LulzSec

[Jimbob]

Yeah, i wouldn't mind if they left something behind to show that security is lacking in the companies. But stealing data isn't cool, i frown upon that. It is annoying a lot of people, especially the minecraft peeps. Doesn't annoy me at the moment though.

 

I just wish they'd go after 4chan, destroy them and take them out of the picture. Then i'd laugh.

[Rummy]

I break into a bank and steal all your money and get away scott free, the bank can't pay out or something as a result. Who do you blame mainly? The thieves who robbed it or the bank for not having better procedures in place? You trusted the bank, they let you down.

 

Or maybe yeah, generally I'm sure you hold much more anger to the people who rob it than to the bank themselves that you trusted.

 

 

It's not perfect, but I do think it's(assuming it was a massive hit) somewhat reflective of realistic reaction.

[Wesley]

There's nothing wrong with actually pointing out huge security flaws with websites.

 

Pointing that out in order to essentially protect consumers is an awesome thing to do.

 

Instead they choose to fuck over the website and consumers who use it.

 

For the lulz supposedly.

 

I hope that the fact they've messed with the US Federal websites means that they'll actually try and find out who these little fuckers are and shoot them in their faces.

 

EDIT: Yeah, but the clear aim of a bank robber is for cash.

 

The aim for LulzSec is to...

 

???

[Dyson]

Remembering of course that these were the guys that hacked in to Nintendo and left them documents explaining how the broke in so they could fix their system.

[Goafer]

Just taken down Minecraft, EVE Online and Escapist Magazine. In the past few days have targetted and hit the US Senate, Bethesda, Codemasters and Epic Games

 

It's fine. They're fucked now. Terrorism laws and all that.

 

Sure, governments aren't exactly the most tech savvy people in the world, but I'm fairly certain the most powerful government in the world has the resources to find someone who is.

[Rummy]

Remembering of course that these were the guys that hacked in to Nintendo and left them documents explaining how the broke in so they could fix their system.

 

Really? That's quite nice.

 

 

Also going back to my previous example, I think I just realised that was essentially the whole sub prime shit that collapsed world economies! Day to day are you hating the banks and the fact they're still getting bankers bonuses, or are you think that's cool and cursing out the dudes who made all the money on the sub primes? The banks are going bust and you're blaming those bad dudes right, not the banks themselves? Course you are, forget I asked the question.

[The Peeps]

I break into a bank and steal all your money and get away scott free, the bank can't pay out or something as a result. Who do you blame mainly? The thieves who robbed it or the bank for not having better procedures in place? You trusted the bank, they let you down.

 

The thieves.

 

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I was trying to avoid focusing on specifics, and rather generics. Let's consider these guys as one group/company, how many can we find who are equally unethical? More than one for one, I'm sure. I can think of at least one bad company out there as it is.

 

Naturally. But I don't see how one group's unethical morals justify another's?

 

So...despite your posts in the preferential threads you won't actually defend these people's rights to their opinion that Lulzsec are 'heroes and should be lauded for their deeds'. Would it be out of line for me to call you a hypocrite, here? You used the word 'we' also, as in implying you were forced to do so as well as part of that collective noun, I asked who was saying you had to, but you didn't really address it in a sense of your own self, unless I'm mistaken.

 

Of course I'll defend their right to believe these people are heroes. When did I ever say I wouldn't? I just expressed my equally valid opinion that I really don't believe these people to be heroes at all. No hypocrisy here, just different opinions.

 

Also, you're putting too much meaning into my potentially bad wording. I should've just said: "I don't think these people are heroes or should be lauded as such."

 

I wasn't intending to claim you had, I meant to ask why these guys should be considered worse than them. I think, as Daft also pointed out in part, they're highlighting a good point. Also coming back to it, these guys and Actual rebels as you put it, where's the difference?

 

I never did consider these people worse than bad companies, nor did I ever wish to communicate the idea that I did. If I have, I apologise for the misunderstanding.

