Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Invelious on 10 Jun 2011, 11:46
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/10/cyberattacks-spain.html
-
Nothing like closing the barn door after the horse is out. . .
The people are inconsequential, the data is everything. Basic rules of the internet.
-
Nothing like closing the barn door after the horse is out. . .
The people are inconsequential, the data is everything. Basic rules of the internet.
Thats exactly what the three hackers are telling themselves as they sit in a shady spanish prison, waiting to go to jail for what will be the majority of the remaining life.
"We are inconsequential, the data is everything. This is the basic rule of the internet."
-
This, pretty much. Obviously, yeah, the data is out, and catching a couple people isn't going to stop future attacks. But these people work with the premise that they will never get caught, they are anonymous, etc.
The fact that three of them are sitting in jail wondering if it was worth it may give the rest similar doubts.
Not that that will stop them. But it puts a hole in the "we're untouchable, rah rah rah" mantra. Was whatever they think they accomplished worth spending years in jail?
Especially for computer geeks. We're used to constant, unending stimulation. Spending every day in a cell without their internet heroin is going to be hell.
-
Aaaah, justice.
I *HATE* hackers. Sad, useless human waste who think they can't be touched and that this give them the right and ability to do as they please. Load up random PC's with viruses, hack private info, steal money over the net, spam random shit like unwanted adds trojans and crap about, make people's lives annoying, because they can. Worst kinds of griefers I know of. I've more respect for bank-robbers, atl they show up and rik their asses for the supposed gains, these guys?
I hope they rot well and long. don't perticularely like Sony but I've little against them either, so this... No sympathy for these scum. None what-so-ever.
-
The article reminds me of this.
(http://media.fukung.net/images/17866/a33f02d1820ac66ba5a6c650e48a7e8d.jpg)
-
I agree. Why attempt to enforce the law when criminals will always exist anyway? Scoff-worthy, is what it is.
-
Because they think they just got the leadership of Anon.
-
Doesn't really read like these three are hardened career criminals, to be honest. 'Course, I'm of the opinion that DDOSing corporate and government web sites in the context of political activism is a venal sin at worst, and without without some specifics as to what these "attacks" are, that's what I'm going to assume.
Using botnets is a bit more shady, but the article is not at all clear whether they went ahead and made one of their own or just let some muppet with a botnet know that Anonymous' target du jour was website XYZ, a la "co-ordinated attacks using IRC chat and used sophisticated encryption techniques to conceal their communications."
Connections to the PlayStation hacks are explicitly denied in the article.
-
Information needs to be free.
I'll support anything that does even a smidgeon of damage to any and all targets Anon has had.
Is it a crime? Sure, it's illegal. Is it wrong? Fuck no.
If they could have broken those entities, I'd be the first on top of a rooftop to yell a victory cry.
-
I have no sympathy for the thieves and crooks either.. it's just that Anonymous at least claims to be about the more ideological side of things, and this particular bit of press reads a lot like they picked up some /b/tards faffing off and are trying their damnedest to make them look like they're fighting international terrorism.
-
Information needs to be free.
I'll support anything that does even a smidgeon of damage to any and all targets Anon has had.
Is it a crime? Sure, it's illegal. Is it wrong? Fuck no.
If they could have broken those entities, I'd be the first on top of a rooftop to yell a victory cry.
Does that include someone's credit card information?
-
Information needs to be free.
I'll support anything that does even a smidgeon of damage to any and all targets Anon has had.
Is it a crime? Sure, it's illegal. Is it wrong? Fuck no.
If they could have broken those entities, I'd be the first on top of a rooftop to yell a victory cry.
Does that include someone's credit card information?
This. Ideals, sure. Breaking some laws to fight for ethics, sure.
But this ? Not helping their ideals (if they have any), playing like uneducated children without any morals ? They deserved it. If they are guilty of course.
-
I haven't heard of Anon stealing creditcard information. They denied involvement in the Sony scandal.
-
I haven't heard of Anon stealing creditcard information. They denied involvement in the Sony scandal.
I presumed your comment was directly in response to the article/incident as a whole, so my bad if I misread.
My point is, transparency good, larceny bad.
**Sidenote, I'm aware that having ideals would be in direct violation of Anon nature. So, by extension, they wouldn't really have anything to lose by stealing credit card info. Pretty much, unless its a kitten or that guy Oprah didn't allow on her show, caring isn't part of the internet hate machine.
-
You know, it's funny. I spent a lot of time thinking about this thread. As I've mentioned a few times before, my entire professional life focuses on detecting and responding to threats like this (and Anonymous is not unknown to me in that context).
But I don't feel hate for these groups. For some of them, derision perhaps ("s'kiddies"). Others, annoyance or irrelevance. A particular few groups, yes, professional fear. And for some groups or individuals, grudging respect.
I'm not sure yet about Anonymous in any detail. But they do fascinate me.
-
Because they think they just got the leadership of Anon.
Also lol@thinking Anonymous have 'leadership' of any sort.
I do not understand this sentiment. Despite the rhetoric, Anonymous (hacking group) is an organization that does things in the real world. When you do things in the real world, hierarchies develop and leaders emerge. Yes, from where I'm standing it certainly appears to be a fairly decentralized network, and leadership is hard to identify in a social structure that prizes non-identity. But that doesn't mean it's a pure anarchy wherein all behavior is merely emergent glomming onto the next noble cause.
Using botnets is a bit more shady, but the article is not at all clear whether they went ahead and made one of their own or just let some muppet with a botnet know that Anonymous' target du jour was website XYZ, a la "co-ordinated attacks using IRC chat and used sophisticated encryption techniques to conceal their communications."
Ethically, this seems like a distinction without a difference. Would you care to elaborate?