LulzSec Teams With Anonymous, In Operation AntiSec

Inflated sense of self-importance by MetalliQaZ · 2011-06-20 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dear Slashdot,
Don't feed the trolls.
Thanks,
Metalliqaz

--
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"

Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 02:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, given the horribly insecure things that banks do, this might not be such a bad thing. EX: when I refinanced my mortgage last, I found it was SOP to shuffle the paperwork around via plain old ass-hanging-out-for-all-to-see email.
And the password security questions can't be user-defined, and are things I know plenty of people can answer about me, and I could answer every option for many people I know.
Two different banks I know have flash installed on their employees computers.
Lulz and Anon won't have trouble hacking the banks... They'd have to put effort into not failing to hack them.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I work in a bank and I'll confirm this. There has been a big "security" push around here lately but it only consists of stupid shit like imposing the most ridiculous password policies for the 5 or so different incompatible systems in use plus a slew of sites and applications that don't use any of the centralized systems. The end result predictably being that everyone has taken to writing down their passwords. Banks are all about the semblance of security, not actual security.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Opportunist · 2011-06-20 04:02 · Score: 2

True, true and true.
I once had to rely on phone banking, and trying to verify my identity, my phone partner asked me for a few recent transfers to read to him so he could verify that I'm me. This is something someone could easily gather from stealing or finding my bank card and printing a statement, all actions that take no kind of additional security information. Asking him what kind of security theater this is supposed to be, I was informed that this is a standard procedure and if I'm not happy with it, I should not use phone banking if I deem it insecure.
I didn't have the mental strength anymore to explain to him how me not using phone banking would NOT increase the security of the messed up process.
I cannot say too much about the inner workings of banks (NDAs are a PITA, and especially now that these will be exploited big time I certainly do not want to have my name attached to broadcasting a glaring security hole that even a blind, illiterate dimwit could see, lest I be liable for "informing" them... as if that's necessary!), but there is a whole lot of other security theater going on behind the scenes. A lot of half-assed, ill conceived and totally useless roadblocks (mostly hindering the people who actually have to work with the systems, but not at all being a problem for those who don't care if they trash the system in the process) are in place or are being put in place, but the underlying problem does not get addressed.
Well, we'll see how it pans out.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dear Slashdot,
Please continue to provide updates on one of the most important events in recent technological history.
These people are putting into motion a chain of events that will first, lead to massive draconian regulation of internet presence as well as personal internet usage and finally, start a revolution online which will create the most open and free global network the world has ever seen.
They're also exposing the complete failure of the "whitehat" information security industry as a whole. They are a joke, they are thieves, and they deserve to be humiliated forever for the scams they perpetrate.
We should be thanking Lulzsec and anyone else who agrees with what they do.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by ackthpt · 2011-06-20 04:04 · Score: 2

I work in a bank and I'll confirm this. There has been a big "security" push around here lately but it only consists of stupid shit like imposing the most ridiculous password policies for the 5 or so different incompatible systems in use plus a slew of sites and applications that don't use any of the centralized systems. The end result predictably being that everyone has taken to writing down their passwords. Banks are all about the semblance of security, not actual security.
Quite surprised by this, but I suppose I shouldn't be.
Back about 15 years ago the banks were extremely reluctant to have anything beyond modems as they needed to see that the budding internet was secure before they exposed anything to it.
Now, consider the way businesses have been working, slashing workerbees (including those who provided auditing and safety nets) to maximize payouts a the top, plus the willingness to take on preposterous investment and lending strategies, which eventually collapsed and you can see they're pretty careless, feckless even.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by TheCarp · 2011-06-20 04:52 · Score: 1

heh I work at a healthcare company. Its the same story except, everyone says "HIPPA" allot.
Pretty much, some exec reads an article on passwords or security, and then goes out and decides that everyone needs to implement this security stuff, based on his meager understanding of the article.... um.... welcome to the world of large institutions. Makes you feel real good to know that our lives depend on them doesn't it?