 

I think what really gets me is that I've just seen too many of these hackers who are lauded for their deeds when they attack big corporations, yet really only seem to be doing it for their own personal gain and/or amusement. Often I find it hard to see the nobleness and productivity in their deeds, and thus they come off more as troublemakers than rebels to me. What exactly is the cause they're working for? What goal do they hope to accomplish through these deeds?

 

As I said, I may very well have a prejudiced view on these things, so if I'm blatantly wrong about something, please do point it out to me.

[Rummy]

The thieves.

 

 

See previous post. I wouldn't think it unfair at all to say with solid certainty, it's the case that the general public blame the banks. Then again, I won't deny I'm talking on a subject I don't have full understanding/knowledge of(but would like to think my post still stands until you can explain to me why it's wrong).

[Goafer]

I break into a bank and steal all your money and get away scott free, the bank can't pay out or something as a result. Who do you blame mainly? The thieves who robbed it or the bank for not having better procedures in place? You trusted the bank, they let you down.

 

I'll always blame the criminals. Why would I blame anyone else? Sure, the bank may have lapsed in their security, but a thieving twat is still a thieving twat.

 

If someone robbed an old lady by pretending to be the council, would you blame the lady for opening the door and believing that they were who they said they were? Course not. It's a sad state of affairs when people blame the victims instead of the criminals. Even if those victims are "the man".

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Remembering of course that these were the guys that hacked in to Nintendo and left them documents explaining how the broke in so they could fix their system.

 

See, this is an awesome deed with a noble goal. There's a huge difference here.

 

I break into a bank and steal all your money and get away scott free, the bank can't pay out or something as a result. Who do you blame mainly? The thieves who robbed it or the bank for not having better procedures in place? You trusted the bank, they let you down.

 

As much as I dislike the global economy in its current state and capitalism in general, I don't see how we can blame anyone but the person who did the crime.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Dannyboy-the-Dane
Automerged Doublepost

[Rummy]

Naturally. But I don't see how one group's unethical morals justify another's?

 

I'm not saying they do, I'm just saying why dissapprove so much of these guys but not the others.

 

 

Of course I'll defend their right to believe these people are heroes. When did I ever say I wouldn't? I just expressed my equally valid opinion that I really don't believe these people to be heroes at all. No hypocrisy here, just different opinions.

 

Also, you're putting too much meaning into my potentially bad wording. I should've just said: "I don't think these people are heroes or should be lauded as such."

 

I'd apologise for taking you at your word of communication, but I can't be blamed if yours is bad, it's no fault of my own. I'd advise(as I do to anyone else who points out bad communication as a reason to me) you try to learn from this and improve it in future. First/second/third language, I'm not responsible for taking it as it comes rather than what was meant.

 

 

I never did consider these people worse than bad companies, nor did I ever wish to communicate the idea that I did. If I have, I apologise for the misunderstanding.

 

As above, I just took it as I personally saw it, maybe even I misinterpreted.

 

I think what really gets me is that I've just seen too many of these hackers who are lauded for their deeds when they attack big corporations, yet really only seem to be doing it for their own personal gain and/or amusement. Often I find it hard to see the nobleness and productivity in their deeds, and thus they come off more as troublemakers than rebels to me. What exactly is the cause they're working for? What goal do they hope to accomplish through these deeds?

 

But why can't they be lauded for their deeds by people who you feel, as statr=ed, are free to hold their own opinions? YOU may not laud them for it, and that's fair enough, but you can't if you're welcoming free speech be upset because a significant portion of people do, or can you?

 

 

Why do they need a cause anyway? Why do they need a goal? What if it's just to simply highlight how bad internet security is? What if it IS just for lulz and they highlight that as a byproduct on the way?

[Ashley]

Remembering of course that these were the guys that hacked in to Nintendo and left them documents explaining how the broke in so they could fix their system.

 

"Because we liked the N64" was their reason [for not taking anything].

 

It wasn't some grand noble act.

 

Plus (apparently) there was nothing worth stealing on there anyway.

[Dyson]

See, this is an awesome deed with a noble goal. There's a huge difference here.

