a good idea and is something you should do without considering the possible consequences. If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to conf…

Thank you. I've gotten particularly sick of the​ phrase 'blaming the victim'.

If you insult someone's mother, you might get hit. If you leave valuables or cash on top of a car in a bad neighborhood it might be stolen. It's still the fault of whoever did the bad action, and everyone would be better off if you didn't need to take precautions line that, but you could have easily taken steps to lower the chance of it happening.

If you say to buckle your seatbelt, get a fire extinguisher, or look both ways before crossing the road no one bats an eye. God forbid you acknowledge that there are bad people in the world and you should take steps to protect yourself from them.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#192

Post by Joeboy »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #172
deadbunny wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the victims? Really?

Why this stigma against acknowledging that potential victims can (and would be wise to) take steps to protect themselves. Yes, dressing a certain way, drinking a lot of alcohol, and attending a party doesn't begin to excuse rape. But that doesn't mean it was a good idea and is something you should do without considering the possible consequences. If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to conf…

> If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm if you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying.

GP is suggesting that the people involved were clueless rubes who gave out their passwords to people of unknown identity, which I submit is almost certainly untrue.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#193

Post by TallGuyShort »

Joeboy wrote: post #192
TallGuyShort wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why this stigma against acknowledging that potential victims can (and would be wise to) take steps to protect themselves. Yes, dressing a certain way, drinking a lot of alcohol, and attending a party doesn't begin to excuse rape. But that doesn't mean it was a good idea and is something you should do without considering the possible consequences. If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to conf…

> If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm if you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying. GP is suggesting that the people involved were clueless rubes who gave out their passwords to people of unknown identity, which I submit is almost certainly untrue.

You're possibly right, but that is pretty much what the article says. Perhaps there was more of a trust established between the parties. Perhaps they were shown a list of compromised passwords and asked if any of their passwords appeared on the list. But pointing out that what the article actually says happened makes you an easy target is hardly uncalled for. I'm taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card. Bad security practice is bad security practice and pointing it out doesn't make you Hitler.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#194

Post by callinyouin »

ue_ wrote: post #162
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.

This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist, in favour of decentralised planning or to a lesser extent market Socialism. I'm not sure what to do about giving the vote to people; arguably democracy is very good, but I would rather have per-commune direct democracy (with instantly recallable delegates or without) rather than a representative democracy. In short, I want to do away with voting for masters, as it will be…

You're being downvoted on the basis of your ideology, which I imagine is somewhat unpopular here. Your posts are of otherwise good quality. It would be nice if people started a dialog instead of silently downvoting, but I guess that would take more effort...

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#195

Post by coldtea »

GordonS wrote: post #155
coldtea wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't work and never has; You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.

It certainly has worked in the past, but in more recent times in a western 'democracy'? On February the 15th 2003, millions of people marched against the Iraq war across around 800 cities - with possibly as many as 1 million in London alone. This made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally. What happened? We went to war.

That happens all the time in history too. There are thousands of failed demonstrations, protests, etc.

Demonstrations are not some guaranteed method that will always bend those in power: it's just one of the few methods that affect change and have in the past.

If demonstrations were all that it took every time, then the French wouldn't have to behead their king, and the Americans wouldn't have to fight a revolution.

It's also about how seriously those people mean it. Marching for a day is useless if you don't also change how you act politically, inform people, change your buying habits (e.g. boycott some company), vote differently, go on strike, etc.

Else, who cares if they protested? They just had their fun for a day and went back to watching their favorite TV series. They didn't even mean it that much themselves.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#196

Post by coldtea »

ue_ wrote: post #152
coldtea wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't work and never has; You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.

Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. A look at how protesting has worked in the past decades, with a few notable exceptions, will show you that protesting does little to alter the status quo.

>Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners.

Protesting is not just standing around with some banners. Demonstrations, strikes, occupations, etc. are all part of it, and have brought down many a government.

It's not about "conscience" -- except if we mean some tame gatherings where people stand quietly and hold some picket signs for a few hours and then go home.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#197

Post by halloij »

halloij wrote: post #109
orf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of cameras, sure, but so what? Can you elaborate why this is bad, in relation to how they are deployed and operated in London? I was involved with a long trial that relied heavily on CCTV evidence and I'm interested to read how you think they are operated or owned.

Americans would rather the freedom to get shot at in private...

* Privacy

* Safety

Pick one.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#198

Post by 52-6F-62 »

ue_ wrote: post #162
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.

This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist, in favour of decentralised planning or to a lesser extent market Socialism. I'm not sure what to do about giving the vote to people; arguably democracy is very good, but I would rather have per-commune direct democracy (with instantly recallable delegates or without) rather than a representative democracy. In short, I want to do away with voting for masters, as it will be…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the traditional nomenclature is anarcho-syndicalist. Or are you marking a difference in your beliefs from those. Am I just hung up on semantics, or are you espousing there will somehow be no competition between communes/factions without some central oversight body. I would wager that's highly unlikely.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#199

Post by zhte415 »

geofft wrote: post #163
dTal wrote: post #122

>The Bindmans LLP law firm, acting on behalf of Jones, contacted six of those listed to verify their passwords (the others could not be traced). In response, five of the six gave passwords that matched those given in the letter, and the sixth was nearly a match. Well jeez no wonder they were hacked if they're that easy to socially engineer. "Verify my password? That's funny, you're the third one this month..."

Hmm. Thinking realistically about threat model, a well-known law firm is obligated to behave ethically or will lose the ability to conduct business. If someone who can prove that they're from a reputable law firm - AND that they're acting on behalf of a former Deputy Mayor of London and current member of the House of Lords - comes to me and asks me for my email password with a good reason why they want it, it's not c…

Thinking realistically, the chance of a law firm asking for passwords, or any kind of personal information, would be a wise time to defer to legal council, compliance office, or whoever has expertise.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#200

Post by Joeboy »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #193
Joeboy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm if you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying. GP is suggesting that the people involved were clueless rubes who gave out their passwords to people of unknown identity, which I submit is almost certainly untrue.

You're possibly right, but that is pretty much what the article says. Perhaps there was more of a trust established between the parties. Perhaps they were shown a list of compromised passwords and asked if any of their passwords appeared on the list. But pointing out that what the article actually says happened makes you an easy target is hardly uncalled for. I'm taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card. Bad s…

> I'm taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card.

I also tend to gag slightly at the phrase "victim blaming", because I think it's a shibboleth that identifies your allegiances and shuts down critical thinking. But I don't actually think it's unwarranted here. Yes, the article says the people involved gave Bindmans their passwords. It also says those passwords were defunct, and that Bindmans had them anyway. It doesn't say that they didn't make reasonable efforts to verify that sharing the passwords was the right thing to do (which, as it turns out, it was). It's extremely ungenerous to respond to that by saying they deserved it for being so crap at security.

> Bad security practice is bad security practice and pointing it out doesn't make you Hitler.

I am willing to concede that it's unlikely anybody in this thread is Hitler.

Post reply on HN