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Hatta · 2011-06-20 04:57 · Score: 2

Banks are all about the semblance of security, not actual security.
Much like government itself.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by AugstWest · 2011-06-20 04:57 · Score: 1

All this is going to do is give the assholes who want to lock down the internet more reason for doing so.
When douchebags start screwing around, freedoms disappear left and right. Just watch the legislation that grows out of this, we'll be lucky if we can still get email that isn't from the government in 5 years.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-06-20 05:06 · Score: 1

Trouble is, this "publicity" is a bit of a double-edged (multi-edged) sword. But for the publicity these worthless excuses for IT security would go unnoticed and no pressure would be brought to remedy the problem. I'd much rather see these vulnerabilities be exposed by people "in it for the lulz" than those participating in government espionage, organized crime among others things with more nefarious purposes. If these guys would focus on shaming IT security rather than LOINC'ing game servers, PBS, etc. I'd have less of a problem with them.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-06-20 05:15 · Score: 1

This story has over 250 comments. Slashdot will not listen.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 05:16 · Score: 1

yes, just like rebels in syria have an inflated sense of self-importance
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by mmcuh · 2011-06-20 05:43 · Score: 2

They usually don't need a reason.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by sixsixtysix · 2011-06-20 05:51 · Score: 1

that had more to do with overestimating our country's security, than underestimating the enemy, which applies in this case as well.

--
...
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 06:00 · Score: 1

The recent Citibank example is a good one. The asshats apparently passed the account #'s as an argument... in the url, and allowed any authenticated user to view any account just by swapping out the url. That facepalm could knock a marine unconscious.

It's truly terrifying. Banks are the one sort of institution you expect to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on security. And then it turns out that they do all the same, completely retarded things that everyone else does.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by zero0ne · 2011-06-20 06:03 · Score: 1

How about M&T Web banking (their direct connect for say quicken)...
They charge you for the service, and your username is your... wait for it.... SSN!!!!
HOW WONDERFUL!
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by MetalliQaZ · 2011-06-20 06:25 · Score: 1

This story? The most important event in recent tech history? Wow. I thought it was just a report of a loose agreement between two groups of griefers. Who knew? Everything you predict is pure speculation. If anon and lulz actually pull off a large hack, that might be news, but... that isn't the case here.

--
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Gravatron · 2011-06-20 06:31 · Score: 1

a revolution online? Are you serious? what are we suppose to do to fight such a revolution, refused to use the internet?

All they are doing is ruining peopels lives to get their kicks, all because they can hide behind anonymous user names. Why not be open about it, if their cause is so just?
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by fyoder · 2011-06-20 07:13 · Score: 2

Maybe they should have a policy of easy to remember pass phrases -- lots of characters but no need to write them down. I was at a bank today where there was what appeared to be a new hire. She was having trouble with something, consulted her notes right there in front of me, points to a word and asks another worker, "is it this password?". I averted my eyes politely, but I should probably have stared pointedly at it and spoken it out loud a character at a time, just to make the point.

--
Loose lips lose spit.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by hairyfeet · 2011-06-20 07:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dear AC, this WOULD be one of the "most important events in recent technological history" if it wasn't being conducted by asshats that want credit for their actions.
If instead of waving their dicks around while wearing images of Trollface they would just quietly drop the info they gather into Wikileaks and a dozen other sources? Then the government wouldn't know if the leaks were internal or external, wouldn't know whether they have been infiltrated or not, and paranoia helps to undermine power by making it harder for their little cabals to communicate.
Instead what these guy Fawkes wearing dipshits will end up with is a nice new law where unless you are a developer (and if you say you are your line will be tapped) you will have to run an "approved OS to protect you from ID theft" which after all this high publicity will be quite easy to get the general populace to sign on to. This approved OS will be given software to "protect you" that will have a digital sig so that everywhere you go, anything you do, will be marked so as to be trivial to trace. Anyone who tries hooking up a machine without the sig will get a visit from guys in dark suits and their connection will be pulled seconds after the lack of the sig is detected.
If anyone thinks that having that old scrap of paper known as the constitution will keep those in power from crushing your rights like a bug haven't been paying attention to current events lately, and those in power were already looking for excuses to clamp down after seeing the Arab Spring events and how their old cronies who held power for decades are ending up run out on a rail. The fact that the current administration claims dropping bombs isn't hostile and that they have the right to Assassinate Americans on American soil should be pretty clear indicators that the constitution is being ignored.
By splattering their "Lulz" all over the Internet these dumbasses are playing right into the hands of those that want the Internet turned into cableTV. They COULD have been a major force of change, they COULD have brought to light many of the hidden evils these corrupt administrations all over the world are perpetrating on the peoples of the world. But by jumping up and down going "look at me, look!" all they will end up doing is having the ban hammer dropped on one of the last places of free expression left on the planet. So goodbye Internet, it was fun while it lasted but like most things online the trolls took a big shit all over you and ruined it for everyone.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by jhoegl · 2011-06-20 07:56 · Score: 1

