PBS Web Sites and Databases Hacked

wiredmikey writes "Late Sunday night, hackers gained access to several areas of PBS Web servers and were able publish a fake news story on a PBS news blog. The group also published PBS internal user login information that they were able to siphon out of PBS databases. The fake story was about rapper Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996 after being shot in Las Vegas, being been found alive and well in a small resort in New Zealand. A group going by the name of 'LulzSec' claimed responsibility for the hack, saying the attack was a protest against a PBS Frontline broadcast last week about WikiLeaks."

Comments

Once apon a time

[TheRealQuestor]

I found all this mildly amusing.

not any more :(

Re:Once apon a time

[PsychoSlashDot]

Agreed. I don't find it amusing at all.

Now I find it illuminating. It seems that too much effort is spent making Javascript animated menus and Flash sliding widgets and not enough effort is spent on patches, updates, and decent password policy. Corporate culture prioritizes pretty pictures to sell us more shit we don't need. Meanwhile our personal information - and therefore capacity to buy said shit - is in danger of being leaked.

From Sony to PBS and HBGary in between, too many companies are Doing It Wrong.

Re:Once apon a time

[aplusjimages]

Just to make sure, we're not amused about Tupac, right?

Re:Once apon a time

[LWATCDR]

That was your error. It never really was amusing. It has always been an attack on freedom of expression and in this case the press. There is a reason why vigilantes are not a good thing.

Re:Once apon a time

[Culture20]

Corporate culture prioritizes pretty pictures to sell us more shit we don't need.

And yet, isn't PBS a non-profit?

Re:Once apon a time

[_Sprocket_]

Now I find it illuminating. It seems that too much effort is spent making Javascript animated menus and Flash sliding widgets and not enough effort is spent on patches, updates, and decent password policy. Corporate culture prioritizes pretty pictures to sell us more shit we don't need. Meanwhile our personal information - and therefore capacity to buy said shit - is in danger of being leaked.

The Javascript animated menus and Flash widgets are cheap. They're (largely) a one-time cost that is often subsidized by being the same underlying code being packaged and sold to multiple clients. Hire someone to deploy a customized CMS and voila - done.

Patching, updating, and enforcing standards is expensive. You have to hire people to constantly follow the process. Those processes take paid hours. If you're doing it right, you're hiring staff that aren't also implementing aforementioned systems serving menus and widgets. And to avoid down-time and (most) ugly surprises, it takes additional investment in infrastructure as well.

You're right in so far as organizations often get it wrong. But flashy widgets is not the reason.

Re:Once apon a time

[zippthorne]

Sort of.

They don't pay dividends, but they do have highly-paid executives. They take money from taxpayers, and additionally have advertising: their shows are all standard "44 minute hours" with the remaining time taken up letting us all know about how this show was made possible by a grant from the buystufffromus corporation.

As an aside, I really fail to see how "not paying dividends" became some kind of measure of a company's altruism. Let alone a positive one.

Re:Once apon a time

[martinX]

I always thought it was odd. Everyone from the CEO to the janitor makes money, yet a company can be a "non-profit" and all of a sudden it's like a corporate love-child of Ghandi and Mother Theresa. Maybe it's just a label they give themselves when they realise they aren't very good at stuff - like making money - and some government handouts would be useful for paying the bills.

Re:Once apon a time

[rfunches]

and additionally have advertising: their shows are all standard "44 minute hours" with the remaining time taken up letting us all know about how this show was made possible by a grant from the buystufffromus corporation

Now that is just false. The New York Times just ran an article today about PBS's programming model:

And, [John F. Wilson, the chief programming executive for PBS] noted, PBS shows would still be “the longest hour in television in terms of content,” with as much as 54 minutes of programming, compared with about 40 minutes for commercial networks.

Not to mention, the current programming format means that unless you're watching something over an hour long (e.g. Masterpiece, Great Performances) you don't have to sit through any sponsorships or use a DVR to skip them during the actual program -- the exception being membership drive broadcasts. From what I recall, the best the broadcast networks have done was the "limited commercial interruption" model -- last one I remember was "24" and they still had one or two cheesy Ford commercials during the actual show, probably 2-3 minutes each in length. Plus there's all of the in-show advertising/branding Ford got, in addition to their commercials.

(The article linked above explains that PBS will test programming breaks within the one-hour window, possibly once every ~15 minutes. Even if that becomes the norm, what you call "advertising" on PBS is a far cry from the advertising on broadcast/cable networks. It's a step removed from premium cable -- e.g .HBO, Cinemax -- but just barely.)

Re:Once apon a time

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Non-profit status means that no-one who invests money gets a return on it. Your premise is essentially that people who invest labor shouldn't get compensation and that is absurd - there is no organization of any significant size in the world where the people who do the work are purely volunteers. Even priests get paid.

Being a non-proifit does NOT make an organization qualify for government hand-outs - hell, PLENTY of for-profit orgs qualify for government hand-outs. I'd even go so far as to wager that most government hand-outs in the USA go to for-profit corps. All that "non-profit' status means is that donations aren't taxed.

Re:Once apon a time

[metrometro]

In the United States, non-profit is merely a tax category available to organizations that fulfill a publicly useful mission, and accept some severe ownership restrictions (they are, by definition, owned by the public) as specified by the IRS. Some are good, some are bad. However, it's naive to pretend that there are no categorical differences between a publicly traded institution and a public interest one. For starters, the attitude towards quarterly returns and short term vs long term interests.

Re:Once apon a time

[TheLink]

Even priests get paid.

And I heard one of them saying that the benefits are out of this world!

Re:Once apon a time

[AmiMoJo]

The solution is to increase the cost of failure to the point where it makes sense to hire someone to prevent it. In theory we can already do that in the UK but so far every guilty company has managed to wriggle out of it (ACS:Law, for example, had his fine reduced from £200,000 to £10,000 by claiming poverty).

I'd suggest a minimum £100 per person affect, plus the provision of free identity protection and an unlimited liability for any fraud that occurs as a result. Enact that and security will suddenly improve dramatically.

Re:Once apon a time

[martinX]

Your premise is essentially that people who invest labor shouldn't get compensation and that is absurd

That's not my premise at all, just an observation that people tend to view "non-profit foundation/association/organisation" as the same as a charity, therefore the people working for them must really really believe in The Cause (whatever it may be), yet in reality a non-profit organisation is just another organisation.

Being a non-proifit does NOT make an organization qualify for government hand-outs

I reckon it'd make it easier to get them, though.

Re:Once apon a time

[Jawnn]

You're right in so far as organizations often get it wrong. But flashy widgets is not the reason.

A symptom, more than a cause, really. I think GP's point was that the decision makers were more enamored with shiny things than the really important things, like keeping their customers' sensitive information secure. And in that, he is 100% spot-on.

Re:Once apon a time

[phorm]

In most sane places, the guys making the "Javascript animated menus" and "Flash sliding widgets" ARE NOT those that should be maintaining the servers. Web devs probably shouldn't have root access to servers, and likewise server-admins tend not to be the best at creative.

Re:Once apon a time

[_Sprocket_]

A symptom, more than a cause, really. I think GP's point was that the decision makers were more enamored with shiny things than the really important things, like keeping their customers' sensitive information secure. And in that, he is 100% spot-on.

I'm not sure that they're even related that much. They're obviously related to some extent. You don't have to spend money on the security / upkeep of a system you never put in place. But design decisions aren't (always) mutually exclusive to security context. It's not that someone is dumping all the budget in to buying flashy widgets with the knowledge that they won't be able to properly pay for the upkeep of that system.

The concept of flash over function does echo other issues though. It's much easier to spend X dollars on a site redesign and see what that budget paid for. All the technobabble (management tends to see our world as black boxes and technobabble) about what makes those changes exist can be easily ignored for the fact that management can identify and interact with that change. Ideally, spending Y dollars on the whole security process will provide little if any immediately visible change. Management is going to have a much harder time understanding what their budget paid for.

That's the challenge we've faced for over a decade. It isn't flash over substance. It's understanding what is required to do things properly. And what's more, that challenge applies even within IT itself.

Re:Once apon a time

[_Sprocket_]

The solution is to increase the cost of failure to the point where it makes sense to hire someone to prevent it.

It's very tempting. After all, a big part of the conversations I've been in that involve this kind of thing eventually leads to the question of money. Expense is a much easier way to get a handle on these things and prod management. Laws that establish liability could help establish risk and cost.

But I have to wonder if that's the right path to take. Do we really want to invoke the bureaucracy that surrounds anything Government gets involved in? Do we need to add another layer of compliance? Keep in mind that the credit processing industry has it's own requirements - and even that raises questions concerning the drive for compliance vs. technical aspects of security. Then there is the question of user information that's not specifically financial. What was the end-user risk in the PBS compromise? And do we need to expose PBS to additional liability beyond what's covered by PCI and HIPPA?

Re:Once apon a time

[jellomizer]

You bet The War of 1812 was a major turning point man.

Re:Once apon a time

[jellomizer]

Groups like this are saying My Rights of Free Speech are more important then yours. I disagree with what you say, so I will attack you and discredit you to make you stop.
Vs.
The more Nobel "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your rights to say it".

I personally disagree with Wikilinks I think it is a bad site and at best borderline criminal. However if you support Wikilinks and think it is a force for good. I am going to disagree with you but will not try to stop you from saying this, as your opinion is just as important as mine.

These "Political" Hackings are just idiotic. They will not change anything (with perhaps PBS getting more network security and starting a fund drive a month earlier) And what it does is makes your view look bad.

Re:Once apon a time

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's not my premise at all, just an observation that people tend to view "non-profit foundation/association/organisation" as the same as a charity, therefore the people working for them must really really believe in The Cause (whatever it may be), yet in reality a non-profit organisation is just another organisation.

And a charity is just another organization too. Like I said no organization, not even "charities," have people who "really really believe in The Cause" such that they all work for free. You've set up a strawman in your own head.

Re:Once apon a time

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, two points:

1. Companies will take out insurance against it happening, and the insurance companies will insist on best practice and audits.

2. If you are unwilling to let the government run anything for fear of bureaucracy or inefficiency then you can't have any regulation at all. In practice an independent regulator with real powers can work very well, and what causes most of the problems is political interference and lack of teeth.

Re:Once apon a time

[_Sprocket_]

1. Companies will take out insurance against it happening, and the insurance companies will insist on best practice and audits.

Insurance is still a cost that I'm not sure is worthwhile. Throwing money at a problem does not always solve the problem. At the least, I'd like to see money being spent on something effective. That being said - this would be an interesting way to transfer liability in to action. That is, assuming the insurance industry doesn't determine that the risk is too high.

2. If you are unwilling to let the government run anything for fear of bureaucracy or inefficiency then you can't have any regulation at all. In practice an independent regulator with real powers can work very well, and what causes most of the problems is political interference and lack of teeth.

My concern is that I want to deal with the technical issues of information security. Bureaucrats tend to end up serving the bureaucracy and so we end up with a lot of focus on the letter of compliance whether being compliant actually solves said technical issues or not.

And this isn't just a concern with Government. PCI DSS is not a Government program but it is quite the lumbering beast itself (albeit not entirely without value).

Re: Once upon a time

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, the childish antics just give hackers a bad name. Go put your skills to some real use rather than defacing a TV station.

Cyber temper tantrum

[CaptainAmerica1941]

Say what we like or we'll stamp our feet and hack your site! What happened to freedom of information? Or is it just WikiLeaks approved information?

Re:Cyber temper tantrum

[mykos]

Seriously this. So someone gave a government-funded website some shit for toeing the government line. It's not like they silenced it or deleted it from the internet.

Re:Cyber temper tantrum

[DaveV1.0]

"Do what we want and spin the news as we like or we will hack your systems again only we won't be so nice" that is the clear message here. It is a small group telling someone else to censor their information.

