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

Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 251 posts

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#221

Post by gasull »

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…

> Anonymous (...) could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive?

Anonymous has been involved in attacking Government websites from Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Siria, etc. Lulzsec has attacked also AlQaeda sites.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#222

Post by burgerbrain »

gdcbyers wrote: post #219
burgerbrain wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you?" Yes. Does that bother you? Because I don't care.

Well, I think that about sums things up. burgerbrain doesn't "give a shit" about your rights, only his own! But we should still respect his option for some reason I can't think of right now.

Oh whoa is you. I don't respect the rights of multinational corporations. The horror!

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#223

Post by gdcbyers »

burgerbrain wrote: post #222
gdcbyers wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think that about sums things up. burgerbrain doesn't "give a shit" about your rights, only his own! But we should still respect his option for some reason I can't think of right now.

Oh whoa is you. I don't respect the rights of multinational corporations. The horror!

I'm not talking about multinational corporations! I'm talking about the people, individuals that did nothing more sinister then reuse a password, who's personal information was released without their consent.

Whoa is everyone except you, who's rights you scoff at.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#224

Post by burgerbrain »

gdcbyers wrote: post #223
burgerbrain wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh whoa is you. I don't respect the rights of multinational corporations. The horror!

I'm not talking about multinational corporations! I'm talking about the people, individuals that did nothing more sinister then reuse a password, who's personal information was released without their consent. Whoa is everyone except you, who's rights you scoff at.

Cry me a river.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#225

Post by thehotdon »

jackpirate wrote: post #191
nathanb wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, that's the definition of hypocrisy. They pretend to be acting from a moral (or at least societal) high ground and roundly condemn the actions of anonymous. However, both are engaging in the exact same behavior. Now that's hypocritical!

The FBI doesn't normally, and it is not their purpose to engage in the exact same behavior. 95% of the time, they act within bounds I suspect you agree with. I wouldn't consider the 95% hypocrites, only the 5%, and so I can't call the whole agency hypocritical, only parts.

Are you allowed to break into other people's property and use weapons to enforce your own system of rules on them? Nope.

Are you allowed to lock people in a cage for decades because they do something you disagree with? Of course not.

Is the FBI allowed to do this? Well, yes, but only because they're special and you have to do what they say, not what they do. Now what's this word hypocrite you speak of?

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#226

Post by gdcbyers »

burgerbrain wrote: post #224
gdcbyers wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about multinational corporations! I'm talking about the people, individuals that did nothing more sinister then reuse a password, who's personal information was released without their consent. Whoa is everyone except you, who's rights you scoff at.

Cry me a river.

And this has stopped being a mature conversation. Have a nice day.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#228

Post by biturd »

brown9-2 wrote: post #149
AndyJPartridge wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. Has it been proven that this is what happened?

It hasn't been unproven either. At least the antisec keeps up posted with full transparency as they go.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#229

Post by AndyJPartridge »

brown9-2 wrote: post #149
AndyJPartridge wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. Has it been proven that this is what happened?

Having looked back, it seems the Instapaper blog has been redacted. But I ask the questions:

Has it been proved the equipment was fairly taken?

I thought over the Atlantic pond it was "Innocent until proven guilty." It seems guilt was assumed and equipment taken.

No trial.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#230

Post by parfe »

tshs33 wrote: post #160
rdtsc wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does Anonymous focus so much on attacking the US government ... when it could instead be focused on fighting the governments that are actually oppressive? You probably didn't, but I think many people will see an obvious contradiction in that statement. > Nothing the US has ever done, even at it's most oppressive However North Korea is not advertising itself around the world and taken seriously as a bastion of f…

Reading your comment is just depressing and is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger effect. I have a PhD in economics. No other country has been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than the U.S. For instance, China and India are eradicating poverty at record levels because of the open borders for trade with the U.S. The Four Asian Tigers became developed nations primarily through trade with the U.S. I…

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#...

Hm, I see a dip caused by the Iran-Iraq war. Who made and sold the guns to the Iranians? I'm not sure! Then in 1991 something seems to have gone wrong. I think it was something about the US ambassador shrugging at Iraq when Iraq asked permission to stop Kuwait's slant drilling. Hm, then a massive dip followed, not sure who caused that.

But luckily the US showed up and stopped whatever evil world super power was suppressing the Iraqi economy! And just look how well off they were after the US got involved for the first time in 2003.

We boosted their GDP to $65 billion! Which seems a bit low considering we've literally lost $12 billion shipped into Iraq on pallets. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

All hail the economics PHD and his Jolly Green Giant.

And oh hey, let's talk about death rate! http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&c=us&#3...

Hm, that stat seems to say that it's safer in Iraq than the United States. Perhaps you want to pick a more specific stat to mention?

Post reply on HN