Its actually HIPAA.
But here is the reality of the security that is.. it depends on you.
HIPAA is there to "best attempt" secure a patients data. Meaning password protect data sent via the web.
I implemented PGP encryption, SFTP, and P2P tunnels. If we needed we password protected files by zipping them.
I wasnt happy about it, but we did it in a jam.
The best one was hospitals deploying a system where you had to log onto a secure site with specific credentials to view secure information.
Can all this be "hacked" by trojans, keyloggers, and social engineering?
Sure, so due diligence is needed on the part of all employees.
You wouldnt let someone you dont know into a locked door would you?
It is due diligence to stop and ask them.
Same thing with not going to "that website".
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by man_the_king · 2011-06-20 09:15 · Score: 1

I wonder at the Moderators who are modding up posts praising Anon and LulzSec while ignoring your post, which so ably highlighted what these antics by these immature hypocrites may cause to the Internet we use every day.
But far be it from /. moderators to actually mod objectively.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by rdbiker · 2011-06-20 09:18 · Score: 1

Is Lulzsec comedic criticism in its relation to computer/network security somewhat analogous to Jon Stewart's comedic approach to current politics?
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2011-06-20 09:24 · Score: 2

The end result predictably being that everyone has taken to writing down their passwords. Banks are all about the semblance of security, not actual security.
Sounds like any corporation. When I worked at HP it was the same. 5ish different passwords for different systems, and every one had different requirements. And different expiry dates!
One I only needed once a month for payroll to an outsourcing company had to change passwords once a month. Had to change password every damn time I used it.
But my favorite was the one that flagged anything containing a dictionary word as insecure. So 6!x8qD3iT2#f7j32^#ng^3!0 was an insecure password because of "iT". It encouraged you to use short passwords or passwords of only numbers because using letters risked it finding "it" or "as" or something else in the string.
I had to write my passwords down. After a month of trying to be clever it just was not worth it. The password requirements were confusing and sometimes mutually exclusive.
Security has to be a balance between security and convenience, else your users will decide to subvert your security just to get their jobs done.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by horza · 2011-06-20 10:59 · Score: 1

If you live in such a crappy country, why don't you move? There are plenty of other countries that a few digital graffiti artists can't turn into an Orwellian society.
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by hairyfeet · 2011-06-20 11:07 · Score: 1

Meh, I've found half my posts labeled insightful and the other half troll or flamebait when the funny part is I'm always just doing what I always do, which is call it how I see it.
The part that pisses me off is that Anon COULD have been a great force for change. A good example was their image of an empty suit. Imagine if instead of trying to claim credit for everything they would have just quietly been leaking dirty deals and evil misdeed to Wikileaks and the web at large. Every criminal cabal in government, every dirty bureaucratic goon would have to think "Is that guy next to me one of them? Is he gonna rat this deal out and make my life hell?" and that paranoia COULD have been crippling and helped to make these kinds of evil bullshit harder to pull off.
But instead we have them blasting all over the web "Look at me LOL look!!" and by showing that all of their "attacks" are classic script kiddie bullshit not only tosses that chance to cause paranoia away, it gives the governments a perfect bogeyman for getting every authoritarian nasty thing they've ever want passed, by keeping in the news stories of normal folks losing their CC numbers to a bunch of clowns wearing trollface.
Like I said its a damned shame that one of the last great freedoms we have will in all likelihood be trashed thanks to these clowns, but as we have seen trolls come along and take a big shit all over the place and ruin it for everyone, all in the name of LULZ.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by BeaverCleaver · 2011-06-20 11:33 · Score: 1

