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

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#161

Post by jackpirate » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:07 PM UTC

Legion wrote: post #148

Terretta wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anything that US has done other countries have done too So that's okay, then.

Obviously not, but while no state is completely innocent of bad behavior, there are wildly varying degrees to which they are guilty of it. Comparing specific and often short-lived times in the US's history to the permanent, ongoing status quo of other nations is hardly an equitable comparison. That said, I agree that the US, by its founding principles as well as its international status (both earned and self-appointe…

The US's transgressions were much longer lived (e.g. butality against Indians for 100s of years) than the DPRK's, which has only existed for ~60 years. Furthermore, the US's have had much more influence on many more people.

Notwithstanding, I'll bet the real reason is that the DPRK hasn't been actively trying to stop Anonymous and the US gov has.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#162

Post by jackpirate » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:09 PM UTC

innes wrote: post #137

mquander wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really come as a shock that people prefer to protest the powers that are oppressing them and their friends, rather than the powers that are oppressing someone else on the other side of the planet?

No, the problem of misdirected anger is unsurprising. And it's especially predictable with groups such as Anonymous who in their writings come off as pompous, childish, self-centred, and self-aggrandizing. Not the kind of traits that correlate with empathising with people on the other side of the planet. Their strategy (setting aside the more base stuff that is just bullying and focussing on their attempts to appear…

No, the problem of misdirected anger is unsurprising.

To be clear, the gp is describing correctly directed anger, so the rest of your post addresses a different (although also important) issue.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#163

Post by tshs33 » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:12 PM UTC

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #119

nathanb wrote: post #71

"it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts" This is quite the hypocritical statement coming from the FBI. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Anonymous, Lulzsec, and the FBI is that the FBI act by executive fiat. I don't support Internet vigilanteism, but I also don't support the concept of the FBI as an untouchable force who are no longer held accountable by the public…

Well said. There is no difference between what Lulzsec and Anonymous do, compared with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. None at all. In fact, the FBI did more damage.

FBI did not break any federal laws.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#164

Post by tshs33 » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:16 PM UTC

mquander wrote: post #129

jxcole wrote: post #125

Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government (and related rich democratic countries) when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive? Nothing the US has ever done, even at it's most oppressive, could ever compare to what North Korea does to it's own citizen's on a regular basis. I would probably be much more sympathetic towards their cause if they focused m…

Does it really come as a shock that people prefer to protest the powers that are oppressing them and their friends, rather than the powers that are oppressing someone else on the other side of the planet?

How is the U.S. government specifically opressing them?

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#165

Post by TheCondor » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:21 PM UTC

bluedanieru wrote: post #86

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.

What were the goals?

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#166

Post by tshs33 » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:21 PM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #131

jxcole wrote: post #125

Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government (and related rich democratic countries) when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive? Nothing the US has ever done, even at it's most oppressive, could ever compare to what North Korea does to it's own citizen's on a regular basis. I would probably be much more sympathetic towards their cause if they focused m…

So, as long as there is some other country in the world that is more oppressive than the U.S., we shouldn't be addressing our own issues at home? That's not a good recipe.

What specific issues do you have that can't be taken to your local congressman/woman? We have them for a reason.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#167

Post by jackpirate » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:28 PM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #158

jackpirate wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks/Anon/Lulzsec will have no effect on the DPRK. I think they would actually have a very detrimental effect. In the US, we routinely blame the governments of China and Russia for hacks that could easily be perpetuated by high schoolers who live there. No doubt, DPRK would blame our official institutions, giving them much more legitimacy (at least internally, but probably internationally too) when they claim th…

The world IS out to get the DPRK. They just propose different reasons then we do, apparently we don't like their freedoms and are terrified of the Juche idea. We say we don't like them because they execute minors, the mentally retarded, start wars, proliferate nuclear weapons, maintain torture camps, and jail large amounts of their populations for personal choice issues, and refuse to sign simple treaties like land m…

Tangent warning:

The most successful satire is indistinguishable from the real thing. Either way, I tip my hat.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#168

Post by wnight » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

gdcbyers wrote: post #115

burgerbrain wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome Among other things.

Please clarify this statement. Are you suggesting that my distain for LulzSec and its methods are some how the result of brain washing or extreme trama? And if "We the people" are the Sheriff in this little Robin Hood adventure, who are the poor villagers Robin is trying to help? What a ridiculous reply. Or are we just naming random psychological phenomenon? If thats the case, I choose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr…

> Are you suggesting that my distain for LulzSec and its methods are some how the result of brain washing or extreme trama?

Yes. Absolutely.

If such an organization did not exist, such that you weren't conditioned to accept their abuses, you would be appropriately horrified to hear about the abuses that are currently being committed.

By exposing you to ridiculous premises like a color-coded terror threat level and lies like Iraqi nuclear programs, terror connections, etc, you've been conditioned to think you need an abusive security apparatus. You're so intentionally self-deluded about the nature of the world that you can't understand who's stepping on your neck.

Whatever good our security apparatus may have originally been created to do they are now unacceptably corrupted in that they refuse civilian oversight ever where obvious crimes have been committed from within their ranks. That you fixate on minor website inconvenience to these organizations ("vandalism") while ignoring the scale of the injustices going on shows you're hardly able to even think ill of these organizations.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#169

Post by slowpoke » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

jxcole wrote: post #125

Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government (and related rich democratic countries) when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive? Nothing the US has ever done, even at it's most oppressive, could ever compare to what North Korea does to it's own citizen's on a regular basis. I would probably be much more sympathetic towards their cause if they focused m…

Would you tell someone who fights, for example, poverty in the US that he or she could instead be focusing on fighting poverty in development countries?

It's just trying to shift the blame by pointing out another problem. This doesn't make the problem at hand (growing oppression in western countries) magically go away.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#170

Post by peterwwillis » Thu, Jul 21, 2011, 7:56 PM UTC

hack_edu wrote: post #34

peterwwillis wrote: post #14

What are they gonna do when every govt/corporate website starts sanitizing its webapps' input and patching its network services? All they'll be able to do is DoS. Wouldn't it be funny if the FBI & associated agencies actually worked to increase the security of the nation's networks instead of acting surprised every time they get penetrated?

A significant goal of the movement is to bring to light just how insecure systems can be, and to not trust those who fail to protect. And to claim all they could do then is to DoS is the same BS write-off that you hear around here everyday, which is also disproven daily. Nothing is ever that secure. But do you really think all this will cause govts/corporations the get more serious about security? Why now and not a d…

No, sorry, that's bullshit. AntiSec is a movement against the computer security industry. They want everything to be insecure.

And it's not a write-off... they literally have no skills. Only idiots would start a campaign like the one they have and continue to shift their ideology to support whatever bullshit deface they've done now. They pick whatever low hanging fruit has a .gov, .mil or corporate presence, or take requests from twitter and hit whoever seems the funniest. It's a joke. It's Lulz.

No, I don't think it'll actually cause people to secure stuff more. Maybe if enough confidential customer information leaks the govt will finally pass another bullshit SOX-like law to try and improve things, and fail horribly. But it would be nice if it did.