 

Is it though? If I came up to you and stabbed you in the face, but told you that next time if you wore a helmet you'd be protected, would that still be an awesome deed?

[heroicjanitor]

The majority of their attacks are DDoS attacks. The highly technical process requires the amazing feat of

 

- Downloading required program and installing it.

- Enter server IP, etc

- Click "Run".

 

Basically this. If it isn't DDoS it is SQL injection. All it does is annoy everyone. They claimed to have stolen so many emails/passwords from Sony Pictures that they couldn't store them all(lol who can't store text files), stating over a million, and then Sony said it was 17,000. Nothing to sneeze at but they have more confidence than skill.

 

Is it though? If I came up to you and stabbed you in the face, but told you that next time if you wore a helmet you'd be protected, would that still be an awesome deed?

 

That's the difference though, stabbing someone in the face is different to giving someone advice on how to defend themselves :p

[Rummy]

I'll always blame the criminals. Why would I blame anyone else? Sure, the bank may have lapsed in their security, but a thieving twat is still a thieving twat.

 

If someone robbed an old lady by pretending to be the council, would you blame the lady for opening the door and believing that they were who they said they were? Course not. It's a sad state of affairs when people blame the victims instead of the criminals. Even if those victims are "the man".

 

We weren't talking about personal, individual people, though. Yes, some of this has affected individuals(by the companies holding information/not holding it well enough), but they didn't knock/break down an old lady's door, they did it to a company. They broke into an office, not a house.

 

The thieves.

 

 

As much as I dislike the global economy in its current state and capitalism in general, I don't see how we can blame anyone but the person who did the crime.

 

 

Anyway ok I'll accept defeat at the hands of you three at this, but if I ever hear/see/find you blamed anything to do with the global economic crisis on the banks, then screw you to hell, hypocrites! God forbid you blame a company/institution that you trusted, who promised to hold good your information/data/money.

 

 

But yeah, looks like I'm just totally wrong. I'll leave it up to you to tell me what those people blaming the banks and companies are, though.

[Ashley]

but if I ever hear/see/find you blamed anything to do with the global economic crisis on the banks, then screw you to hell, hypocrites!

 

I thought Adam Curtis decided it was all Ayn Rand's fault?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I'm not saying they do, I'm just saying why dissapprove so much of these guys but not the others.

 

Because this thread was about their actions, and I expressed my opinion about them. Trust me, I disapprove a lot more of evil corporations on the whole, but those weren't the ones in question here.

 

I'd apologise for taking you at your word of communication, but I can't be blamed if yours is bad, it's no fault of my own. I'd advise(as I do to anyone else who points out bad communication as a reason to me) you try to learn from this and improve it in future. First/second/third language, I'm not responsible for taking it as it comes rather than what was meant.

 

As above, I just took it as I personally saw it, maybe even I misinterpreted.

 

I feel you're getting a bit personal here. Wherever the point of miscommunication happened, there's no need to point fingers or become defensive about it. We just had a small misunderstanding, that's all.

 

But why can't they be lauded for their deeds by people who you feel, as statr=ed, are free to hold their own opinions? YOU may not laud them for it, and that's fair enough, but you can't if you're welcoming free speech be upset because a significant portion of people do, or can you?

 

Again, you're completely missing my point here (whether that's my fault or yours is irrelevant). I never said, nor would I ever say, that these people can't be lauded for what they did. I merely expressed in blatant terms that I personally don't consider them heroes or worthy of laud.

 

Why do they need a cause anyway? Why do they need a goal? What if it's just to simply highlight how bad internet security is? What if it IS just for lulz and they highlight that as a byproduct on the way?

 

Because otherwise they just come off a troublemakers who have fun at other people's expense. If it was just to highlight internet security, they could have done what they did to Nintendo. If it's just for fun, surely it's a pretty dickish way to have fun, don't you think? I could also have fun by smashing people's windows, but that'd be pretty dickish, too.

 

Anyway ok I'll accept defeat at the hands of you three at this, but if I ever hear/see/find you blamed anything to do with the global economic crisis on the banks, then screw you to hell, hypocrites! God forbid you blame a company/institution that you trusted, who promised to hold good your information/data/money.

