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

181–190 of 251 posts

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#181

Post by nextparadigms »

Anonymous and Lulzsec are more like 21st century revolutionaries, on a global scale. Revolutionaries are always seen as the enemy by the Government. So it's no surprise that the US Government wants to declare war against them and wants to catch them.

If they win, then the Government changes, and the whole society changes after that. If they lose, they end up dead or in jail for whatever crimes the Government said they committed (and if there isn't a crime they can use, they'll make a new law for it like they tried with the SHIELD bill against whistleblowers)

The hacktivists aren't doing any real damage to society, and in fact they may actually end up helping it a lot, in the same way Wikileaks changed some things for the better, and they were also hunted down by Governments.

The real damage they are doing is to the people in power, and those people will fight to keep things the same and get away with their own crimes against the people they should represent.

I think we'll experience major changes in the way our democracies work by the end of this decade. For the fast times we live in, and real time information and feedback, we can only give some feedback once every 4 years, and it's usually just 2 choices: the one that has been in power, and another one. Politicians need to become a lot more accountable, and our feedback should be a lot more direct and often than once every 4 years through the voting of a party or a president.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#182

Post by nathanb »

roc wrote: post #93
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…

> "At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary." There will always be scofflaws and pranksters. Indeed for our way of life to be assured, they must be able to exist. The ever-growing reach of the military-espionage-industrial complex is the only real threat.

The scary part isn't that scofflaws and pranksters exist, which (as you say) is practically inevitable. But what if we as a society may some day depend on them to preserve our freedom?

Viewing my world in terms of black and white has always been more of a comforting illusion than a reasonable approximation of reality. I realize this. But either these self-styled hacktivists are rationalizing their hooliganism with noble-sounding platitudes or they honestly believe that their way is the best way to fight against corporate corruption and government abuse of its own constituents.

If the former, it's becoming less obvious. And the latter is a frightening thought indeed. One day I might have to choose between a government agency whose actions have transcended public accountability (as in the Instapaper raid), corporations who will gladly sacrifice me on the altar of their own convenience (as in the Peter Adekeye case), or a capricious band of anonymous malcontents who might fight for my rights or might hold me up to public mockery and exploitation "for the lulz".

But what really scares me is that the choice will be made for me.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#184

Post by nathanb »

jackpirate wrote: post #155
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…

Unfortunately, their definition of "lawful" is that the FBI is doing it. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to call this hypocritical. The FBI at least pretends to have a morally reasonable agenda for its actions.

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!

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#185

Post by Bud »

jackpirate wrote: post #155
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…

Unfortunately, their definition of "lawful" is that the FBI is doing it. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to call this hypocritical. The FBI at least pretends to have a morally reasonable agenda for its actions.

Aren't you missing something here? LulzSec also claims to have a morally reasonable agenda. Indeed, LulzSec claims to be entirely in the right, morally speaking. Now, reasonable folks can disagree about whether they are actually in the right, but it's false to claim that they are not "pretending" or claiming to have a morally reasonable agenda. They are, quite clearly, making that claim.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#186

Post by fleitz »

jackpirate wrote: post #167
fleitz wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most frightening is how the DPRK regards their neighbors to the south and how they have militarized their border to prevent the free flow of people.

To start a war with another country, draw a line in the sand, militarize it and then imprison people because they want cross a line in the sand to be repatriated with their families is the mark of a very totalitarian regime. If it weren't for their military I don't think anyone would put up with this kind of behavior. The really cruel thing is that their people are impoverished by their military spending and then told that there isn't enough money for basic medical care. Even sadder than that is that what little is left after military spending is spent to fund the lavish lifestyle of the politically well connected in a futile attempt to make some pretense that their economy has not failed the vast majority of their populace.

What kind of country would buy more tanks while their vetrans, women, and children are left homeless?

What the world is proposing, namely that the DPRK stop spending so much on their military and take care of their people is really rather modest.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#187

Post by sofal »

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…

Reading your comment is just depressing and is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger effect. I have a PhD in economics.

Is this supposed to say anything other than "you're stupid and I'm smart"? I would just say it that way. It takes fewer words and is more direct.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#188

Post by hankry »

ddw wrote: post #98
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…

Even if Lulzsec gets some of your data, they aren't going to create a huge database of it. The FBI on the other hand...

why wouldn't they?

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#189

Post by jackpirate »

fleitz wrote: post #186
jackpirate wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most frightening is how the DPRK regards their neighbors to the south and how they have militarized their border to prevent the free flow of people. To start a war with another country, draw a line in the sand, militarize it and then imprison people because they want cross a line in the sand to be repatriated with their families is the mark of a very totalitarian regime. If it weren't for their military I don't think…

This would make a brilliant speech at a Tea Party rally. Any more juice?

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#190

Post by fleitz »

jackpirate wrote: post #189
fleitz wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most frightening is how the DPRK regards their neighbors to the south and how they have militarized their border to prevent the free flow of people. To start a war with another country, draw a line in the sand, militarize it and then imprison people because they want cross a line in the sand to be repatriated with their families is the mark of a very totalitarian regime. If it weren't for their military I don't think…

This would make a brilliant speech at a Tea Party rally. Any more juice?

We could talk about how the DPRK uses its military against its people (college kids and religious sects), or uses it's vast prison complex as a labour pool. I've been told that some prisoners are being forced to labour to build new prisons and that companies in the DPRK can requisition workers from the prison pool to work for the companies and if they protest they will have their sentences extended.

Apparently Dear Leader has also requested that the courts start handing out even harsher sentences even though the DPRK leads the world in it's incarceration rate, rather than look to more progressive models such as in Europe that drastically reduce recivitism by treating convicts as people. I've even heard that even though you only have one candidate to vote for in the elections that you can still be stripped of this right if convicted of a crime, leading to a situation where vast swaths of the population cannot even participate in the ostensibly democratic process of the country.

Lets not even talk about the repressive system the DPRK uses to keep basic medicine out of the hands of those who need it. If you manage to afford medicine, you're not quite of of hock yet, even if you have a prescription you can still be jailed for drug offenses and aren't allowed to present the fact that you had a prescription at trial.

I've heard in their school system even in elementary school before the children have a chance to develop free thought that they must make group devotions to dear leader.

http://abytesgen01.securesites.net/ryan_murdock/2009/11/insi...

Apparently if you give up your citizenship you're never allowed to return to the country under penalty of law.

CCR said it best though: 5 year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains.

Post reply on HN