[deleted]
3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
11–20 of 145 posts
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#12[deleted]
Maybe he's using a pseudonym and Tor? It's easy enough to publish anonymously on the Internet...
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#13[deleted]
Its not the actual emails, rather a prediction that the emails will be released.
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#14Yeah, nobody messes with Doctors Without Borders.
In any case, I expect the emails to be a lot of subscriber list maintenance, back issues, UNSUBSCRIBE messages, maybe PDFs of scans of material that was either public at the time or became public since, that were sent in by contacts or sources.
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#15900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. To release the emails of private individuals and firms without any a priori evidence that they have committed any sort of crime is distasteful to me. It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. And its unethical in this case as well, regardless of whether…
It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. It would be educational if ordinary citizens expected their communications to be completely private without taking reasonable measure to assure same. This is a great lesson in security. I supported the wikileaks 'collateral damage' video leak, bec…
Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#16900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. To release the emails of private individuals and firms without any a priori evidence that they have committed any sort of crime is distasteful to me. It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. And its unethical in this case as well, regardless of whether…
And, it's the reason governments will clamp down and regulate the internet more and more. This is why we can't have nice things.
Hacking is already illegal. What could governments have done to prevent this?
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. It would be educational if ordinary citizens expected their communications to be completely private without taking reasonable measure to assure same. This is a great lesson in security. I supported the wikileaks 'collateral damage' video leak, bec…
Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?
> It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers.
My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read my mail regardless of whether I locked the door that morning or not.
I'm not losing any sleep over this particular leak, just saying, what I quoted is probably their beef.
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#18900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. To release the emails of private individuals and firms without any a priori evidence that they have committed any sort of crime is distasteful to me. It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. And its unethical in this case as well, regardless of whether…
It seems the same argument you're making about it being distasteful to release the emails without any a priori evidence of wrongdoing could have been applied to the HBGary Federal incident, although Anonymous was provoked in that case since Aaron Barr claimed to be able to expose the "leaders" of the movement.
Was it distasteful to leak the 44,000 emails acquired? If so, was the important information gleaned from the emails exposing all manner of shady dealings in the white hat industry[1] not enough to vindicate the attacks?
[1]http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/22340513034/leaked...
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. It would be educational if ordinary citizens expected their communications to be completely private without taking reasonable measure to assure same. This is a great lesson in security. I supported the wikileaks 'collateral damage' video leak, bec…
Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?
The post was clear that they did not do this to prove the security flaws. They did it because they believe this information should be made public for the good of the public.
Nearly everyone in this forum opposes SOPA's attempt to shut down websites without a trial. Effectively subpoenaing private communication between suspected criminals without a court order and making those emails public requires much the same infringement of basic rights.
So you have to ask yourself, "Do I approve of private citizens and organizations taking actions such as these if they believe they're helping fight crime?" And then ask yourself whether you're talking about the release of these emails, or SOPA.
Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?
> It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read my mail regardless of whether I locked the door that morning or not. I'm not losing any sleep over this particular leak, just saying, what I quoted is probably their beef.
I mean, that's an interesting question, right?
I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If I burned your letter, I've absolutely committed a wrong, but I didn't do that.
If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't view this as a valid moral claim.