 

 

But yeah, looks like I'm just totally wrong. I'll leave it up to you to tell me what those people blaming the banks and companies are, though.

 

I feel you're being a bit defensive about this. Obviously banks and companies should honour the trust we put into them, and if their security sucks they should of course be held responsible for that, but I think it's going a bit far to hold them responsible for an immoral person's deeds.

 

"Because we liked the N64" was their reason [for not taking anything].

 

It wasn't some grand noble act.

 

Plus (apparently) there was nothing worth stealing on there anyway.

 

If that's the case, I guess they weren't so noble after all.

 

Is it though? If I came up to you and stabbed you in the face, but told you that next time if you wore a helmet you'd be protected, would that still be an awesome deed?

 

That's the difference though, stabbing someone in the face is different to giving someone advice on how to defend themselves :p

 

Heroic nailed it. The key difference lies in the fact that they didn't actually cause any damage or steal anything from Nintendo. It wouldn't equal to you stabbing me in the face and giving me advice afterwards, it would equal to you pretending to stab me in the face and giving me advice afterwards.

[Rummy]

Ok, I understand relevance, but it's like it's not even considering anyone else who might do bad things, some of whom may have been targets. I'll take your point though.

 

As for the communication/thinking I'm getting personal, I assure I'm not. I hear it all too often that some sort of miscommunication was in the way, people apologise if I misinterpreted their literal words, that is not my fault. It isn't my issue, I can't read minds, and if you find yourself misunderstood due to a communication error, is that my fault or yours? I don't mean to be finger pointing blame, but can't we learn from it?

 

You expressed yourself originally in a collective noun of 'we', therefore I did not feel you were representing a personal opinion.

 

Again, it may be a dickish way to have fun, but who's to say they shouldn't? I actually did know some kids who broke a few windows when they were little, just for fun, though I think they thought nobody would care. A broken e-window isn't that hard to repair, is it?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Ok, I understand relevance, but it's like it's not even considering anyone else who might do bad things, some of whom may have been targets. I'll take your point though.

 

I see your point as well, and I believe we have concluded this section of the debate.

 

As for the communication/thinking I'm getting personal, I assure I'm not. I hear it all too often that some sort of miscommunication was in the way, people apologise if I misinterpreted their literal words, that is not my fault. It isn't my issue, I can't read minds, and if you find yourself misunderstood due to a communication error, is that my fault or yours? I don't mean to be finger pointing blame, but can't we learn from it?

 

I don't believe we can actually put the fault with anyone. It's so easy to misunderstand each other's intentions because ways of expression can be so personal. I agree that we can all learn from this.

 

You expressed yourself originally in a collective noun of 'we', therefore I did not feel you were representing a personal opinion.

 

Point taken. I believed it to be clear that it was merely a turn of phrase, though I acknowledge it was not.

 

Again, it may be a dickish way to have fun, but who's to say they shouldn't? I actually did know some kids who broke a few windows when they were little, just for fun, though I think they thought nobody would care. A broken e-window isn't that hard to repair, is it?

 

That's the real question, isn't it? How much damage, if any, did this cause? I honestly don't know. But if someone's fun causes damage or hurts someone else, I really can't say I approve of it.

[Rummy]

I feel you're being a bit defensive about this. Obviously banks and companies should honour the trust we put into them, and if their security sucks they should of course be held responsible for that, but I think it's going a bit far to hold them responsible for an immoral person's deeds.

 

As I said, I'm not entirely informed and so I'm probably misinformed, but wasn't a big part of the now global economic crisis to do with sub prime mortgages? Essentially the banks lending money without ensuring a secure repayment, and people taking advantage of this to defraud them? So who are you saying we blame now, the fraudsters or the banks? You seem to be choosing both.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

As I said, I'm not entirely informed and so I'm probably misinformed, but wasn't a big part of the now global economic crisis to do with sub prime mortgages? Essentially the banks lending money without ensuring a secure repayment, and people taking advantage of this to defraud them? So who are you saying we blame now, the fraudsters or the banks? You seem to be choosing both.

