Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI • Hacker News Board

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#81

Post by Schultzy » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:34 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #43

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Let's see, "Make impassioned speech then go break into the neighbor's house and scatter his secret documents all over the lawn" That makes a lot of sense now, doesn't it? Perhaps if you're seven. And drunk. Aside from the validity of the charges, this manner of social justice never ever works for the people who try it. Good grief, did we learn nothing from Ghandi or MLK Jr.? There's a perfectly legitimate and effecti…

>In short, the minute I start deciding on my own when to break the law and disrespect other people's property rights because of a cause -- even a legitimate cause -- I become an enemy of everybody. ' [...] at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types…

>"How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.

The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no universally accepted, objective standard of what defines a just and unjust law. Do we make those decisions based on Natural Law? How about on the teachings of Mohammed? Jesus? etc.

Making statements about the moral justice of a government's laws has to appeal to some higher moral standard and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of unity in that realm of the discussion. So what you consider to be a "just law" another might believe to be unjust, because their moral presuppositions are completely different.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#82

Post by nerfhammer » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:39 PM UTC

badclient wrote: post #62

darksaga wrote: post #40

I wonder if they'll ever understand the people they're trying to protect are actually the victims in their actions. They hack Sony. Sony loses millions. How do you think they're going to recapture their loses? By passing the loss onto consumers. Increased prices for TV's, games, anything Sony makes is going to increase in price to recoup their loses. Clearly they haven't thought this all the way through.

Only of you believe myriad of attacks such as the Boston Tea Party were not well thought out. In the short-term, they may have a negative impact on the general population. But the goal by many such actions is very longterm and seemingly worth the temporary raise in price etc. in the eyes of the protestors.

Why do they get to decide what's a good tradeoff for the general population?

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#83

Post by rauljara » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:47 PM UTC

I think there is room for illegal activities in the name of a free and open society. If this is truly the author's goal, however, they need to stop associating with LulzSec.

There was nothing noble about 9/10's of the crap lulzsec did, and the somewhat decent stuff they did was undercut by the whole "for the lulz" philosophy. If you really are fighting for freedom, you need to be better than DDS'ing game servers, because if you aren't the people who you are opposed to will use that shit against you. Like the FBI is doing now.

I won't shed a tear if the Lulzsec folk get put away. I will be quite upset if Lulzsec turns the public against those who would do the modern day equivalent of releasing the pentagon papers.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#84

Post by badclient » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:48 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #82

badclient wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only of you believe myriad of attacks such as the Boston Tea Party were not well thought out. In the short-term, they may have a negative impact on the general population. But the goal by many such actions is very longterm and seemingly worth the temporary raise in price etc. in the eyes of the protestors.

Why do they get to decide what's a good tradeoff for the general population?

They don't, which is why they are often arrested.

They are given permission by society retroactively after the events have transpired and the ends justify the means.

And when they are not given permission because they could not justify the actions, they are further punished just as any unlawful person would be.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#85

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:49 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#86

Post by bluedanieru » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:50 PM UTC

darksaga wrote: post #40

I wonder if they'll ever understand the people they're trying to protect are actually the victims in their actions. They hack Sony. Sony loses millions. How do you think they're going to recapture their loses? By passing the loss onto consumers. Increased prices for TV's, games, anything Sony makes is going to increase in price to recoup their loses. Clearly they haven't thought this all the way through.

I fail to see how forcing Sony to raise their prices or take less in profits doesn't achieve their goals? It isn't like you're forced to buy only Sony's already over-priced and poorly-built shit.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#87

Post by knowtheory » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:52 PM UTC

flocial wrote: post #29

The Lulzsec crew and Wiki Leaks strikes a nerve like modern day Robin Hoods. It makes you wonder if those of us in wealthy democracies are actually experiencing a peculiarly 21st century form of passive aggressive oppression where we may be "free" but monitored and essentially feel helpless and the fact that these unknown hackers are able to duck and evade the same forces that can hunt and kill terrorists with disreg…

I view them as more akin to the anti-war and anti-establishment groups formed in the 60s and 70s. The difference these days is that you don't need to blow anything up to get people's attention. There aren't proxy targets.

You can directly target the org that you disagree, crack their db/site, release, or even just sit on, their info, and get epic press attention.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#88

Post by muuh-gnu » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:54 PM UTC

smokinjoe wrote: post #30

ddw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm racking my brain to think of a way to make a government "listen." Nope, can't think of any.

Vote intelligently.

What if the election mechanism has been (psychologically) engineered in a way to make real change as difficult as possible and where the only possible changes are pre-scripted like a video game to the benefit of whoever is at the top at the moment?

Your "intelligent" vote is worthless if only a small, insignificant number of people are intellectually able to vote intelligently. The hurdles for making change should be low enough to be not only theoretically, but also practically possible.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#89

Post by gdcbyers » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:54 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #74

sigzero wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are in no way "modern day Robin Hoods". Hoodlums maybe.

The Sheriff of Nottingham surely thought Robin Hood was a hoodlum too.

Except we aren't the sheriff in this scenario. We are the people Robin Hood is trying to help. And I say petty thuggery and vandalism aren't helping.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#90

Post by Shenglong » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 3:55 PM UTC

This is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't agree with a lot of the things that various government organizations are allegedly doing either. However, I also understand that I probably don't have all the facts. I also know that even if I had all the facts, I would probably not commit much time to analyzing all of them, in order to make a sound decision on the best course of action. Why don't other people realize this?

We leave the economics to the economists, the physics to the physicists, and the medicine to the doctors. There are people--incompetent or not--who spend their entire lives dealing with government/country related issues. Yes, some of them might be corrupt, but are we naive enough to believe that an entire country is corrupt? Who are we to judge corruption, and what sources of information do we really have?

At one point or another, this argument for civil liberties gets repetitive and overblown. No one I know has ever felt like their freedoms were at stake, and the few government mistakes that the media captures should not be precedence to act against them. I make mistakes, you make mistakes - everyone makes mistakes. Hacking into their servers, getting people fired (and therefore replacing them with less experienced people), and leaking sensitive information so the uneducated public can get their opinions in, is -NOT- going to solve anything. At all. Ever.

Edit: Edited out a preface - wasn't aware. Sorry.