Re:Cyber temper tantrum

[anotheryak]

Say what we like or we'll stamp our feet and hack your site! What happened to freedom of information? Or is it just WikiLeaks approved information?

Everyone should have learned the following quote in High School, if not earlier:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-- Evelyn Hall, in a summation of her read of Voltaire.

Wikileaks and their supporters claim to be for the unrestricted flow of information, even when this information could cost lives. I can understand their idealism; when I first read the Hall quote I was swept up in a patriotic-like fervor, willing to give my life for the cause of free speech. That idealism is why we send young men off to war...as we get older, we're less willing to just throw our lives away because somebody told us to. Men may still be willing to die for a cause, but the cause has to be greater.

I had assumed that the Wikileaks kids were under a similar grand unified cause, but as time has gone on, they seem to be targeting which causes they want to "attack". Big corporations and the USA/their allies. They don't seem to attack Russia or other powerful nations who may choose to fight back.

Even the famous video released by Wikileaks has been edited twice. We don't know what was cut out the first time, but in the second details like a man carrying a rocket launcher were removed. This is not "open", this is yellow journalism. I really wonder who is actually funding Wikileaks behind-the-scenes.

So I am not surprised that the Wikileaks people or their fan club attack their critics. When a show like Frontline shows them in a good light, they celebrate it. And when it shows them in a bad light, they attack, trying to silence the messenger.

"We don't like what you say, so you don't have the right to say it"

Clearly not something that would be promoted by Voltaire.

Re: Once upon a time

[creat3d]

No shit... and if you're gonna deface a TV station, why not go after FOX instead of PBS?

Re: Once upon a time

[Cryacin]

Fox? They do a good enough job of defacing themselves.

Teh cult of Assange strikes again!

[Jailbrekr]

It is ironic that they violated the very freedom they see as being threatened

Re:Teh cult of Assange strikes again!

[ThorGod]

Yeah, I thought the same thing! By threatening anyone with a contrary opinion as theirs they're acting as censors - and apparently/supposedly that's what they were against the whole time.

Re:Teh cult of Assange strikes again!

[c0lo]

It is ironic that they violated the very freedom they see as being threatened

How did they violate it? Care to point to an information that shows that PBS was at any time in no position to express themselves?

Re:Teh cult of Assange strikes again!

[Jailbrekr]

Retaliation has traditionally been used to suppress free speech, and I am surprised you failed to recognise it.

Find 'em and lock 'em up

[artor3]

These punks need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. The trolling culture on the internet today teaches kids (and man-children) that as long as you're laughing, you win, and there are never any consequences for fucking with people. A reminder of how the real world works is long overdue.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[Anonymous Coward]

That is how the real world works.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[jmac_the_man]

This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody.

They want to, though. That was the whole idea, or did you miss the point about the hacker group wanting to retaliate for a story that the hackers perceive as "anti-Anonymous."

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hacking" should not be a crime in the first place and is not a crime everywhere. You are the authoritarian. This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody. They brought a web site down temporarily or I should say added a story which is only going to be up temporarily.

So, it's OK to imprison you in order to shut you up as long as it's only "temporarily"?

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[DurendalMac]

Yes, a protest by unlawful access to secured resources. We call that a crime. If you enter a business and hang a big protest banner in the middle of the night, you could damned well be prosecuted for it. "Hacking" is and should be a crime because you're fucking with something that IS NOT YOURS. Is that so hard to understand? Do you just not give a shit about anyone else's property as long as the political cause is just in your eyes? Are you really that fucking detached?

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[jthill]

Al Jazeera has been doing a pretty good job covering what Anonymous is for. They have a slightly different take than you, because they actually have a sense of proportion.

Posting a spoof story is about as far from reason to get all high-and-mighty as possible. I'd try to mock you for your dudgeon, but it'd be like quoting Sarah Palin. The kids gotta practice on something.

That said, this smells an awful lot like lalalalaican'theeeerrrreyouuu, and I hope they get properly shamed for it.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[srodden]

Indeed. How many crimes go unpunished while corporate investors laugh all the way to the bank?

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[Uberbah]

Here is a prank, and there is your sense of proportion that you left on the side of the road about 20 miles ago....

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[DaveV1.0]

Fine, give us your IP address so we can hack your computers. Surely you won't mind nor think it a crime.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[DaveV1.0]

I see, so in your mind, breaking and entering into your house or business would be a prank as well, yes?

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[tibit]

So, where do you draw a line between fucking with people and whistleblowing/exposing incompetence? Exposing incompetence always hurts egos, and by definition it has to hurt wallets since you have to hire new people and perhaps also hire consultants pronto to cover the changeover period. Yet you are merely fixing an existing problem. I think that low-load (non DOS) penetration testing should be made legal even if it's done without consent of the owner of the system. Otherwise we have a reign of complacency. They did alter the content of the site, and that IMHO should always remain a no-no. Just the fact that they "hacked into" a system should be explicitly permitted under the law, as long as confidentiality of the target is respected. Publishing the password lists is retarded. What was done to PBS is illegal, and should remain so, but under specific conditions I'd be more than happy to legalize such activity. Perhaps the law should make small businesses off-limits.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[Nyder]

These punks need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. The trolling culture on the internet today teaches kids (and man-children) that as long as you're laughing, you win, and there are never any consequences for fucking with people. A reminder of how the real world works is long overdue.

Seriously? Do you have a straight face on when you say that?

Because the way I see it, this is how the real world works.

This is the new civil disobedience.

You have a government that rewards the rich, bails out the corrupt, and yet you expect what is probably kids to find better ways to show their displeasure?

Get used to it, this is probably only the start.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[DurendalMac]

Wrong. In the case of hacking into a server, you just picked the lock and screwed around in someone's home. You'd better believe you'd get arrested for that, prank or no.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[misexistentialist]

If you're not in jail you aren't protesting hard enough.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[Combatso]

wish i had mod points...

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[LordLimecat]

You have a government that rewards the rich, bails out the corrupt,

We're still talking about PBS here?

Or has everyone just gone completely crazy?

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[DurendalMac]

Simply being in jail for a "protest" does not make your "protest" legitimate. I could chuck molotov cocktails around and call it protesting, but it doesn't mean that what I was doing was right.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[HiThere]

What do you consider to be a reliable source for reporting on corporate crimes for profit? I don't know of any. I suspect that the large majority are unreported, uninvestigated, and unpaid for...not even as bribes. But it's just a suspicion. It is, however, based on a consideration of how difficult it is to collect evidence...and the reactions when an isolated instance comes to light. The reaction seems to be, approximately, "Why ore you jumping on me? This is just normal business practice."

As I said, this isn't proof. But it's a pretty clear indication. And I've watched as SCOX dragged the good name of SCO through the mud for seven years without any individual being punished for blatant theft of large sums of money. (That's what "converted" means in this legal context.) And the company was allowed to escape into bankruptcy the day before a decision was due. Even though it didn't technically meet the financial requirements. And it was allowed to stay in chapter 11 rather then chapter 7, which meant the executives in charge before hand could remain in charge. It still hasn't finished (now in it's eighth year), but it's almost done. It appears certain to have legally gotten away with theft. The company will be dismantled, but the records will be sold to someone who will either destroy them or keep them secret. The money that was funneled to the corporate executives will stay with the executives (though a lot of it ended up with their lawyers). And no punishment for any of the guilty individuals. This case was partially funded by Microsoft.

This, again, isn't proof. But it's clear evidence of a large number of laws specifically designed to allow corporate executives to commit crimes without being punished. That wouldn't exist if it weren't used.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[DaveV1.0]

No, it is not "a pretty clear indication". Using that reasoning, all those alien invasion movies are a pretty clear indication that we are under alien rule. Fiction is not an indication of fact.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[HiThere]

Well, there are spoof stories and spoof stories. That one (as reported) was just silly and harmless. It merely makes PBS look silly and untrustworthy. They probably deserve it. (I don't listen to it, so I don't know. Based on, essentially, rumor I'm assuming that they are more reliable than most sources...but that's damning with very faint praise.)

I don't trust any government funded and approved news source, whether PBS, or Fox or whoever. Up until a few decades ago I thought I could figure out what were lies and what was true. Then I was at another story that they reported, and I realized that their distortion was far better than I'd supposed, and that there was really no way to tell what was real from what got reported. (If they show a picture of a fire, a fire probably happened, but if they show a city in flames, only two or three houses necessarily burned...and that's without any actual fakery. That's just choosing selected video shots and angles. They usually restrict themselves that much, unless there's political pressure, but even then you can't figure out what's real.)

N.B.: I've only been able to check on local news stories, but a couple of them got reported nationally, so I know that the news doesn't get more accurate as it travels further.

P.S.: ALL news sources appear to be untrustworthy. PBS is generally less so, but that's probably because it has a lower budget and doesn't usually cover politically significant stories, by which I mean most of their stories are politically nearly neutral in effect. (I'm remembering several years back, now, because I haven't watched it in a decade or so. And these days I don't even have a TV in the house.)

I consider internet news sources (that allow feedback) slightly more reliable, even though they also appear highly biased, because:
1) most of them don't have the financial backing to invisibly twist the truth. (They twist it, but it isn't invisible.), and
2) the ones I trust allow feedback, and external sources don't indicate that they engage in excessive censorship. (Clearly some censorship is necessary, so the key is "excessive", always a matter of judgment.)
3) the ones I trust have a clear bias, and aren't (apparently) financially beholden to anyone except their advertisers.
4) even so, my trust is limited. I trust, e.g., Charlie Stross when he reports on Fukishima. The fact that he changes his mind when new evidence appears makes him appear more trustworthy. I don't trust him on the quality of his books. (No author can properly judge his own work.) But I do trust him on the topic and style in which he writes. Etc.
5) one must always beware of astroturfers. Since I am, that limits the amount of trust I give. (And websites as well as posters on them can be astroturfers.)

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[countertrolling]

Fiction is not an indication of fact.

That's right, and you have no facts..only hearsay from official press releases, yet you've already convicted and sentenced a fictional character .. You put the country at great risk based on pure fiction.. Obviously you are appealing to authority, nothing more. What is your position in the ministry of truth?

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up

[countertrolling]

...you... have no clue what a reliable source is.

HAHAHAHA! You're a barrel of laughs today.

I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[mykos]

Nobody was seriously harmed in the hack. My amusement has made up for your lack thereof.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[artor3]

Surprisingly, crimes do not become okay just because some asshole on the internet laughed at them.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[vandelais]

Not some asshole on the internet.
Some asshole on slashdot.
Not so surprising now.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[artor3]

Bullshit. They broke into a computer network, stole and released username/password combos, and mocked the system admins as they tried to regain control of the site. They have shown a pattern of criminal behavior, attacking anyone who dares say something they don't like. They are crooks, and should be treated as such.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[obarthelemy]

sometimes people die, sometimes people are physically hurt, sometimes people are mentally hurt, sometimes people are financially hurt.... and sometimes a website gets scribbled on. I do think there's some king of gradation of wrongdoing, and this is not very high.. it ranks like a leak of the latest iPhone... barely... We should focus on the important stuff.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[preaction]

But if we only focused on the important stuff, there wouldn't be anything for the legal system to do the other 80% of the time.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[LWATCDR]

Yea it is no worse than burning books, or a cross on someones lawn, or painting graffiti on a synagogue. As long as no gets hurt is is all good right? I mean after all those actions do only about as much damage if any at all. I agree people are just too dang sensitive.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[ron_ivi]

Bullshit. They broke into a computer network, stole and released username/password combos, and mocked the system admins as they tried to regain control of the site. They have shown a pattern of criminal behavior.

Still, far better that they revealed it, than keeping the username/password combos secret and using them to crack bank accounts of people who stupidly re-use passwords.

And better that they deface the site causing the sysadmins to fix the problems, rather than just ignoring it or sending an email to support@pbs.org where the message will probably never make it to the person who needs to hear it.

