Slashdot Mirror


Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men

tom_evil notes a story up on Infoshop.org about a parody site and the lack of a sense of humor in a large multinational. "One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno. Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'"

52 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. *sigh* Corproations have too much power by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

    Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    1. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America.... So take the power back then. Name and shame the ISP, and vote with your wallet.
    2. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....


      Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by Khaed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This shouldn't be moderated flamebait -- it's true enough. The US is *NOT* the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get shut down.

      Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)

      Yes, there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!

    4. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you going to out-vote Exxon with your wallet?

    5. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by rbanffy · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, but if you make Exxon buy each and every ISP out there you can then use your very effective anti-monopoly legislation...

      No. wait...

    6. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by Khaed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, but Piss Christ was paid for with tax payer money. the Danish cartoons were not. Say what you want, but don't expect the government to pay you for it.

      Also, my original point wasn't that Exxon kills more or less people, or even to do with terrorism. Just that it's ridiculous to claim the US is the only nation where this sort of thing goes on. Seriously -- try saying anything remotely anti-Islam in Iran. You are very free to criticize Bush, and Exxon, here (other than the pussy ISP in this case), but try badmouthing the Chinese government in China.

      I'm not even saying the US is without blame -- just that saying "Only in America" is really very ignorant. I'm sure if I tried I could find examples of worse happening in Europe.

    7. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " I do not wish to live in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of things on your own."

      So a "whites only" sign on the door is ok?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by Khaed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely.

      Then the asshole with said sign will be on display for what he is, the media will come around, and no one will ever go in there for fear of being associated with racism.

    9. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by LGagnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that. When you vote with your wallet, you always have less votes than a corporation, because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.

    10. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by LGagnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of corporations, which really is only that bad in America.

    11. Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power by crucini · · Score: 2, Funny

      You cannot escape anything political on slashdot any more.

      It wasn't always like that. If we have the courage to confront the root cause: it's global warming. Human brains only function well within a narrow range of temperature. Since Bush was elected, sending global temperatures skyrocketing, slashbots have been spewing sparks like so many malfunctioning androids.

      Or maybe it's because, since the antitrust trial, Microsoft doesn't act that evil any more. Every religion needs a devil. (Almost every).
  2. Blame game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?

  3. Cue all the apologists by rkcallaghan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

    (Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)

    ~Rebecca

    1. Re:Cue all the apologists by metamatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything without government involvement is not censorship.

      That may be your own weird little definition of the word, but if you check a reputable dictionary, you'll find that "censorship" does not require that the censoring be performed by a government entity.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  4. Hardly a "hack" by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    Nice trollish headline. It's hardly a hack, rather a cease-and-desist from an 800 lb gorilla. In other words, not news for nerds.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Hardly a "hack" by bladesjester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree. A hack is generally defined as using the rules of a system in such a way that it accomplishes something that the creators of the system never intended. The system doesn't have to be a computer (social engineering is a form of hacking as well.)

      I'd say this qualifies.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  5. Soylent Green fuel by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently you they are starting a program where you can bring grandma into a recycling plant and exchange her for fuel. It's called Blue Hair to Green Fuel. They are hoping to show their carbon neutral environmental side.

  6. Re:News For Nerds How??!! by maynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!

  7. 150,000 deaths per year by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

    how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

    It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:150,000 deaths per year by Khaed · · Score: 3, Informative

      yeah, welcome to /. moderators: They think "Troll" is the same as "person who I disagree with."

      Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples). While flamebait is trying to instigate a flamewar, like: "vi is clearly better than emacs because it has a simpler interface" or "emacs is better because it has more features." Off-topic -- well, if you can't figure that one out, you ought not be moderating, or even on slashdot. The closest to "-1 I disagree" is Overrated.

      This works both ways; there are also moderations in the UPWARD direction that make no sense. This article has a few already. Generally, saying bad things about corporations (unless you're twitter) or Bush can get you moderated up unless you have zero tact. (Seriously, we all know Bush is a fucking moron. Just a year and a half left, and he's gone.)

      Sometimes saying *good* things about people we *really hate*, like the RIAA, gets you moderated up. I think this is because mods just get so shocked their brains cease to function correctly.

      Also, there are six billion people on this planet. 150,000 people die about every twenty-four hours. It's not going to affect us. Human beings like to reproduce. We're in no danger of dying off with such a small number of deaths. You want to impress me? Add three zeroes to that number. Then I'll concede we're in trouble. Maybe I'm just jaded, but people die every day for stupid reasons. People have been dying since there were people. All this hand wringing and fretting isn't doing any good -- either work to solve problems, or shut up. But don't be an asshole about it. Besides, if you want to be really cynical, eventually, the universe will reach maximum entropy (if you believe the Heat Death theory).

    2. Re:150,000 deaths per year by Gord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, there are six billion people on this planet.

      6 billion in 1999, 6.7 billion now, scary isn't it.

      http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

    3. Re:150,000 deaths per year by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

      how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

      It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous. You weren't modded down for disbelieving in global warming, you were modded down for being dickish about it. Global warming cult members? Fine, I'll give you that, only so long as you concede membership in the Flat Earth Society.

      You know why people get pissed off with positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit. This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk, only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything else where they don't.

      When it comes right down to it, we're not talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the corporate-sponsored .1% find themselves on the other side. Then you end up with conservative flacks taking up the banner of the corporations as if that's the patriotic thing to do.