Amen. I worked in healthcare in .au and we had the same problem. Different logins for at least 5 different systems. All of these required the usual mix of cases and numbers. Some of these changed monthly, some of them changed quarterly. The previous few passwords were stored so you couldn't alternate between just two passwords.
So it was policy (like, written in the orientation documents for new hires) to use the same password for each system-mandated change, but append the month that the password was created, to trick the filter.

--
sustainable living
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by RazorSharp · 2011-06-20 14:02 · Score: 1

Yes, AC, I see your opinions and predictions are oh so objective and well thought out.
If your plan for openness and freedom is to scare the government into implementing draconian policies that may be impossible to enforce, then you're in for a rude awakening. Marijuana prohibition is draconian and impossible to enforce but people still face legal penalties for marijuana related 'crimes.'
If you think that the whitehats are a failure then you simply don't understand security. Every increase of security limits efficiency, costs extra resources, and limits functionality. Practically every 'feature' adds to a system's insecurity. Even if you take a computer offline, it can still be compromised by means of social engineering, theft, or breaking and entering (like the computer in Mission: Impossible -- it's a hyperbolic situation that excellently demonstrates the impossibility of total security).
Security, whether digital or structural, will always consist of assessing threats and creating a barrier that is too difficult to be worth crossing. Not one that is impossible to cross, that's an impossible standard. If you live in a bad neighborhood where houses are frequently broken into, a pet pit bull to watch the house while you're at work may be sufficient security: although a burglar could kill your dog and still break into your house, most won't because it's not worth the risk. However, a bank can't use a single pit bull to secure millions of dollars. If Fort Knox was guarded by a pit bull, it wouldn't be for long. But Fort Knox isn't impenetrable, it's just not worth it for anyway. It would require so many resources and risks that anyone with those resources won't do it: guys like Goldfinger rarely, if ever, exist.
So yeah, the black hats may have swept the rug out from the feet of the white hats for right now, but it will just make the white hats much stronger. They're worth more money now and their opinions command more respect than they previously did. If your draconian policies become law the white hats working for the government will have the legal tools they need to give these black hats the Kevin Mitnick treatment (which they deserve infinitely more than he did).

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by Bazer · 2011-06-20 21:49 · Score: 2

This is something I read in a comment under a previous story about LulzSec and it's worth repeating here. Your attitude bears resemblance to a servant saying "Now you done angered the Master, and we'll all get a good whippin'."
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by TheCarp · 2011-06-21 01:22 · Score: 1

Yah I get the acronym wrong sometimes, I find it hard to remember but, I (luckily) don't have to deal directly with it much.
I started to reply earlier but, really... its nothing to do with HIPAA that I have an issue with. For fucks sake, its the ONLY thing that has ever made these clowns think about security. I remember when they came to me to say "you have to encrypt your laptop now".... I had encrypted it 3 years prior, on my own, while they were still issuing every single employee non-changeable 5 char single case passwords. (no seriously, we are talking less than 5 years ago too)
Also, um, why use zip for password protection? PGP can do symmetric encryption too
At my previous job, we made everyone submit a pgp key, and that is what we used to keep our root password sheet, so everyone could access it. I don't even want to say what they were doing here...lets just say... nothing I would use for my personal accounts. I have been trying to convince people to use keepass... with limited success.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Inflated sense of self-importance by theaceoffire · 2011-06-21 11:04 · Score: 1

"And the password security questions can't be user-defined"
^_^ Sure they can.
"Who was your first teacher?"
"2011 Honda".
Or did you answer those questions honestly?