If it were one of my websites, I'd much prefer someone defaced the home page and informed my users that their passwords may have been compromised (and that if they used the same combination elsewhere they should change it); rather than ignoring the problem (which you seem to suggest would be a better solution) leaving me and my users vulnerable.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Larryish]

Who is "they"? Or "They", possibly?

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying we could cut the costs associated with policing and the legal system by 80%? Sweet!

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Do you even know the definition of "harm"?

- Breaking into a computer system by itself is not harming anyone. The security was either already weak, or still nobody else will get in.
- Taking username/password combos is not stealing, since stealing is defined as taking away, because it is a word that applies to matter/energy and not to information. The information still is where it was.
- Releasing the passwords. Well, thatâ(TM)s not nice. But unless the admins are so retarded to leave those the same, even though they know their security was untrustworthy for a loong time, is like leaving the safe code the same, when everybody found out the old one, even though you "found out" (actually forced to stop being ignorant that) some of the building doors can be opened by inserting any random pointed stick, and the security guard prefers to watch porn instead of checking the cameras. So the released information must be worthless. The harm part is caused by the negligence of the admins, long before the "break-in".
- mocking the admins: i know BOFHs may be arrogant, but seriously... are you suggesting mocking someone, who also failed to do his job, is a crime??

I bet you'd also blame and sue a hungry tiger for attacking you, after you jumped in his cage and threw stones at him.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Pseudonym Authority]

mocked the system admins

OMG! Is nothing sacred anymore? These people are MONSTERS who need to be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Darinbob]

But they did it for the lulz, I heard that made it all ok.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[TapeCutter]

Would it still be funny if some arsehole vandalised your basement?

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[DaveV1.0]

Tell you what, we will hack into your systems and give out your usernames/passwords. Then, you can tell us how it isn't serious. Right after you stop screaming for blood.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, they gave those usernames and passwords out so OTHER could do it instead.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Darinbob]

They did not do this as an act of good will. They did not do this in an effort to inform others about possible security holes. They did this because Frontline presented both sides of an argument about Wikileaks and these losers didn't like people saying anything bad about their idol.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Burpmaster]

You'd think differently if English didn't allow you to use the words 'broke', 'stole', and 'attack' to describe their actions. Stop being controlled by language.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[s4m7]

Figure that at least a few and probably dozens of IT staff were called in for OT on a holiday to clean up this mess. Figure also that there were probably some outside consultants called in. Add to this out-of-cycle communications and (non-tech) administrative costs and you're easily in low six figures.

So, if you don't think we should focus on vandalism damages in the $100k range, I'd like your bank account numbers and home address, please. However if that is really your attitude, odds are you don't have anywhere near that in assets.

Add to the above costs that those people called in didn't get to spend a holiday with their families, and that attacks like this amount to private censorship, since its retribution for Frontline reporting things the attackers didn't like, and I think there's plenty of non-monetary reasons to investigate and prosecute this kind of pathetic attempt at manipulation. It's kind of like bribery... sure maybe nobody gets hurt but if it gets out of control, we're in a serious mess (ask china or mexico)

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Mjec]

My passwords are PBKDF2'd with SHA512, unique salts and unique random iteration counts (5000 - 15000) per password. Because I'm not a chump. So you go right ahead. This technology isn't new. PBKDF2 was published in 2000.

Iterations: 14823
Salt: 8ee4c41a6dc73b1d 8f555cecd2139110 569204e61d18fd65 fe408c793707cdc9 ffe09a277924212a 14b0cb81e5e672e2 9049cb7832f801db 6230355718ae2b14
Hash: 4070b74d2d419b5d aee4457c6bb154f7 e5596191e3729031 227789d03e861013 d37297b846e56ae1 3eebac6b786e3813 9b3635d66482efd1 3af10d03a25478cf

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[DaveV1.0]

No, you just like to talk shit. You think it is OK to hurt others but would be outraged if anyone did to you what you laud them doing to others. You are a hypocrite and a pathetic little shit.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[LWATCDR]

And this was an attack on right to freedom of the press. A group is trying to control what the press will report through intimidation. It is exactly the same as the above actions in that it is a scare tactic used to limit the rights of others. The fact that you can not see that I fear is a case of you and your ability to think = FAIL.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Lanir]

Actually I watched it last night... Streisand Effect and all. Only occurred to me this morning that the one big thing I hadn't heard before from all of this mess aside from specific details was that Manning was gay. So... that definitely leaves me with a less than stellar impression of the lulz crowd, not that I had one to begin with. The lulz crowd (all of them, not just that group) is just a very slight evolutionary step up from the script kiddies of a few years ago.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[Hatta]

That sounds exactly like what needs to be said to the US government, and people as a whole.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[cavreader]

If they were doing any favors they could have sent a private e-mail to the system admins that revealed the exploited weaknesses.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[cavreader]

Well then I guess we are lucky you are such a genius who can protect us all. Applauding the people breaking into and damaging systems just shows that you are closer to being an idiot than an IT professional of any type.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous

[cavreader]

It's behavior like this that will drive the push to create draconian control measures and punishments. Stunts like this just add ammunition to the government and coporations looking to impose more control over the internet and the majority of people who don't really understand the underlying facts about system security and intrusion prevention will support tighter controls without blinking. After all how many times do you have to hear about Credit Card numbers being stolen or customer records being hacked to want to support more controls?

A better idea!

[Cyberax]

Actually, I think posting real information will cause as much damage as defacing.

Just imagine how many people will experience terminal cognitive dissonance upon reading real news on Fox News!

Re:A better idea!

[jhoegl]

The day Fox news posts real news... yeah, it will never happen.

Re:A better idea!

[mwvdlee]

The first real news Fox will ever post will be an articles about flying pigs.

Re:A better idea!

[creat3d]

I'm pretty sure the parent (jhoegl) was making a reference to FOX's blatant conservative, distorted reporting rather than the reposting of AP stories... good move on the anonymous posting.

I agree.

[mykos]

What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read In every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire interlink! I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos.

Re:I agree.

[vandelais]

Take off the mask, Butters. We know it's you.

Re:I agree.

[DaveV1.0]

If we are close to chaos and stand on the brink of oblivion, it is you who brings the chaos and would push us over the edge.

Wikileaks and...Tupac?

[geekmux]

"...A group going by the name of 'LulzSec' claimed responsibility for the hack, saying the attack was a protest against a PBS Frontline broadcast last week about WikiLeaks."

And, they chose to fabricate a story about Tupac "Elvis" Shakur to get their point across? Way to go...I'm sure people can find the correlation in there somewhere...

Streisand Effect

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If they really didn't like what Frontline had to say, they could have at least made their fake story a fake-retraction of the points they had a problem with. As Frontline is probably the most accurate docunews show on american television, if they pissed off some script kiddies, chances are the script kiddies are in the wrong.

I didn't bother to watch the show because I assumed that following wikileaks closely over the years I probably already knew everything they had to say. As it is now, I am going to go watch that episode (it is Frontline Season 29, Episode 13 titled "Wikisecrets" and was posted to usenet in full 1080i about 3 days ago).

Re:Streisand Effect

[Lanir]

My first thought was "Script kiddies censored something? WTF? Now I'm curious..." Next thought was "Hello, Streisand Effect."

The documentary gets one thing stupidly wrong, considering who all they were talking to. They don't really bother to define "hacker" and they're pretty free with the term. Leads the average viewer to think there are organized, known clubs at universities structured around breaking into other people's computer systems.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

2001 just called and they want their lame expression back.

Goes back years before 2001. Meanwhile I don't see you coming up with anything more hip.

Re:Streisand Effect

[DurendalMac]

What's wrong with that term today? It still applies. Or would you rather shorten it to "Skiddies"? It's still just a bunch of kids using prepackaged tools to get into poorly-secured servers.

Re:Streisand Effect

[lucm]

> Meanwhile I don't see you coming up with anything more hip

I kinda like "scriptdiots" but my favorite one is definitely "hackerz" (or "hack3rz" to go more extreme)

Re:Streisand Effect

[psiclops]

1980 just called and they want their lame joke back.

Re:Streisand Effect

[captjc]

They don't really bother to define "hacker" and they're pretty free with the term. Leads the average viewer to think there are organized, known clubs at universities structured around breaking into other people's computer systems.

Wait, are you saying the movie Hackers wasn't a documentary? Damn, I guess I shouldn't trust my technolust. I guess I'll throw away my roller blades and that useless eyepiece display thingie

Re:Streisand Effect

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I kinda like "scriptdiots"

Really? You give me shit for using a term you think is unfashionable and out of style but then you proffer something with no more than 10 hits in google? WTF man?

my favorite one is definitely "hackerz" (or "hack3rz" to go more extreme)

That's what some of them call themselves. It's not particularly derogatory if they've adopted the term as their own.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Unkyjar]

OH MY GOD!!! 2001?!

Did you warn them?! About 9/11, the Gujarat earthquake, the 2003 European heat wave, Hurricane Jeanne, the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, Katrina, the Myanmar cyclone, the 2008 China earthquake, the Haiti earthquake, Chile earthquake, the Queensland floods, the Christchurch earthquake, and the Japan earthquake and tsunami?

Re:Streisand Effect

[HiThere]

FWIW, dissident groups often adopt terms used by the opposition as derogatory labels. Puritans is one. Quakers is another. Beatnik is another. Hippie wasn't originally used as a derogatory label, but being used as one didn't make those into that culture change their name. Punk has always been a derogatory term. (Originally, I believe, is was derogatory slang for a homosexual meaning gunsel.)

Now I'd need proof before I'd consider this group to be hackers. I actually think that "script kiddies" is probably closer to accurate. (Proof would be that their avocation involved hacking things together in a manner analogous to the crafting crude furniture out of logs using only an axe as a tool. I don't require that they be those who hack code together using only a simple text editor.) But given the distortion that the news media has given to the term I can accept that others might think of them as hackers. I am, however, surprised to find that usage on /. (The "l33t-speak" version "hack3rz" might pass, though.)

Re:Streisand Effect

[lucm]

I told Walternate but I think he did not care

Re: Once upon a time

[creat3d]

While this is true, if someone hacked Fox we'd probably get NEW footage of an exploding van! "TERROR BITS IN AMERICA"

You can watch the FrontLine episode here

[PhrstBrn]

You can watch the Frontline episode on PBS's website. I love how PBS publishes a lot of their TV content online.

Re:You can watch the FrontLine episode here

[ktappe]

You can watch the Frontline episode on PBS's website.

And many of us now will. WikiLeaks is about to learn the full force of the Streisand Effect.

Re:You can watch the FrontLine episode here

[PhrstBrn]

I personally only watched it because I saw this /. article about it. I didn't find anything particularly offensive about it, unless you consider not bowing to Julian Assange as the second coming of Christ offensive. I thought they were critical, but fair, as Frontline usually is.

Re:You can watch the FrontLine episode here

[elmasguapo]

I'm not sure how the Streisand Effect applies to WikiLeaks here as WikiLeaks (to my knowledge) had nothing to do with this attack. According to the article, "LulzSec" is the group responsible for the act.

Also, a proper Streisand Effect would require broad dissemination of what happened; this story has received fairly limited coverage.

This sort of thing is just

[WonderingAround]

Annoying, sort of disappointing, and getting really old. Seriously no one's impressed, if they didn't take responsibility then maybe for one second some people just might think it was anonymous and they would get a little more than 15 minutes of fame, either way why attack PBS over what was said about a different group?

Does this mean a fundraiser to secure the servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"PBS would like to thank you, the viewer, for your generous donations...your donations have allowed us to close 200 ports...but we need more help! We can reach our goal of closing 3000 ports if you would just send $5 to...."