      I have no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda. I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we should be able to do better than France."
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:150,000 deaths per year by Guuge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples).

      Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."

      Hmmm... that looks somehow familiar.

  8. They Have A Right by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.

    It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
    --
    Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

    1. Re:They Have A Right by mikelieman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.

      When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.

      It is very much like your drivers' license.

      You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.

      UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.

      Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.

      But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    2. Re:They Have A Right by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Funny

      But the poor things are only trying to do right by their shareholders. Shouldn't their high moral purpose trump mere individual rights?

    3. Re:They Have A Right by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently "The People" in your post only refers to people who don't own shares in corporations. Thanks for declaring me (and millions of others) non-entities.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  9. not an apoligist, just the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment (as far as I can tell from the article). People often cannot separate the two, including the Yes Men.

    "Since parody is protected under US law"

    You see, they are in a business relationship with the hosting company. The hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever reason they see fit, including parody -- might not be smart but those are the facts. If the Yes Men put this out using their own resources, etc. and were sued for it, that's where US law would protect them. However, since they are in a business relationship with someone else, you really can't claim protection. Does that mean it's a smart idea / good idea for the hosting company to do this? No. But it's not a violation of someone's rights. That's the truth.

  10. Nice headline, guys! by SEE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.

    Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".

    Third, there was no hacking involved.

    You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.

    1. Re:Nice headline, guys! by SEE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, bad form replying to myself here. But!

      1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
      2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.

      Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?

  11. because the retaliation was to disconnect them by putch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.

    nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.

    that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.

    --
    just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
    1. Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying.

      That's purely conjecture at this point.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    2. Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok their internet connection was turned off at the request of unrevealed people, without a criminal charge or notification. There isn't even an attempt at establishing any kind of proper authority, just a command from someone powerful enough to make it happen. That's far worse than Exxon (or someone acting in Exxon's interests) being required to take this act publicly.

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, kind of like a MUD (toading), or IRC (kicking)... Somebody with superuser privileges took a dislike to them. At least used to happen all the time all over the internet. The difference is that now the channel op isn't "one of us".

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  12. Re:News For Nerds How??!! by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.

    I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".

    Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.

  13. Re:Where are the facts by canuck57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...

    And how many lives have been saved by oil, might I suggest many of millions each year that rely on the fuel to transport food and drugs...

  14. nature of satire by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. The problem with this assumption is that if a person, even a head of state, murders 100 people, or even destroys massive property, such in the case Exxon Valdez, that person can be significantly inconvenienced, while corporation can evade punishment for ever. And if the corporation is given the ultimate punishment, as in the case of Arthur Anderson, the political reprecusions tend to much more significant than when the equivalent human thug is punished by state sponsored killing.

    On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?

    Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.

    It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:nature of satire by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. You start your argument with a wrong assumption.

      Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. Parody it is. by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html, I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many people wishing to be duped by it.
    --
    Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  16. Re:Why not start here? by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hum... You Honor, how can you charge me with killing all those people? They were going to die anyway. Everyone does you know.

    But seriously, read the article and see if malnutrition is not mentioned.

    Are you thinking of the Gaia hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis as your control mechanism?

  17. Re:News For Nerds How??!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience

    See, that's the funny part.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  18. Conjecture My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's purely conjecture at this point.

    "Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com
    website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed
    from TheYesMen.org."

  19. Re:News For Nerds How??!! by Trailwalker · · Score: 2, Funny

    just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot


    1. Wait about three weeks.

    2. The terrorists used low tech non-functioning methods, and were noticeably inept. More of "your government at work" sort of stuff.
  20. Re:Legal matters by LehiNephi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Bingo! It's important to keep in mind a few things on this very touchy subject:
    • Exxon (or whatever other oil company) are not the ones burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil/gasoline/natural gas every year.
    • Even if they were burning so much fossil fuel, Exxon only represents about 2% of the global oil production. They're the biggest private (i.e. not state-owned) oil company.
    • Who's burning all that gas? Well, as I drive to work (in my 35 MPG civic), I'm surrounded by people driving Tahoe's, F150's, Escalades, Explorers, Durangos, enormous Dodge Rams, Tundras, etc. By some divine decree, every building in Houston is kept at a temperature around 70F (which most people agree is too cool for the summer). That's who's causing the 150k deaths per year.
    --
    Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
  21. Did the ISP do the right thing by jonwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Firstly, if the ISP received a DMCA section 512 take down notice for the content, they should give the customer the full details of that notice.

    Secondly, if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed)

  22. Exactly by benhocking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it worked then, surely it would still work today!

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  23. the more precise term is plutocracy by sethawoolley · · Score: 2, Informative

    oligarchy counts, but I like to be a bit more specific.

  24. Re:News For Nerds How??!! by the_womble · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot,
    Frankly, the UK attacks are not really newsworthy. No one killed, no real threat to anyone other than the bombers.

    These are my favourite type of terrorists: incompetent ones.

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. grass--greener by nanosquid · · Score: 2, Informative

    At the end of July, Thing.net will terminate its contract with Broadview and move its operations to Germany, where internet
    expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,


    I think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark on your web site can make you subject to large fines.

    If you want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can host them on Flickr.

  27. Just an example of the power of lawyers... by rdean400 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The speed of the takedown has more to do with the power of lawyers than the power of corporations. If the ISP wants to take advantage of the "CYA" safe harbor afforded them by the DMCA and other similar laws, they have to comply with takedown notices without delay.

    If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.