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

CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#111

Post by alex_c »

madmaze wrote: post #53
maxwell wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end, government is beholden to corporations. And corporations can't do without network freedom.

depends on which corporations you ask, Comcast would love to be able to sell you just certain websites in a package deal. Starter package, including Fox, CNN and Comcast.com, for 30$/mo next step up is the premium package including Facebook and twitter for 60$/mo.. but if you want YouTube and Netflix you need the platinum package for 120$/mo. I really hope that scenario never happens, but if we get more Lulzsec like…

While I strongly dislike telecoms, what you're describing is pretty much the opposite of a highly regulated Internet.

I suspect telecoms would actually oppose most forms of regulation a government may be interested in, not out of any desire to protect their customers, but simply because it would decrease profits.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#112

Post by scarmig »

gasull wrote: post #59
forgotusername wrote: post #11

Works for me. It puts me on edge that these idiots would pick such media-friendly targets to strafe with their clueless bandwidth wastage; not looking forward to the next round of "cyber security" laws one bit. "Hey dad, tell me just one more time about how when you were a kid you used to be able to make TCP connections freely and without the connection first being authorized by the NSA." "Go to sleep, son."

I'm wondering if LulzSec is a false flag operation very well engineered.

I've been hearing this a lot.

Is there any evidence at all, though, that it's a false flag operation? So far as I can tell, the argument is implicitly "It's impossible for anyone in the world to be anywhere near as stupid as LulzSec appears to be, so it has to be a government plant." Unfortunately, that runs afoul of the maxim to never underestimate the depths of human stupidity...

Or is this more said in jest, a way of just pointing out that the script kiddies behind LulzSec are really, really stupid and doing something that threatens to undermine a free and open Internet?

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#113

Post by jvanenk »

omouse wrote: post #76
gasull wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if LulzSec is a false flag operation very well engineered.

It isn't, there's no point in doing that, not to mention how illegal that would be. The US govt doesn't need any more scandals of this nature (wiretapping is enough I think). Also, whenever a government really wants to do something, they'll use any excuse that's available. For example; PATRIOT ACT, DMCA, Iraq Wars, etc. etc. For cyber-security, if none of this Anon or LulzSec stuff happened, it would be Russian or Ch…

here's a thought: perhaps the fact that LulzSec is perpetrating this stuff rather than scarier alternatives like China or Russia will point out the absurdity of the situation rather than forcing heavy-handed legislation.

headlines like 'witty 19 year old college student breaks into CIA' is a lot less scary to the general public than 'chinese hackers exploit CIA website'.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#114

Post by BasDirks »

forgotusername wrote: post #11

Works for me. It puts me on edge that these idiots would pick such media-friendly targets to strafe with their clueless bandwidth wastage; not looking forward to the next round of "cyber security" laws one bit. "Hey dad, tell me just one more time about how when you were a kid you used to be able to make TCP connections freely and without the connection first being authorized by the NSA." "Go to sleep, son."

Such regulations will make the government fair game even for more ethical hackers.*

* I do not condone this course of events, just a prediction.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#115

Post by wlievens »

RobAtticus wrote: post #72
zyfo wrote: post #24

The Jester, greyhat patriot who hacked Talibans' websites and forced Wikileaks to change their hosting, is now going after LulzSec. This is a lot more entertaining than TV: https://twitter.com/#!/th3j35t3r

Just a note, he also had the Westboro Baptist Church's websites down for about 2 months (Feb-April of this year).

Everyone hates WBC, news at 11? Glad to see there's something everyone on any spectrum manages to agree on.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#116

Post by danparsonson »

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #30
AndyJPartridge wrote: post #13

Off topic, sorry, but not sure where I'd ask this. I posted this news 15 minutes before this submission. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659263 Can someone explain to this newbie why mine disappeared so quickly, but this stayed? I don't have a problem at all, I just wish to understand the system thanks.

Thanks all for taking the time to clear that up for me.

On a related side note, if two people submit the same URL, the second (and subsequent) submissions just up-vote the first.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#117

Post by arethuza »

maxwell wrote: post #107
gasull wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be that they are not a false flag operation but the Government is going to take advantage of the media attention to "civilize Internet".

I hear this concern, but I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize". What would it mean exactly? Tighter regulation of domains, criminalization of encryption, tracking down and harshly sentencing crackers, forcing an "Internet ID", registering hardware? Any of these measures seems extraordinarily expensive. Maybe doable if the CIA drums up a War on Hacking, shifting attention away from the War o…

In Vernor Vinge's novel Rainbows End governments have done pretty much what you describe - running any kind of computing device that isn't part of their "secured" infrastructure is illegal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End

Note: one of the many interesting things about the book is that it creates a scenario where this kind of control is very much a grey area.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#119

Post by lolcraft »

alex_c wrote: post #111
madmaze wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on which corporations you ask, Comcast would love to be able to sell you just certain websites in a package deal. Starter package, including Fox, CNN and Comcast.com, for 30$/mo next step up is the premium package including Facebook and twitter for 60$/mo.. but if you want YouTube and Netflix you need the platinum package for 120$/mo. I really hope that scenario never happens, but if we get more Lulzsec like…

While I strongly dislike telecoms, what you're describing is pretty much the opposite of a highly regulated Internet. I suspect telecoms would actually oppose most forms of regulation a government may be interested in, not out of any desire to protect their customers, but simply because it would decrease profits.

It's still a form of regulation, highly or otherwise.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#120

Post by yters »

forgotusername wrote: post #11

Works for me. It puts me on edge that these idiots would pick such media-friendly targets to strafe with their clueless bandwidth wastage; not looking forward to the next round of "cyber security" laws one bit. "Hey dad, tell me just one more time about how when you were a kid you used to be able to make TCP connections freely and without the connection first being authorized by the NSA." "Go to sleep, son."

Yeah, past couple years have not been good at making the case for a free internet. Rampant hacking, information leaks such as WikiLeaks and attacks on infrastructure like Stuxnet. The more we move towards network centric warfare the less the government will want to leave the internet free and open.

What happens when 11 year olds can Metasploit a predator drone and drop a Hellfire on their school?

Post reply on HN