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

I disagree with you on many points here. I think Wikileaks is acting irresponsibly and that if a member of the military did leak that info I feel they are not heros but criminals. However the biggest problem I have with your post is that you are declaring Manning guilty of the action before he has had a trail. You may voice any opinion you feel is truthful about the actions but I would ask you to refrain from declaring Manning guilty. It is unfair to him as he is innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

You have a point. And my premature conclusion betrays the amount of faith I have in the situation. :(

But...

[MrEricSir]

...criticizing liars associated with a political party makes you *partisan*!

Re:But...

[jhoegl]

Ha!
I love it when people pull this. My response to them is "No, Im just speaking my opinion. You are the one that wants to put labels on it."

Re:But...

[vajorie]

I love it when people pull this. My response to them is

"Speaking one's opinion" is a new way to get out of argumentation I guess... I see no problem with being a partisan. Good luck finding a political party to be its partisan though...

Re:But...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

...criticizing liars associated with a political party makes you *partisan*!

Having seen a lot of vitriol both for and against fox, I really can't tell which side you are arguing for. The pro-fox people seem to think Fox fairly criticises the democratic party and their backers while the anti-fox people think that Fox honestly deserves criticism for lying their ass off in support of the republican party and their backers. Either way, the equivalent of your statement has been made by both sides hundreds, if not thousands of times before.

Re:But...

[jellomizer]

"Speaking one's opinion" is valuable. Partisan is speaking the collective agreement of a large group, not your own. A non-partisan political party is impossible. As a political party is a set of agreed views, a political party could be a moderate group where extreme parties can find a middle ground, but the party isn't non-partisan it is just moderate. Being moderate doesn't mean it is wishy washy and will not stand up to ideals, it just mean its sets of ideals can cross two seeming opposing viewpoints.

Consequences for who?

[MrEricSir]

Good luck, they're behind 7 proxies.

Re:Consequences for who?

[zvar]

I'll just write a VB App so we can traceroute back to them. I'll have their IP address in a moment. :)

Re:Consequences for who?

[Eulogistics]

I've sen this line of reasoning once or twice in this entire discussion: -Party A says "Hackers were wrong and should be punished" -Party B responds "Nuh uh, (some kind of moral or politically motivated reasoning stating how it wasn't that bad) -Party A responds "Oh yeah, well then let us do it to you since it's not so bad." -Party B responds "Good luck. All my shit is locked down tighter than a lock factory." So to all you guys who say that the hack is right and just and the hackers shouldn't face any kind of prosecution, until you put your information on this thread so the well-intentioned population of Slashdot can mess with your stuff (all for the lulz of course, nothing serious), you don't have an argument because apperantly the severity of being hacked is enough that you have 7 proxies, 4 million character password encryption and all your servers are disconnected from the internet sitting in the Fortress of Solitude.

Re:So OK

[Runaway1956]

muslims . . . . pinata . . .

I suspect that you've mixed up your cultures, as well as your metaphors.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Manning is a faultless Messiah come to save us all, how does that justify hacking PBS?

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

You see that is the thing. If I had been like Anon or this other bunch of losers I would have hacked Slashdot and removed your post or defaced it. And then you might have done the same.
Adults discuss and eventually if they are real grown ups respectfully disagree. That is how a democracy works. Using power to restrict the honest exchange of ideas and opinons is an evil act. It doesn't make the act any less evil if that power is technical knowledge instead of wealth or political power.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

I agree with you. Just because Wikileaks is being disparaged does not justify vigilante behavior. But, for what Wikileaks has released: it is more truth than our governments release, and in my value-system I believe that is more important than national security: it is what really happened. I'll give you a concrete example, here in Canada - where I live - our government during the run-up to the Iraq war was telling us: We do not support the Iraq war. And meanwhile, they were telling the USA in private: we cannot support you publicly because of the "political climate" against the war here, however: we will do everything we can to support your invasion. Tell me, what is our government if it is not the expression of the people who gave it a mandate? Canadian CITIZENS, en-mass were against the Iraq war: yet our government made no case to support their actions and instead pulled a back-room deal with the hopes it would never surface in history. And without leaking: it never would have.

Now, moderators: if you are going to bother to mod this *anything*, consider: Informative.

PBS Is Very Commercial Nowadays...

[Ron Bennett]

Not to justifying the hacking per se, but many PBS stations have strayed far from their roots of serving the public interest.

Nowadays, minutes long blocks of advertising have become routine on many PBS stations. Combined with "bugs" - often multiple! TV station logo in one corner often along others, such as E/I, in another - what the heck E/I means is beyond me other than being more annoying clutter on the screen.

And as for excessive corporate executive pay, yep PBS has that too. The head of WHYY, which serves the Delaware Valley region, including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has reportedly received upwards of $500,000 in combined annual compensation.

http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-08/news/24961586_1_whyy-91fm-fiscal-year

Ron

Re:PBS Is Very Commercial Nowadays...

[Slagothor]

I had questioned the E/I as well. From the following page: http://tv.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/f/EI_CTA1990.htm Answer: EI stands for Educational and Informational programming. It is a result of the Children's Television Act of 1990, which mandates broadcast stations to program at least three hours of educational programming a week. EI is often seen on Saturday mornings. In creating the Children's Television Act of 1990, Congress was reacting to a FCC report that recognized the role television plays in a child's development. The CTA essentially reduces the amount of commercials during children's programming, and increases the amount of education and information in each show.

Re:PBS Is Very Commercial Nowadays...

[Darinbob]

Do you have alternate funding schemes in mind?

Re:PBS Is Very Commercial Nowadays...

[sustik]

From the article you linked:

According to Sweeney, Marrazzo waived a 3 percent salary increase he was scheduled to receive, agreed to a 2 percent pay cut, and gave up a performance bonus. Marrazzo's voluntary reductions saved WHYY $200,000 in the fiscal year, station spokesman Art Ellis said. In that year, Marrazzo made one donation to WHYY of at least $25,000, and another to the station's $50 million multiyear campaign of at least $50,000, Ellis said.

Actually, this guy could be a role model for many CEO-s and politicians who's 'enterprise' did not prosper...

And by the way, I watch PBS/WHYY programming and I seriously think that several of their top program makers deserve a 400k+ salary (I think that with that salary they still put in more than take out, which cannot be said for many other participants in our society: some CEO-s, lawyers, politicians etc.). Therefore a 500k+ salary at the top is also appropriate. YMMV.

Granting 1st amendment rights to the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised at the response of some of the slashdotters in this thread, saying that these "hackers" are trying to infringe on the free speech of the government.

Why should the first amendment apply to government-funded website trumpeting a government-funded story slanted in a government-favoring way?

Whodunit?

[Time_Ngler]

I think the Cookie Monster did it.. it makes sense, right?

Re: Once upon a time

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real.

Other than extremists like the Tea Party, and people who don't want to hear the truth unless it's slanted toward what they want to believe, people who watch the media and track news know that PBS is good at reporting things as they are. (Polls even show that people on the left thing it's conservative and people on the right think it's liberal -- do the math -- if you're pissing off both sides, you're doing something right and reporting more news that biased parties don't want to hear.)

When it gets to the point that a news organization cannot try to do a balanced report without repercussions, it's not about revolutionaries, it's spoiled children who have to have their way.

Typos?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wonder if slashdot has any editors. This story posting is full of typos (corrected below, in bold):

Late Sunday night, hackers gained access to several areas of the PBS Web servers and were able to publish a fake news story on a PBS news blog. The group also published PBS internal user login information that they were able to siphon out of the PBS databases. The fake story was about rapper Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996 after being shot in Las Vegas, having been found alive and well in a small resort in New Zealand. A group going by the name of 'LulzSec' claimed responsibility for the hack, saying the attack was a protest against a PBS Frontline broadcast last week about WikiLeaks.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

Without Manning - the accused - there would be no story and the event of PBS getting hacked wouldn't have happened. Trying to put blinders on the conversation: "Only look at this event, not it's causes" is short-sighted and disingenuous.

How pathetic you must be

[publiclurker]

If you are so messed up that you consider reporting the truth to be elite.

Sounds lame and jerk

[karvind]

Sorry I don't have any sympathy for LulzSec or whatever their name (Geeze at least get a cooler name or they are bunch of high school drop outs).

Re: Once upon a time

[phantomfive]

Those who deface websites give themselves a bad name. It's not like they're defending liberty or something by shutting out what someone else has to say.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

It is fortunate that acting irresponsibly which I feel Wikileaks is doing is not illegal. The discussion really isn't about wikileaks, Manning, or Iraq. What it should be about is way too many people on Slashdot approving of vigilantly revenge and censorship. On that subject I see are in agreement.
    As to Canada's action that is one of those things that really only history will know for sure. If what you say is accurate does not not sound different from what FDR did before the US entered WWII. The US wanted nothing to do with another bloody European war. FDR felt that was not the right choice and had our military do some really "questionable" things for a neutral country. History says he was a hero but he also lied to the people of the US about our level of military support. Had Japan not attacked the US he would have gone down as a villain. He would have been a villain for doing both too much and or too little depending on how history worked out.
I am not Canadian so I feel I have no right to say if your government is right or wrong. As a US citizen I have the greatest affection for Canada. They are the best neighbors we could ask for and I have enough respect for them to say your government is up to you.
As to who ever leaked the data if they where in the military they acted in a very dangerous and I feel a criminal way. If they really thought that these where criminal acts he should have called them to the attention of his commanding officers. If he felt they where also guilty then to a member of congress. That would have been the correct actions IMHO. As it is it looks like whom ever did it just grabbed all the data he could and handed it over to somebody. You can not have a member of the Military of a free nation over ride the actions of the elected civil authority. While you think this action is good think of all the other actions members of the military could do over the objections and control of the elected civil authority. The vast majority of them are really not what you want. As I have gotten older I have found that the world is a complicated place. All those rules are restrictions that I thought where foolish wastes of time when I was young I now understand more and more. Not that I am sure this is the best of all possible worlds. It is just that I know that I fear many other people's idea of the best of all possible worlds more than I desire my own.

ftp.pbs.org

[iamzack]

For some reason ftp.pbs.org has port 21 open for business. Can someone explain to me why they aren't using SFTP on 22?

Re:ftp.pbs.org

[Culture20]

For some reason ftp.pbs.org has port 21 open for business. Can someone explain to me why they aren't using SFTP on 22?

Anonymous FTP? Hopefully they're not stupid enough to use it with passwords.

Re:Does this mean a fundraiser to secure the serve

[gmhowell]

To be safe, they're going to have to close over 9000 ports.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

I will give you a very concrete point because you are absolutely correct in saying it: Manning's purported leaks are very much in favor for Citizens outside of the USA as the material of the leaks is all in relation to how the US government relates to other governments: they were mostly honest diplomatic cables. So, it's good for pretty well everyone - integrity wise - except the USA. Manning did a great job: just not for where his citizenship lies.

Now, here's another case of leaking: Thomas Drake. What makes this case more of a test is that he leaked very few documents and the intent behind them was that he truly believed his duty as a citizen was to point out what was happening behind closed doors. His reward for saying: "this isn't right and it must not be kept secret" is being charged under the US espionage act. What happens to him, more than Manning, will shape my opinion of how much hope the USA has in the future.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

He sure as hell is.

He has more courage in a few skin cells than a piece of shit like you has in an entire body.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

We aren't going to change each other's opinions. For what it's worth: I am not a US citizen so I see more good in his actions than you do.

Correct Episode Number

[Anonymous Coward]

Frontline Season 29, Episode 13

Close, the episode in question is Season 29, Episode 15.

Re: Once upon a time

[jhoegl]

They didnt remove news, they just created a fake news story that no one would believe.
Now if the post was about Elvis....

Although I agree this one was a terrible hack. It looks like some scrub that wants to gain some fame.

All about the lulz:

[Hartree]

Did anybody expect much else?

Attributing noble (or for that matter focused evil) motives to anonymous is a bit silly.

They'd be about as happy if it was the neo-nazis or Mother Theresa that they'd hit as long as someone has their panties in a knot due to them.