--
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.

Better Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 02:22 · Score: 1

Close your eBanking account.
Check your bank account money every day.
Keep papers signed by the bank manger when you check your bank account.

Re:Better Idea by jeffmeden · 2011-06-20 02:52 · Score: 1

Don't forget to hide your kids... hide your wife... and you better hide your husband cause they leakin everybody out here...
lulz
Re:Better Idea by j00r0m4nc3r · 2011-06-20 04:42 · Score: 1

are you allowed to "lulz" your own joke?

Wait...are they threatening me now? by b_dover · 2011-06-20 02:22 · Score: 1

Wait...are they threatening me now?

Re:Wait...are they threatening me now? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 03:09 · Score: 1

this will certainly make it more difficult for you to get teepee for your bunghole.

Impact on bitcoins? by turkeyfeathers · 2011-06-20 02:22 · Score: 5, Funny

They're targeting banks and other high-ranking establishments... are my bitcoins at MtGox going to be safe?

Re:Impact on bitcoins? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-20 02:30 · Score: 2

Your bitcoins were never and will never be safe, because the entire system is a scam.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Dunbal · 2011-06-20 02:30 · Score: 1

Yes, and so is the dirt on your front lawn. The dirt is probably worth more, though.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by tenaciousj · 2011-06-20 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

This will in no way affect your bitcoin collection. They will still be as big of a joke in the future as they are now.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by pla · 2011-06-20 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Y'know, I consider BitCoins pretty much just a nice idea, at this point, with plenty of problems and no real value (beyond speculation).

That said, the number of people who bother actually posting just to tell us how much they dislike them, in response to even the slightest, even humorous (in this case) mention of BTC... Just wow.

Makes me lean toward taking them a bit more seriously - No one hates on Linden dollars or even Facebook credits.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by durrr · 2011-06-20 02:49 · Score: 2

But in the future they will have the enjoyable company of United States Dollars and the Euro as company.

Arguably they already do.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by petteyg359 · 2011-06-20 02:57 · Score: 1

The phrase is "weren't, aren't, and never will be".
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 03:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'll second that.
I appreciate the subtlety of BitCoin's distributed implementation. I'm only curious and don't buy or trade them.
The negative hate for them here feels more like a false flag operation than genuine posts?
To all the haters.... how did bitcoins hurt you so much that you know hate them?
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by hedwards · 2011-06-20 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that as soon as people are allowed to post things which aren't true without being challenged, over time the falsehoods come to take on an aura of truth which is then difficult to deal with. Just like how now people still believe refer to healthcare reform as "obamacare" despite the conclusive evidence and references that most of the controversial stuff was lifted from conservative candidates.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Trentula · 2011-06-20 03:06 · Score: 1

The people constantly calling Bitcoin a scam are more annoying than the people who espouse Bitcoins virtues.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by turkeyfeathers · 2011-06-20 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny

To all the haters.... how did bitcoins hurt you so much that you know hate them?
By clogging up Slashdot's front page with bitcoin stories, when the space could be much better used for Packt book reviews.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-20 03:24 · Score: 1

By clogging up Slashdot's front page with bitcoin stories, when the space could be much better used for Packt book reviews.
Enough with the Packt spam already!
(I'm just trying to get ahead of the curve)
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-06-20 03:24 · Score: 1

Y'know, I consider BitCoins pretty much just a nice idea, at this point, with plenty of problems and no real value (beyond speculation).
That said, the number of people who bother actually posting just to tell us how much they dislike them, in response to even the slightest, even humorous (in this case) mention of BTC... Just wow.
Makes me lean toward taking them a bit more seriously - No one hates on Linden dollars or even Facebook credits.
The haters are probably gold bugs who also like to rant about the worthlessness of fiat currency. There's a lot of that about these days.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-06-20 03:25 · Score: 2

