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

CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#121

Post by gaius »

maxwell wrote: post #49
forgotusername wrote: post #11

Works for me. It puts me on edge that these idiots would pick such media-friendly targets to strafe with their clueless bandwidth wastage; not looking forward to the next round of "cyber security" laws one bit. "Hey dad, tell me just one more time about how when you were a kid you used to be able to make TCP connections freely and without the connection first being authorized by the NSA." "Go to sleep, son."

In the end, government is beholden to corporations. And corporations can't do without network freedom.

Ahem, who has all the guns and tanks and helicopter gunships in your country? I'll bet it's not the phone company. A corporation has 1% of 1% of the real power of any government.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#122

Post by baudehlo »

maxwell wrote: post #107
gasull wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be that they are not a false flag operation but the Government is going to take advantage of the media attention to "civilize Internet".

I hear this concern, but I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize". What would it mean exactly? Tighter regulation of domains, criminalization of encryption, tracking down and harshly sentencing crackers, forcing an "Internet ID", registering hardware? Any of these measures seems extraordinarily expensive. Maybe doable if the CIA drums up a War on Hacking, shifting attention away from the War o…

> I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize"

Nothing that would make anything better, and everything that would mean they have more powers.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#124

Post by hugh3 »

omouse wrote: post #101
hugh3 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh fab, another conspiracy theory wacko. I really thought HN needed some of them!

uh there's no conspiracy theory, what I say is in plain sight. Who benefits from the DMCA, PATRIOT ACT, TSA patdowns, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely not us who are in the middle class. I like the ad hominem though, keep it coming.

You are, nonetheless, attributing to malice what could easily be attributed to incompetence.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#125

Post by xutopia »

rbanffy wrote: post #91
zyfo wrote: post #24

The Jester, greyhat patriot who hacked Talibans' websites and forced Wikileaks to change their hosting, is now going after LulzSec. This is a lot more entertaining than TV: https://twitter.com/#!/th3j35t3r

A patriot sides with the people. A loyalist, with the government. In a couple years we may decide what he is. If, that is, we still care.

In a couple years we'll all be saying that 2 + 2 = 5.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#126

Post by omouse »

hugh3 wrote: post #124
omouse wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh there's no conspiracy theory, what I say is in plain sight. Who benefits from the DMCA, PATRIOT ACT, TSA patdowns, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely not us who are in the middle class. I like the ad hominem though, keep it coming.

You are, nonetheless, attributing to malice what could easily be attributed to incompetence.

After decades of this kind of stuff, you have to start attributing it to malice. I'm pretty young but even I know about the CALEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_L...) from 1994.

Seriously, at what point can we start attributing things to malice? Attributing such large things to incompetence is kinda scary; we're hiring or voting for morons. That doesn't frighten you?

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#127

Post by pavel_lishin »

omouse wrote: post #93
d0ne wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It isn't, there's no point in doing that, not to mention how illegal that would be. The US govt doesn't need any more scandals of this nature (wiretapping is enough I think)." Wiretapping scandal became public circa late 2005 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co... Random collection of additional federal political 'scandals' since 2005: 1) This goes from 2001 - 2008 so skip to 2006 - http:/…

You're right of course, but my main point is they don't need to do much in order to come up with an excuse to do something. I'm sure there are easier ways to get consent for locking down the internet than to create a false flag operation; just use something that already exists (copyright infringement, terrorism, porn, war on drugs, etc.)

They've tried all those things, and it's not moving along as fast as they'd like.

Since when has the government decided what to do based on need?

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#128

Post by jbooth »

hugh3 wrote: post #124
omouse wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh there's no conspiracy theory, what I say is in plain sight. Who benefits from the DMCA, PATRIOT ACT, TSA patdowns, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely not us who are in the middle class. I like the ad hominem though, keep it coming.

You are, nonetheless, attributing to malice what could easily be attributed to incompetence.

You ever hear the one about how you can't possibly make someone understand something if his job depends on not understanding it?

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#130

Post by dreamdu5t »

dmix wrote: post #68
dreamdu5t wrote: post #61

Enough with the "cyber security" law conspiracy. Do I need to remind people that these laws are voted on by your elected representatives? The patriot act is a result of democracy. Don't want cyber security laws? Start by educating people and voting for people who don't want cyber security laws.

While I agree with some of your setiments, this is a very strawman/ranty type of comment.

Strawman? My points are completely factual.

Where is the evidence of this false-flag operation? There is none. Why would congress need to conduct such a false-flag operation when they wouldn't have much trouble passing such a law regardless?

Post reply on HN