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

211–220 of 251 posts

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#211

Post by munin »

peterwwillis wrote: post #170
hack_edu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant goal of the movement is to bring to light just how insecure systems can be, and to not trust those who fail to protect. And to claim all they could do then is to DoS is the same BS write-off that you hear around here everyday, which is also disproven daily. Nothing is ever that secure. But do you really think all this will cause govts/corporations the get more serious about security? Why now and not a d…

No, sorry, that's bullshit. AntiSec is a movement against the computer security industry . They want everything to be insecure. And it's not a write-off... they literally have no skills. Only idiots would start a campaign like the one they have and continue to shift their ideology to support whatever bullshit deface they've done now. They pick whatever low hanging fruit has a .gov, .mil or corporate presence, or take…

they don't want things to be insecure, they want the computer security industry to stop being bullshit.

the true irony of course is that all the flailings of the antisec movement will result in is greater revenues for the same computer security industry they hate.

hacktivism isn't working.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#212

Post by GHFigs »

dwilson718 wrote: post #122

I'm sure most of the people here missed the fact that this is a wake-up call. its meant to make people THINK long and hard about the real issues at hand. I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a lot of critical thinking going on. It's this reason I support these groups.

I see the exact opposite. I see a call to stop thinking and align yourself with an ideology. e.g,

"Your threats to arrest us are meaningless to us as you cannot arrest an idea. Any attempt to do so will make your citizens more angry until they will roar in one gigantic choir."

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_true_believer

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#213

Post by ImprovedSilence »

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…

I think that the FBI isn't really the overblown privacy killing big govt overlords that this lil anon skirmish seems to paint them as. The FBI, for the most part, do a mighty fine job of enforcing the law and keeping the peace. Also the FBI operates largely on a case by case basis, they are not an intelligence or defense agency, they are in the justice department.

I think the orwellian big govt agency these hacker guys seem to base their doctrine against is the NSA. The 'we can listen to any phone call on the planet, imprison our whistle blowers, collect every bit of data on everybody, consume 1/4 of the power of the baltimore metro area for our data centers, have projects so secret you didnt know you didnt know about' NSA. Either anon knows this, and know they stand NO chance hacking the NSA, or theyve been misguided on who to target. my vote is a bit of both... I'm not gonna give you sources on this, but there is plenty of legitimate and credible reading out there to satidify your curisioty.

Also, hi out there to all you intel analysts reading... ;)

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#214

Post by gdcbyers »

burgerbrain wrote: post #201
gdcbyers wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the abuses LulzSec perpetrates are acceptable because they aren't as powerful as the big bad evil government? Or because they appear to hate the government as much as you? I also could not help but notice you ignored my other points and questions, so ill sum it up. How has anything LulzSec done been constructive to the cause you claim they represent?

I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause. It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons. As for them attacking non-government targets? I didn't address this at first because you are making too many assumptions about myself fo…

> I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause. > It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons.

You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you?

> I didn't address this at first because you are making too many assumptions about myself for it to be very interesting

Please quote me on unfounded assumption about you or your views

> Doesn't effect me, so I don't give a shit.

I think this is the most telling response you've made. You might have well as said "Human rights are not important, unless they are mine" because thats how it reads.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#215

Post by gdcbyers »

burgerbrain wrote: post #203
gdcbyers wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response reeks of inaccurate presumptions about my beliefs, options and reasoning. Not to mention, you aren't even the guy I was replying to. But I will respond none the less because I believe in open conversation. >That you fixate on minor website inconvenience to these organizations ("vandalism") while ignoring the scale of the injustices going on shows you're hardly able to even think ill of these organizatio…

If these are just minor cases of "vandalism", then why do you care enough to write about it? You lend validity to the post you respond to by responding to it.

Did you see the context of that comment? It was direct quote from the user I was replying to. I used the term "vandalism", in quotes, because that was how the previous poster categorized them. Do I consider them vandalism, on par with graffiti? No. Will a semantic discussion about how to refer to the crimes change anything? I don't see how.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#216

Post by burgerbrain »

gdcbyers wrote: post #214
burgerbrain wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause. It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons. As for them attacking non-government targets? I didn't address this at first because you are making too many assumptions about myself fo…

> I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause. > It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons. You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you…

"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.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#217

Post by jdavid »

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.

Maybe the ones with guns.

Today I have not heard of a single case of hackers using guns to make a point, but the government does all of the time.

I can live with all of the hysteria in the world if someone does not mame my body, with blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#218

Post by prawn »

jdavid wrote: post #217
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. Maybe the ones with guns. Today I have not heard of a single case of hackers using guns to make a point, but the government does all of the time. I can live with all of the hysteria in the world if someone does not mame my body, with blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles.

Maim.

MAME is an arcade machine emulator. ;)

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#219

Post by gdcbyers »

burgerbrain wrote: post #216
gdcbyers wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause. > It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons. You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you…

"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.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#220

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> I have a PhD in economics.

Some anonymous internet user claims they have a PhD. Quickly, everyone, throw your brains out of the window and believe everything they say.

> It's working. Iraq's death rates are tumbling, and now it's even lower than ours.

Now I am not sure if you are serious or meant your post to be sarcastic. Maybe I underestimated your subtle sarcasm. But just in case it wasn't. I wonder why was Iraq having high death rates? Was there war going there? Maybe some sanctions were imposed too? Do you know? Or is recent history not part of the economics PhD dissertation.

> I wish you would rely on actual data and facts for your responses.

Or maybe just claim I have a PhD in economics so I don't have to provide any data.

Post reply on HN