Slashdot Mirror
Web Site Hacks Rise as War Rages in Iraq
An anonymous reader noted a Reuters news story talking about Website Defacement during the war. Apparently protesters and hackers are defacing hundreds of US and UK sites, both corporate and government.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
None of these claims are true. /. and defaced index.pl to show this story!!!
/. ever been defaced by e-vandals?
Someone has just hacked into
But seriously.....has
Arc
All this does is make other hackers/crackers/what ever look bad. It will not convert people. It will just piss them off.
Free speech is getting expensive...
Does anyone else find it offensive that the author draws a distinction between "protesters" and "patriotic" hackers? They seem to imply that protesting the war would be unpatriotic.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Why is it not the other way around?
rm -rf all Iraq government sites
It just doesnt seem like the smartest thing to do, defacing your own national websites. Hey, our troops are fighting for us across the ocean, lets not support them. You voted, your leader chose to go to war, what is your problem?
Also, hey, our economy is doing poorly, lets deface some corporate sites in a hope they lose millions to lots sales and extra security costs.
Stupid stupid stupid. If you want to protest a war, have a PEACEFUL protest. Protesting a war by doing illegal and hurtful things is the pot calling the kettle black.
These people lose all public respect and support by doing stupid, negative things.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Yeah, I thought that it was really interesting that CNN's website immediately switched to a smaller version of their usual website; fewer stories, fewer pictures, less to load, with links from there at 9:30pm EST Wednesday. Instead of waiting for the slowdown, they anticipated it. I don't think I've ever seen that happen before-- not that there have been so many incidents that have generated that kind of blanket interest since the web became a major news source for the masses. The only one, in fact, that I can think of was Sept. 11th; these measures were definitely not taken then until sites had already started going down.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Yesterday, in Boston, protesters sat down and blocked the Mass Ave Bridge, a major 4 way bridge. They also blocked people from getting to work at the Boston Stock Exchange and government buildings. Why prevent people from getting into work that have nothing to do with the war? Let them earn their living. What if an ambulance or emergency crew need to get over the bridge? Why are you drawing our police away from homeland security issues?
I have also seen a lot of graffitti- notably defacing of said Mass Ave Bridge with permanent spray paint. I have also seen private business buildings hit with the "no war" graffitti. I think some protesters are just in it to get on TV and know very little about what they're protesting.
Feel free to protest, but don't infringe on my rights when doing so.
I have to admit I can't explain why we're truly at war either, economicly it will be disasterous, it has ruined the international diplomatic ties the US once had, and it makes the citizens of the Uninted States more at risk to future terrorist attacks and in the worst case senario could start World War III
No, I can't explain why we're truly at war either, it baffles me. It is the most ill-conceived thing our government has done in my lifetime. Pray tell, why are we REALLY at war?
It isn't because Iraq has violated UN mandates, Isreal has violated more, and we still support them. It isn't because they have weapons of mass destruction, North Korea has more in that catagory, and we're trying "diplomatic means" to deal with them. It isn't because of Saddam's human rights record, or we'd be at war with China, not granting them favoured trade status. It isn't because the inspections were failing, the inspectors themselves thought the process was working, and shouldn't they know? Come, come, since you're so ready to critisize others for being unable to explain the cause of this war, explain the real reason we are at war, instead of alluding to it in an ambigious manner...
Little Brother, watching the watchers
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
OK. I had a hard time driving around SF yesterday because of people doing more or less the same thing. On the one hand, they are blocking access to cyber places - and on the other they are blocking access to real ones. I was wondering if anyone could explain the logic behind protesting a war that is already started? Does anyone really believe that our government is going to stop and say, "Gee, we better stop this war so that those guys from Berkley will move off the Altimont Expressway..."
All I can see here is people giving Saddam (or what's left of his regime) fuel for his fight. He can say, "Look, the American people don't believe what their government is doing. Stop surendering and kill kill kill!!!" This would cause more loss of life to american soldiers. So... Can anyone explain what the protesters are hoping to get out of this? (Other than a permanent record...)
-anocelot
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
...'Nam a few more years back.
Of course, I'm also crazy.
I love the doublethink brought out over the last few years.
Having War will give Peace
Disobeying the UN will give it purpose
Cowardice is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad opposing a major power's whim.
Bravery is the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.