 

I freely admit to have nowhere near enough knowledge about economy and the current crisis to say anything on the matter. But I do know that it can often be hard to pin the responsibility for any event on one single group or individual. All things happen as a result of a set of circumstances, and all these circumstances are brought on by other events. Causality, the butterfly effect and all that.

[Rummy]

That's the real question, isn't it? How much damage, if any, did this cause? I honestly don't know. But if someone's fun causes damage or hurts someone else, I really can't say I approve of it.

 

A very fair point. For me in this subject it's easy because I feel removed, I haven't been directly hit or affected. A point Dyson touched on in his original post. This doesn't seem a terribly personal affair, I realise some of their actions may have personal repercussions, which I don't approve of. However not being able to play minecraft for a few hours, whilst I can appreciate could be a big deal to someone, just does not strike me as a big deal in the grand scheme of things, nor I am sure, will they remember in years to come as a massive low point in their life.

 

Release of personal data that could seriously affect one's life so badly that they will however, does. I don't approve of that. I know it was mentioned earlier in the thread about somebody using some data to email someone.

 

 

But then it comes back to the point of asking, who's responsibility was it to keep that data/information secure?

 

I freely admit to have nowhere near enough knowledge about economy and the current crisis to say anything on the matter. But I do know that it can often be hard to pin the responsibility for any event on one single group or individual. All things happen as a result of a set of circumstances, and all these circumstances are brought on by other events. Causality, the butterfly effect and all that.

 

This is what I was trying to get at. Why blame just these guys, and not both parties? Why disapprove of one, and not the other? Sure, they're bad for breaking in, but aren't the people being broken into somewhat at fault for not being secure enough? I don't believe anything is just one or the other.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

A very fair point. For me in this subject it's easy because I feel removed, I haven't been directly hit or affected. A point Dyson touched on in his original post. This doesn't seem a terribly personal affair, I realise some of their actions may have personal repercussions, which I don't approve of. However not being able to play minecraft for a few hours, whilst I can appreciate could be a big deal to someone, just does not strike me as a big deal in the grand scheme of things, nor I am sure, will they remember in years to come as a massive low point in their life.

 

Release of personal data that could seriously affect one's life so badly that they will however, does. I don't approve of that. I know it was mentioned earlier in the thread about somebody using some data to email someone.

 

 

But then it comes back to the point of asking, who's responsibility was it to keep that data/information secure?

 

I see your point very clearly, and I can't say I disagree very much in any way.

 

Regarding the responsibility, it really is a complex matter.

 

This is what I was trying to get at. Why blame just these guys, and not both parties? Why disapprove of one, and not the other? Sure, they're bad for breaking in, but aren't the people being broken into somewhat at fault for not being secure enough? I don't believe anything is just one or the other.

 

Still, as somebody mentioned, you need to be careful about blaming the victim, as it often seems to give the perpetrators an excuse for their actions, possibly even prompting them to refuse to take responsibility entirely. I think what's truly relevant, the core point of it all, is the morality and responsibility of people's actions.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Dannyboy-the-Dane
Automerged Doublepost

[Ellmeister]

Rummy, I don't agree with any of your points regarding blaming the banks/institutions personally. I don't think we all trust the banks simply to keep our money safe, if that was all I'm sure many people would keep most money somewhere they felt it secure in a place such as their homes where they can rely on themselves.

 

We trust the banks not to misappropriate our money and not be able to return it. Besides blaming the banks is fine for the economic crisis because it isn't necessarily our money, it is the actions they took regarding money they never really had and doing other non-plausible actions that most sensible people would realise was not a good idea!

 

I definitely believe that if a thief/hacker breaks into something, you can hardly blame those being robbed for not having enough security, how can you quantify/predict the amount of security needed?

 

Ramble ramble ramble, think I've mainly reiterated above people's points/ made nonsensical opinions, it may be the whole victoria spongecake sugar rush I'm currently having :p