I hate on Linden dollars. They're "market" is a joke, because Linden repeatedly devastated it while running for cover to ban banks and gambling.
As for BTC, it's a "start", but it nowhere near mature enough to be used widely. A true distributed currency must allow users to define the rules, not the other way around. Though there is no "organization", the rules are the "system", and all systems have flaws.
Where I think BTC shines is in its proven method of transaction and triple record accounting. But the BTC currency itself is useless. The idea of mining is good, but to give the currency real value, it needs mining for data that itself is of real value, so that something of consequence is gained. Time is spent, but it's just digging one hole after another with no purpose.
The Linden took off because with the small subscription, everyone got Lindens. With BTC, you can't spend what you don't have. You have to toss around a few hundred thousand 0.01 BTC before you'll see people saying, "Hmmm, I wonder what I could buy with this?"
That's why Linden started working (that and real estate grabs).

--
I8-D
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-20 03:27 · Score: 2

What makes it a scam has nothing to do with the source code; it has to do with the fundamental architecture of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed to see an extreme rate of deflation early on, and gradually slow down as more people used the system. In other words, Bitcoin's developers and early adopters make enormous profits, and late adopters wind up losing.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-20 03:36 · Score: 1, Troll

No, the "haters" are people who understand that currencies which cannot be used to legally settle debts and whose design inevitably leads to a deflationary trend should be avoided. Bitcoin is not even a fiat currency, since it was not created by a government (see: definition of fiat currency).

It's OK though, you can continue to assume that we live in a world where everyone either supports Bitcoin or thinks we should run back to the gold standard.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by artor3 · 2011-06-20 03:43 · Score: 1

Two of the above mentioned currencies are recognized by billions and backed by governments. The other is recognized by anarchist man-children with zero understanding of how money works. Can you tell which is which?
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by elrous0 · 2011-06-20 03:58 · Score: 1

Fortunately, I have all my money in flooz.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Shikaku · 2011-06-20 04:06 · Score: 1

No I cannot actually.
Especially considering that the bank bailouts of 2008 was just money created out of thin air, and we use digital currency all the time already. The only difference between them is who accepts what currency
At least with Bitcoin you know how much money is always in the system. Either way I still find the hate unfounded and my apathy unchanged.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Opportunist · 2011-06-20 04:06 · Score: 1

Ummmm.... given the recent development, it gets harder by the day.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by nedlohs · 2011-06-20 04:13 · Score: 1

Do you know what the word "future" means?
The German Mark was recognized by billions and backed by government in 1920 too.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-06-20 04:20 · Score: 1

No, the "haters" are people who understand that currencies which cannot be used to legally settle debts
What does that mean ? It's not legal tender, sure, but you can use it to settle some debts with persons who accept it.

and whose design inevitably leads to a deflationary trend should be avoided.
What's inherently deflationary about it ? Are you arguing new bitcoins aren't generated fast enough ?

Bitcoin is not even a fiat currency, since it was not created by a government (see: definition of fiat currency).
Fiat currency does not have to be issued by a government. Wikipedia :
"The term fiat money has been defined variously as:
- any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[3]
- state-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[4]
- money without intrinsic value.[5]"

It's OK though, you can continue to assume that we live in a world where everyone either supports Bitcoin or thinks we should run back to the gold standard.
Relax. I'm not even a bitcoin proponent, I was just observing that there's a lot of this "gold coins under the mattress" nutbaggery around these days and something like Bitcoin becoming popular would be anathema to them.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by kevinNCSU · 2011-06-20 04:31 · Score: 1

No, the "haters" are people who understand that currencies which cannot be used to legally settle debts
What does that mean ? It's not legal tender, sure, but you can use it to settle some debts with persons who accept it.

That bolded conditional is what it means. You don't have the option to settle a debt legally in bit-coins unless the other person chooses to. Just like you cant go up to a bank and say I don't have any cash to settle my car loan but I do have 50 bushels of apples. The bank or creditor doesn't legally have to accept bit-coins any more then they do apple bushels. But they have to accept the US dollar. Throw the IRS and taxes into the mix and you should be able to see why legal tender is more useful.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by nomadic · 2011-06-20 04:38 · Score: 1

Especially considering that the bank bailouts of 2008 was just money created out of thin air, and we use digital currency all the time already.

