21–30 of 145 posts
Earlier 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?
There is no best case scenario from releasing this data. The point that even security companies can't guarantee security has been made, all that releasing the data can do is turn public sentiment against Antisec and towards "whatever it takes to stop this kind of thing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 infr…
900 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…
You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense.
At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it."
And this, for me, is one of them.
Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship.
If that's the case, if these people exist outside of due process, what's left?
This, I guess.
There are lot of communications in this bundle that are probably pretty mundane, sent and received by people who show up for jury duty and take traffic school when they run a red light. And it sucks that they've lost their privacy on this.
On the other hand, because of Strafor's mission, you can be almost certain that a handful of messages will reveal information where disclosing it is emphatically a public good. Will we find wrongdoing? Downright illegality? I'm not sure.
But I am pretty sure that actions like this are the last reasonably potent check on power we have left.
900 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…
900 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…
Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if t…
900 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…
Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if t…
The dissemination of information? What's wrong with that?
900 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…
2) An another Anonymous group says it's not them and they don't support it because Stratfor doesn't appear bad
3) That same other Anonymous group also warned that these are probably hacker [agent] provocateurs because it may just as well expose honest people who are exposing problems to Stratfor. The original aim was to expose the crimes of the government(s) and corporations by looking at the exchanges between contacts.
4) I tend to agree with you.