You can likely sum up their reaction to some slashdotters being in a tizzy because they hit PBS Frontline as "Mission accomplished!"

Re:Manning is a hero.

[phantomfive]

I'd rather know: my representative is really an asshole,

Oh he is.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[VortexCortex]

Sir! YES SIR! I will absolutely do whatever it is you say to do, SIR!

I will faithfully follow your orders with unquestionable loyalty even in violation of the rights of the US Constitution, and the treaties our governments have sworn to uphold -- These mean nothing to me now that you are my commanding officer, SIR!

As your soldier I have signed my morals away for the duration of my service period! Humanity, be damned, I will not disobey an order no matter how illegal or immoral! SIR, I know it is your ass on the line, not mine, if I strictly follow your orders, Sir!

...
...
Sir, I see you are showing a bit humanity: Permission to be your scapegoat by disobeying the order you clearly want to disobey as well, Sir?

Re:Granting 1st amendment rights to the government

[malilo]

There was mention a while back about government projects to provide tools to agents so they could manage hundreds/thousands of online personas... paranoid linky: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread664190/pg1 Considering the hysterical attitude of the gov't about wikileaks, it's sadly not unbelievable that this would extend to such places as slashdot.

PBS is not the government

[Animal Farm Pig]

PBS is a private non-profit organization. WGBH (which produces Frontline) is owned by private foundation.

Where does the government come in here?

Re:PBS is not the government

[MBCook]

The government, through the CPB, gives public television dollars a year, which makes them government owned. Also, they're public, not private, so they must be government owned/run.

Yeah, it's stupid. But it seems easier for people to categorize in a false government/for-profit dichotomy than to say something legitimate... especially when making partisan attacks.

For the record: republican, loves NPR and PBS, gives them money. They may not have liked the frontline report (haven't seen it, don't doubt it doesn't portray Wikileaks the way many would like), but PBS doesn't deserve this; especially not the password dump. Go after someone that might be doing real damage (like companies doing fracking to get natural gas, general taxpayer fraud in contracts, etc) if some good info comes out. I think PBS pretty clearly does more good than harm.

What I didn't find amusing...

[Pollux]

...was my reaction to this story.

My first reaction was, "What? PBS? FrontLine? Really, guys, now you've gone too far."

But then, when I took a step back, I realized that I was portraying a double-standard. When Anonymous (or its derivatives) goes after Big-Corp, we all stand beside the hackers and shout out chants of "Yea, they're finally getting what's coming to them!" But when they attack an organization I have lots of respect for, it's only then where I feel that they've crossed a line.

But really, now that I see it, it is a double standard. When I now reflect on it all, it truly doesn't matter whether they are targeting an organization I have no respect for or one I have complete respect for. It is illegal. They are breaking the law and disrupting the business of the public. It needs to stop.

And shame on us for trying to rationalize a double standard.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[c0lo]

But really, now that I see it, it is a double standard. When I now reflect on it all, it truly doesn't matter whether they are targeting an organization I have no respect for or one I have complete respect for. It is illegal. They are breaking the law and disrupting the business of the public. It needs to stop.

Joking (but only half of... the other half just controversial)

No, it doesn't! It needs to continue until all the vulnerable sites go "extinct as a species". Not only it will be better for the site owners, but this will lead to a higher respect for security and better payment for ethical IT business/professionals.
Why is it better for the owners of the site to externalize the cost of securing their site to the tax-payers that need to support the cost of police/prosecution/incarceration of victim-less "hacking crimes"?

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[martinX]

I believe a parallel may be drawn with "whistleblower protection". It is often against the law to for public servants to reveal things about their workplace to outside agencies. An exception to this can be found under various laws generally called "Whistleblower Protection Acts".

If a whistleblower who works for the government deserves protection, does not a whistleblower deserve protection from Big Corp? I'd consider it more grey than black/white.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[jank1887]

well, lets think about it one step deeper:

why did many of us condone or at least find humorous the initial 'big-corp' attacks? IIRC, it's because they (Visa/Mastercard, etc.) were cutting off services to Wikileaks. At the time it seemed they were doing this mainly based on allegations of illegal actions by Assange, the primary face for Wikileaks, but not Wikileaks. There were rather groundless assertions by the US that Wikileaks had done something illegal, but nothing that could really hold water. So, people saw Anonymous attacks on those corporate entities as justified. it was generally limited to denial of service, as opposed to cracking the system and stealing user data, and the companies were seen as unjustifiably hamstringing a strong proponent of transparency and free speech. Easy to paint a 'fighting the man' picture of oppression on that one.

Now, we have this one. Frontline runs a Wikileaks story. I haven't seen the episode. Someone doesn't like it, and they hack PBS. Now, how much damage is done? If we assume actions are limited to what we know, not too much. Full public disclosure of the vulnerability, anyone who's info was obtained was published and has the opportunity to change passwords, etc. But, it was definitely criminal access to a computer system. It is possible that login info was cached elsewhere and may be used for attempted fraud elsewhere. It is possible more was obtained that was revealed. How justifiable is it? Not very. Was the episode 'really unfair'? Knowing Frontline, I doubt it. But anything's possible. Wouldn't mind seeing a critique of the episode. Would it justify what happened? no. If it was biased, would I think it would justify what was done before with the denial of service type attacks? maybe.

Now, if by 'what happened before' you're referring to the Sony fiasco, that's a totally different story. That started with the denial of service thing, but all of the hacking that's followed, stolen CC info and all, falls way outside the normal 'protest' and is clearly criminal activity.

either way, I find it quite easy to differentiate between the different cases, just as I find it easy to distinguish between people holding a sit-in and people throwing rocks through office windows. One's a protest, one is criminal. Sure, you can get arrested for both, but at least in one case people are aware of a line and don't cross it.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[nadaou]

> And shame on us for trying to rationalize a double standard.

there's nothing inherently wrong with double standards as long as you don't exclude inseparable externalities. (in which case there never really was a true double standard in the first place)

when people throw shoes at Pres. Bush, it's funny.

when people throw shoes at Stephen Hawking it's not.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's a double standard, it's just a standard. Beating up a bully is OK, beating up a blind autistic kid is not.
What their doing on both counts is illegal, yes, but one is socially acceptable. Justice = Truth vs. Fairness
I think a double standard is treating two "Identical" situations the same, and these are far from that. There are significant differences between Sony and PBS.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[cavebison]

They are breaking the law and disrupting the business of the public.

Really? Yawn. As if our laws and daily business can't take a few detours here and there. Rosa Parks was breaking the law when she decided not to sit at the back of the bus. She thankfully disrupted the business of the public.

The minute the status quo becomes more precious than the hurly burly of social change, we will have lost our way. For better or worse, the world is imperfect. Laws are imperfect. Our way of life is imperfect.

Complete chaos is not the answer of course, but look at things in perspective. Occasional disruption to the signal is rarely such a bad thing, and often it's just what we need.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[AmiMoJo]

Depends, Sony has broken the law repeatedly (rootkits, removal of features advertised and paid for via software update), targeted legitimate and law abiding hackers with lawsuits (geohot) and generally treats its customers like shit so it is normal to feel less sympathy for them. If Sony was a person we might feel some humanity towards them, but it isn't.

Sony hacks their customers for profit, Anonymous hacks for the lulz. I'm with Anon on this one.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[elashish14]

But really, now that I see it, it is a double standard. When I now reflect on it all, it truly doesn't matter whether they are targeting an organization I have no respect for or one I have complete respect for. It is illegal.

Well doesn't the government have a double standard too? Wall Street and The Banks are crashing the US economy (and to an extent, the world's economy too), causing hard-working people to lose their jobs, and is there any regulation against that? Legitimate crimes like intelligence agencies spying on people, things like the outing of Valerie Plame, and no one is ever held responsible? Instead we lock up the evil druggies while banks get bailed out for incredibly risky practices and give them out as bonuses to their executives.

The law just isn't good enough. It doesn't hold accountable people at the top of the chain. The government itself has a double standard which treats its friends with forbearance and everyone else with unconscienable disregard. Now I don't like vigilanteism at all, nor do I think these acts against Sony and the like are appropriate even though well deserved. But to say that it's wrong simply because it's illegal is a giant fallacy. Regurgitated arguments that just because it's against the law doesn't mean it's wrong and etc.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[dead_user]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/stephen-hawking-builds-robotic-exoskeleton,1629/ It can still be funny

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[KermodeBear]

When Anonymous (or its derivatives) goes after Big-Corp, we all stand beside the hackers and shout out chants of "Yea, they're finally getting what's coming to them!"

Maybe you did, but I didn't. Never have. A crime is a crime. It doesn't matter if the organization is the one you love or hate, the end result is the same: People get hurt, be it reputation, financially, data exposure, data loss, etc., etc. Actions have consequences.

If it becomes "okay" to do something bad to Company I Hate, then how long before it becomes "okay" to do the same to Company I Love? Pretty soon it just becomes "okay" to do it to anyone. Just like people think it is okay to break into a system and poke around, maybe pull a harmless prank. Once that becomes okay, then people decide, "Well, it's okay to do that, what not do this too..." And then it continues to escalate.

You are mature enough to own up to the double standard and change your thinking. That is 100% awesome and I wish more people would think this way.

Sadly Slashdot is too full of trolls and "I, too, welcome..." meme monkeys.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[LordLimecat]

At the time it seemed they were doing this mainly based on allegations of illegal actions by Assange, the primary face for Wikileaks, but not Wikileaks. There were rather groundless assertions by the US that Wikileaks had done something illegal, but nothing that could really hold water. So, people saw Anonymous attacks on those corporate entities as justified

Visa / mastercard provide a service in their line of business. As far as Im concerned, theyre well within their rights to decide they want nothing to do with wikileaks because they dont approve of their antics. No laws were broken, and who the heck are you to tell them they need to process payments for someone?

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[mcmonkey]

> And shame on us for trying to rationalize a double standard.

there's nothing inherently wrong with double standards as long as you don't exclude inseparable externalities. (in which case there never really was a true double standard in the first place)

when people throw shoes at Pres. Bush, it's funny.

when people throw shoes at Stephen Hawking it's not.

I'd have to see someone throw a shoe at Stephen Hawking to be sure.

It might be funny.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[Krojack]

No, it doesn't! It needs to continue until all the vulnerable sites go "extinct as a species".

So in other words, it will never stop. As long as programs are written by humans there will be vulnerabilities in them.

People are missing the point of this hack. It wasn't done to show that the site has security holes but it was done to retaliate for some news show they didn't agree with. This is the new future of news reporting. All news reporters will now have to start screening what they go public with and filter out anything that these punk groups might disagree with else face some retaliation.

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[GameboyRMH]

Well Visa/Mastercard were (and AFAIK still are) providing service to online stores specializing in white supremacist paraphernalia at the same time, so if they wanted to suddenly start playing Morality Police with their customers, why weren't those stores taken down as well?

What if Visa/Mastercard decide they don't like gay marriage, and decide to cut off the account of any related businesses? What if you're charged with murder, should Visa/Mastercard cut you off, a suspected murderer?

Where does Visa/Mastercard's right to arbitrarily deny service to customers in good legal standing end?

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[justme8800]

What?

The hell it's a double standard. Is it a double standard to wish the worst on Osama Bin Laden, vs. not wishing it on Ghandi? To wish on Lex Luthor what you don't wish on Lois Lane? That's not a double standard, that's justice.

Simply because something is against the law doesn't mean "it's wrong, end of story." Sony has committed so many egregious crimes* against so many of us, yet fair trials will never be so much as considered by our corporate government. How is it wrong for us to cheer those anonymous vigilantes, when they are our last hope for justice? How is it a double standard for us to disapprove when some other anonymous cracker hits an innocent non-profit like PBS?

I hope that Sony gets hacked into oblivion, that their sales plummet and stock tanks, and that the decision-making execs in charge forget to grab their golden parachutes. In the same breath, I hope that PBS safely recovers and that they continue their great programming for decades to come. I don't think anyone in their right mind can accuse me of hypocrisy for this.