Apparently, well-fed young men sitting in millions of dollars' worth of military hardware and dropping bombs from 30,000ft on impoverished people who have already had all their arms taken away are exemplars of 'bravery'.
War on Terrorism... In the words of Terry Jones: "You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won?"
Geez... The doublespeak is astounding.
My favourite one was the attack of "Shock and Awe" that the US is parading, or as the CBC puts it "Anger and Confusion". No one is shocked, no one is awed, everyone is angry and everyone is confused in Iraq.
It's pretty darn hard to be in awe of a nation that is invading you.
Oh wait... we aren't invading iraq, or occupying iraq. Even though they are raising american colours over Iraqi cities that have been.. umm.. liberated...
Yeah.. that makes sense.
Stop playing word games, open your eyes, and you'll see what's happening.
Or you can just live in doublethink and apathy. That's the way a good patriotic citizen should live I guess.
They have to get louder because they are being drowned out by all the "Go America" bullshit. The media has not given anything near equal voice to anti-war arguments as they have to pro-war rhetoric. The numbers of protestors have been grossely underestimated, and as for the polls that you think tell you 70% are in favor, they are completely fraudulent. I have watched several over the last weeks, and every time the results start to go in the anti-war direction, the questions are changed or the poll is dropped. Besides, any idiot knows you can get any result you want depending on how you phrase the question.
Example: Do you or would you:Now, since a lot of people are holding out for UN approval so we don't look like a bunch of assholes, you're going to have a lot of votes for B. You'll have some votes for A because about 1/3 of Americans are complete idiot hicks who think Saddam and Bin Laden are the same guy. Now when reporting the results, simply mash A and B together and say 70% support the war. It's not true, but it's not completely false either.
If you think the media is liberal and would naturally want to skew opinions towards anti-war sentiments, I suggest you check out Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"
I just wish that the government wouldn't spend their lives so cheaply
Do you think that the US Gov't is spending the lives of its soldiers cheaply? I can't think of any army in history that places so much value on the lives of individual soldiers as today's US Army. To accomplish a given mission, the Army would rather spend millions of dollars on high tech surveillance and "smart" missiles than risk the life of a single US soldier in actual combat.
The soldiers may be brave and willing, but the Army is so risk-adverse they are willing to do almost anything, at any cost, to avoid American combat casualties.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at the end of the war, more soldiers die from accidents than actual combat. Probably, the Army's mortality rate won't be much higher than it would be for a similar-sized group driving on American highways, or smoking American cigarettes.
A Patriot is someone who loves their country, and works to help better it.
A Patriot is not silent on government corruption, illegal wars, or anything else that they think hurts the long-term health of the country.
A Patriot does criticize. They criticize at times of extreme political unrest. They ask questions when questions need to be asked.
And yes, a Patriot will perform acts of civil disobedience, when extreme situations warrent it.
A Patriot does not, under any circumstances, cowtow to the party line and 'fall in' as to not 'cause ripples'. A Patriot stands up and shouts to the fucking ceiling, 'something is wrong', when they feel something is wrong.
(And you know what's really funny? I'm Canadian. You know, one of those countries that's not 'the greatest nation in the whole world'. Whattajoke that phrase is. The hubris knows no bounds.)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Anti-war does not mean left-wing, as those fine fellows at the Cato Institute will point out.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I love (note sarcasm) how in the very country these anti-war people seek to save, they would be killed, tortured, or raped for the very actions they do to try to save it.
Do they not see the irony?
The irony is tired and cliched, and a contains two strawmen to boot (the purpose of the war and the purpose of the 'anti-war people'). This sort of arguement dates at least to the war against Vietnam...
The fact that your country gives you a right to protest does not give it the right to invade countries that don't.
The website we run at work was defaced by "Hackers Against War", they exploited a bug in the software we use (php-nuke) to replace all the stories on the front page with an inane antiwar statement and comments in French about their feelings for some girl. The pathetic thing is that our site already had a lot of antiwar articles up on it, so if their true motives were to express an antiwar opinion they failed horribly in that they obscured substantive antiwar commentary with their drivel AND forced us to take the site offline while we fixed things.
While I'm sure there are some groups out there with genuine political motives, based on this and some other things I've seen I really believe that this is just scriptkiddies looking for something trendy to do.