*Rootkits
*RIAA litigation
*MPAA litigation
*Lik-Sang, termination of
*OtherOS, removal of
*Geohot, legal smothering of
*Blu-Ray player smothering
*Lax database security, and the subsequent ID theft
*and plenty more...

Re:What I didn't find amusing...

[LordLimecat]

It doesnt. There is no constitutional right (if you can talk of such a thing) to have mastercard process your payments. They have the right to do business with whoever they want, and to deny business. Refusing to do business with customers is a right that businesses have, so long as they do not segregate "...on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." (Federal civil rights act).

Deciding that they do not like the antics of another company is certainly their right, and I fail to recognize a good argument that it should be otherwise.

traitor is defined in the constitution

[bussdriver]

Treason is defined in the constitution to prevent reactionary fools from using it as some form of blasphemy to lynch people they do not like.

Manning is no traitor. FACT.

He may have violated his contract while arguably defending the constitution he swore his life to defend. Should he be punished? Yes. the degree is to be decided hopefully in a reasonable fashion - what he may have done was far far greater than wasting his life in Iraq for a neocon wet dream. Yes, I just said they are dying OF something (like an IED, or far more likely by suicide ) but they are not dying FOR something. Most of us only die of something, few die for something and even less for something worth death.

Manning is giving some of his life for something bigger than OIL or "TEARISM".

Americans are extremely NAIVE and unsophisticated but don't admit it; too much over confidence and too little knowledge or interest frankly. Sara Palin is an example of this. Its so bad these people are no longer just voters but they are running and getting into office.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[quacking duck]

I am not Canadian so I feel I have no right to say if your government is right or wrong. As a US citizen I have the greatest affection for Canada. They are the best neighbors we could ask for and I have enough respect for them to say your government is up to you.

I am Canadian. Feel free, as an American, to say whatever you wish about my country's government. Many of us in Canada and in other countries around the world have no qualms saying things about the American government, good or bad, so turnaround is fair play.

Re:Well said, & I agree: HOWEVER... apk

[Falconhell]

Poor old APK, well known malware author, just cant stand his own irrelevance, and status as resident joke, even better he always posts as AC then complains about others doing so.

Face it APK you are the troll around here, and everyone but you knows it.

The fact you think you win with your trolling is hillarious, Tom Hudson made you look a complete fool, and in your delusion you believe otherwise. Every time you post you make yourself look more stupid to everyone, to the point you are a running joke in peoples sig!

Just a trollin the troll, another day in paradise!

Space for the usual long boring irrelevant link filled APK troll rant reply left below. (:

Watch him go bunta now, fun fun fun

Re:Manning is a hero.

[jdgeorge]

He sure as hell is.

He has more courage in a few skin cells than a piece of shit like you has in an entire body.

Being brave is not the same as being a hero. Maybe most people would agree that Manning is very brave. However, being a hero suggests that the brave person pursues a laudable goal. Whether Manning's actions were praiseworthy is a questions on which people's opinions vary widely.

Re:Well said, & I agree: HOWEVER... apk

[Pseudonym Authority]

You aren't being trolled, you are being called out for being such a fucking idiot, APK. Also, no one likes you and you are probably very ugly.

Re: Once upon a time

[creat3d]

Actually, it's in the summary as well and yes I did read it. Now back to my regularly scheduled douchebaggery! And yeah, like the other guy said, reporting the truth is pretty elitist...

Re: Once upon a time

[creat3d]

Sorry, I'm not one of you "fags". I could come up with a lot better targets than Fox, but I could also come up with a hell of a lot better things to do.

Re: Once upon a time

[DaveV1.0]

Che Guevara was a psychopathic mass murderer, not a revolutionary. That whole revolution thing was just an excuse to kill people for fun.
 
And, attacking the public broadcasting service because you don't like that the did a news story on something is wrong.
 
Personally, I think you are a dirtbag and hope that some "revolutionary" does to you what Che did to the 14yo who defended his father.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Uberbah]

Whether Manning's actions were praiseworthy is a questions on which people's opinions vary widely.

If you're polling fascists and authoritarians, sure....

Re:Frontline is an AWESOME show

[trytoguess]

From what I've seen, the thing that might have pissed people off is that they did not portray Manning as a hero. Actually, they talked about his personal life problems before and after he started leaking data. Which to me, insinuated (intentionally, or otherwise) that the guy did what he did, not out of a sense of justice, but because his life was fucked up.

Re: Once upon a time

[Artifakt]

I tend to rate PBS as pretty middle of the road myself, but this reminded me of a sad case; a conservative I know, who typically calls PBS things such as "a libtard conspiracy to manipulate all the stupid people who have never held an honest job".
        He's explained how all sorts of PBS shows are leftist. Clifford the Big RED Dog's a commie, of course. Any Science show with Alan Alda narrating is obviously 'socialist' too. The cap came when he explained to me how the travel and cooking shows on PBS aren't showing the real Europe, since all those socialist European states are gray hellholes the USSR destroyed when we fought over them during WW2. He explained to me how, when the Russians occupied Italy and Spain, they treated them just like Yugoslavia and Hungary. Until Reagan finally won WW2, France was a Soviet satellite state. I told him the US and USSR fought together against Germany in WW2, and he said "That's what THEY want you to believe.".
            While I wrote him off after this as simply crazy, it's interesting to me how his behaviour mirrors this situation. We could definitely claim the liberal side of American politics has more sympathy for Wikileaks than the right does. So, we have the left attacking the left, if that makes any sense. When a right wing publication reports it that way, surely cognitive dissonance should make at least a few of their loyal viewers say "But that doesn't make any sense!".
        I think it's pretty obvious these hackers don't have a real, coherent, political opinion of any sort, and pretty likely they are just some batch of 4 Chan inspired script kiddies doing it for the LOLs. That's plenty to explain what's going on without any conspiracy theory. But, what I don't get is why a bunch of people who can and do buy into conspiracy theories about the President's birth certificate or how hot it got around the WTC elevators don't come up with similar conspiracy theories about why they are being told the left is attacking itself instead of the right. You'd think the paranoid nutcases would be all over things like this. We have people out there who every time a video broadcast gets glitchy, think they are seeing an alien lizardman's camouflage field slipping, but they hear "Hyper-leftist terrorists are attacking the organisation we told you yesterday was hyper-leftist too", and they can't get a good conspiracy theory started out of that?
 

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Uberbah]

I think Wikileaks is acting irresponsibly and that if a member of the military did leak that info I feel they are not heros but criminals.

Even when the information leaked unveils government lawbreaking, corruption and deception? Some priorities you have there....

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Uberbah]

You're an authoritarian fool, and a tool. Manning also swore an oath to defend the Constitution, something both Democrats and Republicans have been using for a snot rag since 911. Manning unveiled government lawbreaking, corruption and deception.

Internet Taliban

[beaverfever]

The Internet Taliban strike again. Anything they don't like, any opinions they don't like, they physically attack. Are they so dim that they can't see their 'fight for internet freedom' is based on bringing to the internet the threat of attack and the imposing of fear on dissenters? Do they believe their actions are any different than religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan burning down schools?

Here's a tip for the hackers/crackers: even if your beliefs and opinions are hypothetically 100% correct, if you use threats to impose your opinion, you will lose, because no sensible person will want to be associated with you.

Re: Once upon a time

[almanmike]

sure, you are saying it out loud but if you know any thing bout resort mui newhich was hacking 5 years boys.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

And your politicians betraying you isn't?

In case you haven't noticed, the last decade in the US is all about a creep towards fascism. I'm not there so I don't know what it's like on main street but: just read Reddit: Politics for a week or two straight - just to see what goes by. I've hardly ever seen things there covered on mainstream national - facing the international community - sites but if 1% of the local coverage there is to be believed: Fuck.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

If the USA government didn't want to look bad: maybe they shouldn't do the things they do. But hey, I still can't find it in my heart to sling vitriol back your way.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We aren't going to change each other's opinions. For what it's worth: I am not a US citizen so I see more good in his actions than you do.

I don't think citizenship has anything to do with it.
I think the difference can be boiled down to which version of this quote a person prefers:

"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"
-- Stephen Decatur, 1816

or

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
-- Carl Schurz, 1872

Re:Lighten the hell up.

[tm2b]

There's a phrase for this attitute.

Do you also blame raped women for "dressing like sluts?"

Monkey Balls

[Mana Mana]

> But when they attack an organization I have lots of
> respect for, it's only then where I feel that they've crossed
> a line.

Michelle Martin on Nipper, ya know, en pi ar, oh yeah, NPR, had a great, sophisticated, lucid view on supporting a cause or not. Paraphrasing:

>>>>>
I hate it when people offer as an argument for support that they like what we do, or our cause! As if you didn't like it therefore it, we must be bad. Only supporting that which you like and doesn't challenge leads to very boring thing, product. Most of what we learned, made us, makes us valuable, thoughtful, metropolitan, sophisticated, well versed, comes from unknown ideas and concepts. Hu! Now. How about that? Can you get with that? Can you support that?

Right, left, center, sideways; but is it thoughtful?! Support that! Not just because you like us.

Transcript of *FULL* PBS interview with Assange

[freddienumber13]

The full transcript of the PBS interview with Julian Assange is online at:

http://wikileaks.ch/WikiSecrets-Julian-Assange-Full.html

If you watch the PBS interview then read the transcript of the interview to see what was really said and in what context.

PBS is alleged to have used and cut the interview to present Assange in an anti-American perspective.

Re: Once upon a time

[TheWanderingHermit]

I know it won't help, but I've been to Germany, Luxembourg, France, Andorra, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Yugoslavia and even Lichtenstein.

I've seen them and most of those countries are quite beautiful. Yes, even Yugoslavia.

I know he'll say I'm a liberal plant, but if he has the balls, he can always go himself and see. If he's right, he'll see it. If he's wrong -- well, he won't be able to accept it.

LMAO-dont need to read it to know what he wrote

[Falconhell]

Beautiful, exacly as predicted, he just can't help himself, you can make him waste so much time posting rubbish. I say we have a competition to see who can get APK to post the largest number of characters!

Oooh and threats, excellent! I am really really scared of some fat smelly geek escaping from moms basement to attack me!

The really sad thing though is he thinks he is "winning", I guess if being though of as a joke is a win APK you are a champ!

Onya APK, just the tonic for another boring day at work.

Results

[Falconhell]

I reckon I am in the lead in the APK trolling comp so far!

Re:Results

[Falconhell]

Oh APK, posting as a real AC does not mean we believe its anyone but you! Its easy to tell as no one believes a word you say here!

  Rental propeties (post box?), hillarious, sports car- by matchbox even better.

The angrier and more frustrated you get, the funnier it is.

Put your analyst on danger money baby! Please dont do anymore long posts I am in the lead now!

Re:Manning is a hero.

[countertrolling]

...giving aid to the enemy...

The 'enemy' in this case being the American public..

And of course you believe anything the politicians put in the papers, with or without seeing any real evidence... That chiropractor dude trolls a lot better than you do, and he's not even trying.

Truth hurts eh?

[Falconhell]

If it wasnt so damn funny, I would feel sorry for you. Every time you reply it's a win for me, wasting your time
is so easy, and you bite so well. I only need 10 lines to get a hundred lines of frantic hillarity!

The last doubts I had were removed by you quoting the bible as though it was relevant, really confirms you as a illogical delusional blowhard.

Ah well time to do some work.

Keep up the good ranting!

Re:Fuck balanced response

[c0lo]

The only thing worms understand, fear, and respect, is superior firepower. Blast their teeth out.

Buddy, that's one action that will drive the price of crysknives and spice through the sky. You sure you want to upset the Guild?

Re: Once upon a time

[tibit]

Personal experience: Poland used to be a gray hellhole, I agree. Not anymore, not most of it at least.

Re: Once upon a time

[AmiMoJo]

Wait, if everything on Fox News is a lie and someone hacks in wouldn't they have to post the truth? Otherwise how would anyone know they had been hacked?

Re:Manning is a hero.

[DaveV1.0]

You wouldn't know fascism if it reached up and bit you on the ass. I suggest you choose more reputable sources of information than blogs and youtube. If you want to talk about politics, you need to grow the fuck up and act like and adult. That means vetting your information sources and learn about politics and history. Now, go back to class, shut the fuck up, and learn to something.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[DaveV1.0]

The only troll here is you, shithead. The fact is that the release of that information gave aid to the enemy. Now, go die in a fire, coward.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[DaveV1.0]

It is war. What do you think war is, people singing and dancing and giving each other head? No. It is dirty, ugly, dangerous, chaotic, and hard. Shit happens in war. If you have never been in the service, and faced fire, you should shut the fuck up. You really don't deserve the freedom you have.

Justified?

[xenobyte]

I must say - without having seen the broadcast - that if they attack Wikileaks on principal values it is perfectly valid to strike back.

The basic idea behind Wikileaks is that stuff that should be public knowledge - but isn't - will be.Doing this will step on some toes. It will especially be felt by those relying on security by obscurity, the need-to-know system, which is basically flawed as it by design doesn't have the outside control. The strange thing is that only the top classifications are really necessary, the rest is just there to differentiate people and to hide information that really should be known, at least by some outside controlling party. The current inside control obviously fails on many levels, revealed by the leaks, and it is completely useless as a controlling party.

Assange may be weird, eccentric or just a pervert - but it isn't relevant here. Wikileaks is not Assange, just as Assange is not Wikileaks. Wikileaks is a democratic necessity, going beyond any one person. It is perfectly valid to do hacks do defend this.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

Two wrongs do not make a right. It seems disrespectful for me to say what the voters of Canada should and should not do.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

Actually no it really doesn't. What is central is that a news outlet is being attacked because someone didn't like what they said.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

So is it okay for the Police to violate someones civil rights if they catch the criminal? Or do you not understand the danger of the ends justify the means? Not only that but the wires actually are mostly analysis not proof. What crimes exactly where proven? Just asking because I have seen no proof offered just a lot of opinion.

What's the logic behind this?

[tchernobog]

If you are really protesting about something related to WikiLeaks, why would you publish false information on a dead rapper? Why not something about what you are claiming your are for/against?

You are protesting against what you believe is false information, and then you do the same?

I am not condoning this act, they should be put under investigation and trial. But the logic of this act eludes me.

Re: Once upon a time

[pacinpm]

They would make a bit about how secure their information system is.

Re: Once upon a time

[sorak]

Fox? They do a good enough job of defecating themselves.

FTFY

I thought that was just Glenn Beck..

Perhaps the whole point

[biodata]

is to give hackers a 'bad name' by attacking something worthwhile rather than some sleazy corp. Noone really knows who did this, let alone why.

Re: Once upon a time

[sorak]

childish antics

I suppose revolutionaries can often seem childish from those benefiting from the status quo.

Are these people doing the exact same things as Che Guevara, George Washington, or Mohandas Gandhi, just to name a few examples? No, not the exact same things. Most probably aren't cut out for those kinds of life. So they fight where they know they can do best.

So, if someone had read an article in a newspaper that they didn't like, and responded by spray painting graffiti on the wall of the building, would you consider that to be "revolutionary"?

Re: Once upon a time

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's difficult to not appear elitist while Fox TV news target demographics overlap with prisonplanet.com and WND. Their web stuff isn't too bad, but their TV content is about as lowbrow as news can get.

Re:Frontline is an AWESOME show

[Hatta]

Why should it matter? When a person does something good, I don't really care why they did it. I'm just happy they did.

the enemy of my enemy is my frienemy ?

[Thud457]

wait, teh "conservatives" hates the PBS, so that means they support LULZSEC ?
But LULZSEC says they're acting in support of wikileaks, which teh "conservatives" hates, too?
and the KKK is counterprotesting Westboro Baptist Church?

head asplode

Re:Frontline is an AWESOME show

[DarkOx]

Which to me, insinuated (intentionally, or otherwise) that the guy did what he did, not out of a sense of justice, but because his life was fucked up.

Which is a perfect reasonable conclusion one might reach from the facts available. They did not say he was so disturbed that his behavior was just irrational or anything like that ( I watched the show ) but its certainly possible to come away with that interpretation. They decided that facts about Manning's personal life might be relevant and presented them.

We can not know a man's heart only make guesses about it based on his words and deeds. What we do know is that he was venting to hackers in chats online, and in make spaces, about his troubles, and later about what to do with the information he had access too. Its not hard to image he was thinking real clearly.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[countertrolling]

:-) We have found the enemy, and he is you! I kid! I kid! I'm sure if we put you out there in the middle of the action, the wars would be over in a week..

That other guy gets more hits ( Who would ever think that the commercials would be more popular than the show itself?), but I like your style much better.. so invigorating!. kind of arousing, actually.. Who can possibly turn their back on that? Of course maybe most people would feel more comfortable with you at the front of the line, if you get what I'm sayin'..

And all that huffing and puffing you do, without even saying anything.. simply parroting your TV set.. What would happen if you were watching the Home Shopping Network instead of FOX? Would you be spamming like all the new guys here? Please, don't change.. we like you just the way you are

You shall be known as the 'Angry Zombie'.. probably the maddest one here at the site.. It's really unfortunate you don't attract more attention.. Personally, I can't wait to see what you'll say next.. This place could use a little more excitement..

Peace! my friend..

Re: Once upon a time

[jellomizer]

Fox news doesn't lie... They just don't give the inconvenient view its credit.

Re: Once upon a time

[GameboyRMH]

I always wondered if US conservatives thought France, Canada, Germany etc were all USSR-like communist hellholes, since any policies anything like those countries, if implemented in the US, would immediately have everyone wearing rags and standing in a bread line. But that makes no sense, surely they've seen that the standard of living in those countries is at least on par with their own, right?

But it's a liberal media conspiracy. Now I know.

Re: Once upon a time

[jellomizer]

The trick with the Tea Party is to listen to what they say, don't argue with them as you will not enlighten them. As any solid proof is based on conspiracy reasoning. That if your idea has facts the facts were obviously planted to as part of the liberal conspiracy. You just agree with them and then you can get by with the rest of your life.

That said there are Liberal groups who are just as bad as the Tea Party. The Tea Party has the voice right now because a Democrat is president. Don't forget the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists, and those people who hated EVERYTHING George W. Bush did. And figured there is some Conservative conspiracy which is so deep that it couldn't possibly be uncovered.

Fox news saw that news tended to lean to the left, to make money they made a station with news that leaned to the right to make money off a group of people who felt left out. Then as they realized their user base is far more right they adjusted their business model to support their viewer base.

These people are at the same percentage as before, they just switch to a different media to get their news, and many of them feel they can yell louder.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[jackbird]

From where I sit, releasing the diplomatic cables has demonstrably done more good in the middle east than the previous 3 decades or so of official policy (counting from Camp David '79), and possibly the most good since the fall of the Ottoman Empire created the modern middle east in the first place.

I call that praiseworthy, and worth breaking an oath for.

Re:Attacked pbs?

[Unkyjar]

You didn't have to watch PBS scrubbing itself raw in the shower all night.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

You see that is the problem. I do not think he did a great job. I had an interesting discussion about this with a friend at work. She is in her 50s and grew up in the USSR. What she had to say was, "The problem with people is that they didn't grow up in Russia." She went on to say that in Russia they understand these things. You can not have the members of the Military deciding that they can just disobey a governments orders. Even when it starts out good it will always end up very bad. I fear that you are hopping for the wrong thing. I am betting that you want Manning to get off. That would be a terrible thing for democracy as a whole unless he was disobeying an illegal order. Frankly the orders he was obeying where not illegal from what I have seen. When are are dealing with things like laws, the military, and life and death there are procedures and rules for a very good reason. As I said if had give the data to a senator or congress person that would have been one thing. To hand it over to a foreign national is something very different. Even when breaking the rules does no harm this time and I am not sure that is even the case now you have to look at what breaking the same rules in the future could bring. As my friend said, "It never ends good".

Re:Manning is a hero.

[countertrolling]

...it is dirty, ugly, dangerous, chaotic, and hard.

Yeah, that's what tobacco addicts say, while they're puffing away.. Anyway, war is an addiction and not so dangerous for the drone pilot. If you want to go out and burn babies for jesus, be my guest.. but not on my dime

I hope you're banging some hooker while performing your shtick here, cuz 4 out of 5 chiropractors agree, it sounds like you're just typing with one hand.. dig?

Re:Lighten the hell up.

[tm2b]

Then you're a scumbag who has no place in civilized life. Criminals are to blame for their crimes, not their victims.

Re: Once upon a time

[GameboyRMH]

I have a mod stalker who is modding down my past comments and is too much of a cowardly pussy to admit it or face me.

I had one of those, but after a few days he went away. Either he's stuck to you now or the metamod system is just doing its job.

Re: Once upon a time

[DaveV1.0]

My mod stalker has a bunch of sock puppets and/or friends helping him. But, he seems to have gone away. I may have to change that sig.

Re:Lighten the hell up.

[Unkyjar]

And yet, somehow I can find the willpower not to walk into strangers homes and go through their stuff, even if they leave their doors open.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[DaveV1.0]

Yeah, that's what tobacco addicts say

I have never heard a tobacco addict say that, ever. Sounds like you are just pulling shit out of your ass again. And, I was the only person in my family that didn't smoke. Now, some of my family members have given it up, not because it was dirty, ugly, etc. but because it was expensive.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[DaveV1.0]

And, I call it treason and think he should get the appropriate penalty for committing treason in a time of war.

Re: Once upon a time

[TheWanderingHermit]

Fox News didn't start leaning to the left. The intent from the start was not to provide news made up of facts, but to provide "news" that helped that group feel good about their beliefs and standings. There's an article on the Rolling Stone website, I think it's current now (5/31/11) on Roger Ailes. His intent from the start was to present the news as he saw it, with is anything but fair and balanced.

Fox News was never intended as anything more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. It's based on fear, and so is the internal organization. Even Rupert Murdoch thinks Ailes is kind of whack because of the things he believes, but as long as Fox News brings in more money than any other part of Fox, including the movie division, they're going to get whatever they want.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[countertrolling]

Evidently I must know a lot more smokers than you do, and the economics of it never came up. Comes with age, I guess..They simply knew the power of habit and didn't hesitate to admit it.

And pulling shit out my ass sounds very painful.. Is that how you do it? With what, an empty coke bottle? Ouch! .. pushing, I would think, is much more pleasurable..

Re:Manning is a hero.

[HiThere]

If there are ANY reliable news sources, I don't know of them. They don't check the stories reported to them, whether by local stringers or federal authorities or anonymous "inside informants". And they also intentionally distort the news they do cover. (I've been "on-site" for events covered by they camera trucks. The distortion is often sufficient that it's impossible to "back-distort" and recover what the real story was.)

And if that's the case where they have hard evidence available, why should I expect them to be any more accurate when they're working off something that doesn't require intentional "editing"? (And this was for a story with no political axe involved. The political stories got a much more complete spin. The non-political story was just spun for "entertainment value".)

AFAIKT, blogs are every bit as accurate as the newspapers or broadcast media. Better when they allow posting by readers without heavy censorship. (I'm not disagreeing that they are biased, it's just that the bias is easier to handle.)

Re:Manning is a hero.

[HiThere]

No, for the same reason that monopolies need to be more tightly controlled than small companies. (Actually the direct use of force is another reason, but that's the essential monopoly claimed by governments.)

An earlier example compared the "attack" with throwing a glass of red wine on one, and that's closer. I think still closer would be sneaking a whoopee cushion onto your chair at a formal dinner. Not nice, but shouldn't be illegal. (I understand that they did more that post a fake story, but that's what I'm responding to.)

They DIDN'T shut down, or attempt to shut down, the site. They posted a fake story, and not only a fake story, but a very silly one.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[HiThere]

Irrelevant. Was the story being objected to lies? If so, then the posting of the story is reasonable. (I'm not claiming lawful.) Depending, it could even be argued that it was a minimalistic moral response. (I'm not claiming to know much about the facts of the case, which I why I'm hedging my statements.)

I'm not sure I'd agree that it was moral, but I can see arguments that could reasonably be made. *IF* the story was lies. (I neither know the facts of the case nor watched the show.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the story being objected to was a tissue of lies from beginning to end. PBS is news media. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was largely true. I give PBS slightly more credibility than most of the news sources.

N.B.: the actions of ANYONE other than PBS are not in question with regard to my statements. And I'm only addressing the posting of a blatantly false and silly story. Not any other actions.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[HiThere]

Sorry, that was a little too abbreviated. Edited version follows, with edits in bold.

Irrelevant. Was the PBS story being objected to lies? If so, then the posting of the LULZ story is reasonable. (I'm not claiming lawful.) Depending, it could even be argued that the posting of the LULZ story was a minimalistic moral response. (I'm not claiming to know much about the facts of the case, which I why I'm hedging my statements.)

I'm not sure I'd agree that the posting of the LULZ story was moral, but I can see arguments that could reasonably be made. *IF* the PBS story was lies. (I neither know the facts of the case nor watched the show.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the story being objected to was a tissue of lies from beginning to end. PBS is news media. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was largely true. I give PBS slightly more credibility than most of the news sources.

N.B.: the actions of ANYONE other than PBS are not in question with regard to my statements. And I'm only addressing the posting of a blatantly false and silly story. Not any other actions.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[headkase]

You are truly an idiot. I qualified: look yourself. Yes, some of the stories are on blogs, but quite a few are on well known but not CNN or Fox sites. And I said: if even 1% of them are true then there are systemic problems in the USA. You are lost: you are too blind to even look.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[LWATCDR]

But they also released usernames and passwords. And the reason why they did it was intimidation of a news outlet. This act is anti freedom of speech and anti freedom of the press.
If they felt this show was not factual they should have made a blog post or a webpage with their view and not attack PBS. I mean come on this is Freaking PBS Frontline. and they attacked it for no other reason than they didn't like what was said. Yea if someone goes up to a reporter and throws a bucket of paint on them that is assault and is a crime. If they did it because they didn't like the tone of the news they where reporting you would probably classify them as a crack pot that needs to get treatment before he really hurts someone.
Calling them Hacktivists is just going to cheer them on to greater and greater acts of evil. Worst of all is that this is feeding the people that really want to crackdown on any kind of "hacking" by showing just how bad they are.

Re:Manning is a hero.

[Unkyjar]

I would like to thank you for your part in one of the most calm, mature and reasoned discussions I have ever seen on Slashdot.

Like stealing from a library..

[doccus]

Isn't .. um.. hacking a Public broadcasting station kinda like stealing from a library?..Or dipping into the change bucket at a soup kitchen? ...Just asking .. is all...

Re: Once upon a time

[pugugly]

My problem is the premise "Fox news saw that news tended to lean to the left, ... "

Prior to Fox News news seesawed between:
* Journalism
* Protecting our Corporate Overlords
* Banal false equivalencies.

None of these 'leaned' towards the left, unless you feel that genuine journalism has a leftward bias (I do not).

Fox News was established to sit an 1,000 pound ape on one side of the spectrum--to create a bias, not to correct for one--and they succeeded. Banal false equivalencies are no longer between right and left, but between extreme right and center while Journalism was sacrificed for Protecting our Corporate Overlords. Even PBS was pulled to the right by this--2/3rds of 'left-wing' PBS's guests in news shows are from the right side of the political spectrum--a spectrum itself pulled to the right given that the 'left-wing' guests would have been considered Centrists in 1982.

Successful? Sure - they picked up on the right wing mythology of victimhood and successfully worked the refs until the standards dropped to a point that calling out objectively untrue things like George Bush's budget numbers, WMD's in Iraq, or the Paul Ryan budget are all considered gauche and déclassé in the media. But let us not pretend it was because they were 'correcting' some bias.

Pug

He's getting desperate now, as he keeps losing

[Falconhell]

Ah poor old APK lost so badly he has resorted to pretending to not be himself in a desperate attempt at credibility. Did you really think anyone would believe it is a real slashdot poster?

I just love his reaction, notice how I have not recived one downmod? Thats what slashdot thinks of APK.

Troll eh? Me? I am laughing even more now, from the top of my karma mountain!

The only reason APK does not log in is he knows he will be posting at -1 in about 5 minutes, at least an AC he posts at 0. God knows how much time he spends monitoring old threads!

I love making trolls angry, and never bother reading much of APKS posts, I just measure the size and smile.

APK getting frantic!

[Falconhell]

Fail? I have succeeded magnificently, getting you to frantically post exactly as predicted, you are trying all sorts to pretend someone supports you!

I'm not apk.

[Falconhell]

Epic fail we know it's you APK. A real poster would have the guts to post logged in, as I always do!

Yawn, Pretty unoriginal APK

[Falconhell]

Yawn, he has stopped trying to win and now pretends to be someone else. Piss weak APK.

Its easy to tell its you, when you post like a 5 year old! "hahaha"

Still I have got some work to do today, so I cant play, see you next time i am bored, and thanks for the laughs!

Re:The adventures of "CaPTaiN-PaRaNoiD" alias

[Falconhell]

I told you I am too busy to play today APK, your childishness posting style gives you away every time!
You can try as hard as you like to annoy me but all you will do is amuse me further!

Still not ONE downmod for me, so I laugh at your troll calls me troll approach.

(:

Re: Once upon a time

[cshark]

Right. An attack like this is censorship. Plain and simple.

Loser turns to personal abuse when losing eh

[Falconhell]

Yawn, a 5 year old could do better APK

Re:Continued adventures of "CaPTaiN-PaRaNoiD'

[Falconhell]

Oh really APK, could you be any more piss weak, trying to pretend to be someone else so you have support. Your posting style, that of a 5 year old is so obvious. Still not one downmod for me, face reallity script kiddie, youre the troll and no ammount of bluster will change that.

In your frustration you have just become pitiful now.

(:

Re:"CaPTaiN-PaRaNoiD' everything you say only

[Falconhell]

WAH WAH WAH cries the baby loser troll.
Your attempts make me angry just make me laugh APK,
You can lie about not being you as many times as you want, all you do is amuse with your frustration. Still you managed to sound almost reasonable this time, in your attempt to pretend to be a real poster! The giveaway of course is no one else would bother continuing to try and
convince that it isnt you. You are really quite a sad ass individual arent you?

Re:Sadder FACT is how you "f'd up" here, lol...

[Pseudonym Authority]

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.

You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original

Re:For ALL that University DEBT? You blew it here

[Pseudonym Authority]

Get the fuck out you god damn fucking faggot retard. Why don't you just take the hint that no one fucking likes, ever has liked you, or ever will like you? You are perhaps the most dull, trite person that has ever disgraced this message board with your stupid, meaningless posts. Jesus Christ, it is shocking how naive you are to think that ANYONE would have any feeling other than hate towards you after all that shit you pulled. You know what, I'm not telling you anything that you haven't heard many, many times before, so let's just save time and agree that you should get the fuck out.

Re:Truth hurt about your DEBT & incompetence?

[Pseudonym Authority]

As a former feminist (before being raped), I have to say that refusing to have sex for whatever reason is a mental illness that has been pushed onto us women from birth through insane ideals coming from childless crones that wants us to suffer as they have. Even our own body makes it clear that whether or not we should have sex is not for us to decide. Is it the man that decides this, and the only crime that should exist, is if he choses to have sex just for the sake of pleasure.

We need to cure my sick sisters through therapy. I suggest open institutions where women who doesn't want sex are shackled and put naked on display for single men who can go there and chose the woman he wants to have a sexual relationship with, and who can then touch her until the illness is cured and she finally comes. They she must be raped until she is fully subservient.

I personally think that women who file rape charges against people should be punished by death, but again, these women are sick, and needs to be cured.

We cannot go on like this. The rape laws are horribly sexist towards men, and prevents them from mating. The crones who made these laws must be ursurped and jailed for crimes against humanity.

Re:You're TRULY "StRaNgE", dude (touched in the he

[Pseudonym Authority]

That was VIP quality!
I am the 1000 of my GET.
VIP is my body, and kopipe is my blood.
I have created over 999 posts.
Unaware of /b/.
Nor aware of fchan.
Withstood bans to create many flamewars.
Waiting for one's arrival.
I have no regrets, this was the only path.
My whole life was Unlimited Troll Works.
Click here to be forwarded manually

Re:As I said before? You're TRULY, "StRaNgE"...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Reported to kdawson for racism.
Reported to kdawson through a proxy for violation of global rule #6.
Reported to kdawson through another proxy for Anontalk spam.
Reported to kdawson on IRC for NSFW language on a SFW board.
Reported to kdawson through a clone on IRC for being a general faggot.
Reported to the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children for pedophilic activities.

Enjoy your ban.

Re:So you admit you're just some troll now, finall

[Pseudonym Authority]

I only go to uni so i don't have to pay taxes. I don't need these stupid ass dumb shit teachers to teach me anything. Why should I? I have a certified IQ of 110 and these losers fucked up their whole life so bad they're stuck as teachers. They don't even know shit about the subject they're teaching. If they knew anything about it, they'd be getting paid hundreds of thousands to do it right.

Re:Enjoy your meds (you truly need them)

[Pseudonym Authority]

I'm just wondering: have you ever craved cock so badly that you found yourself running around outside, howling at the moon for it? Literally ROARING at the top of your lungs, wanting nothing less than a dick's head churning against your glottal stop?

Tell me I'm not alone.

Re:LMAO - A 110 IQ test score is "HIGH" as you sai

[Pseudonym Authority]

hey slashdot. I'm a US special forces delta operator. I was there in the firefight that killed Bin Laden. I'm here to tell you contrary to what you may have heard that President Obama was there. He requested to accompany Delta on the mission and I was assigned to protect him. He was the one that fired the fatal RPG into Bin Laden's torso. He also ripped out and ate his heart while he was lying there dying next to the corpses of his bodyguards.

When he finished it he was quiet for a bit... then I went up to him and asked, "Hey Mr.President, now that you got him what are you going to do next?". He stood there for a while then lit up a marlboro red. He took a drag then he looked at me. "[redacted]", he said, "don't ever speak to me again". And that was how it happened.

Re:Military SECTION 8 is more like it for you

[Pseudonym Authority]

Once part of an elaborate hierarchy in great houses, today a single maid may be the only domestic worker that upper and even middle-income households can afford, as was always the case for many households. In the Western world, comparatively few households can afford live-in domestic help, usually compromising on periodic cleaners. In less developed nations, very large differences in the income of urban and rural households and between different socio-economic classes, fewer educated women and limited opportunities for working women ensures a labour source for domestic work.

Maids perform typical domestic chores such as cooking, ironing, washing, cleaning the house, grocery shopping, walking the family dog, and taking care of children. In many places in some poor countries, maids often take on the role of a nurse in taking care of the elderly and people with disabilities. Many maids are required by their employers to wear a uniform

In modern usage, the butler is in charge of food service, wine, spirits, and silver, supervises other servants, and may perform a wide array of household management duties. Butlers may also be titled majordomo, butler administrator, staff manager, or head of household staff, and in the grandest homes or when the employer owns more than one residence, there is sometimes an estate manager of higher rank than the butler.

Would you go to a restaurant where everyone acts as lowly oreman or a CEO?