And yet the US dollar is still valuable, while overnight bitcoins have become virtually worthless.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Steauengeglase · 2011-06-20 04:42 · Score: 1

So it is like Apple stock?
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-06-20 04:56 · Score: 1

I wouldn't keep my entire savings in Bitcoins but there's nothing wrong with having small amounts even though it isn't legal tender. It's equivalent to having a giftcard or an iTunes credit. It is understood that it can only be redeemed under certain circumstances.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by nedlohs · 2011-06-20 05:43 · Score: 1

So 1918 then, or 1914, or 1900, or 1890. Who cares on the actual date, it was a well respected currency issued by a well respected government and it crashed within the lifetime of those people. Why is the euro magically immune from such a fate?
Or are you arguing that everybody already knows that the euro is a house of cards waiting for a catasrophe today?
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by jonbryce · 2011-06-20 06:02 · Score: 1

Gift cards are, round my way anyway, backed by an EU registered electronic money issuer, usually Clydesdale Bank, Newcastle Building Society or Raphaels Bank. iTunes credits are backed by the second largest company in the world. Bitcoins are backed by some guy on an IRC channel who may or may not live in Japan, but nobody is really sure, and he doesn't promise to continue backing them in the future anyway.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Em+Adespoton · 2011-06-20 06:09 · Score: 1

...and yet, bitcoins are already being targeted by malware.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-20 06:39 · Score: 2
What's inherently deflationary about it ? Are you arguing new bitcoins aren't generated fast enough ?
Essentially, yes: Bitcoins are not generated fast enough to prevent deflation; worse, Bitcoin is designed so that the rate of new currency generation is slowed down over time, regardless of whether or not the Bitcoin economy grows. Bitcoin has already seen substantial deflation over the past year.

Fiat currency does not have to be issued by a government. Wikipedia :
You must have missed these parts of that very article:
- Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law.
- A feature of all fiat money is its acceptability to the government for payment of taxes and charges.
- fiat money is based solely on faith in the government issuing the money.
--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by pla · 2011-06-20 07:18 · Score: 1

Running awesome games is the only serious non-time-wasting application for GPUs.

What more can I say? Screw cancer and SETI, a man's gotta play!

I can't find a goddamned $125 Radeon card ANYWHERE

Have you, uh, tried Newegg or Amazon?

The former has 50+ DX11-capable Radeons under $125. And if you bump that price to $140, they have another 20 choices, including quite a few 5770s - Not too shabby a card!
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by thunderclap · 2011-06-20 08:06 · Score: 1

That's because Lindens actually can be converted into dollars and there are real millionaires form just Lindens to dollars transactions. Hell, I made $40 this month from people buying digital food for their avatars. So bitcoins can be raged at.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Bucky24 · 2011-06-20 10:19 · Score: 1

What's inherently deflationary about it ? Are you arguing new bitcoins aren't generated fast enough ?
It grows on a curve that ensures that eventually (and that time is approaching soon) it will become prohibitively expensive to generate new coins. Which means that the currency will stop growing. While this will basically eliminate inflation, it will have the opposite effect, where the level of currency circulating will go down as people horde it. Eventually it will become flat, with very little if any buying or selling. Once this happens people will stop accepting bitcoins and the whole currency will become useless.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Flaming+Foobar · 2011-06-20 10:25 · Score: 1

No, the difference is who's backing the currency: the government, or... well... nobody, since bitcoin's idea does not involve a central authority
Backing? How? I keep hearing this, but I don't understand what it means.
The way I see it, the value of money comes from the knowledge (or trust) that someone will accept a certain amount of it as an exchange for goods, or work, or whatever. How is any government "backing" that? I haven't seen any guarantees anywhere that my cash will be worth anything tomorrow.
Bitcoin is "backed" simply by the fact that there are enough people who will accept it as an exchange for goods, or work, or "other" currency (I'm still not sure it's correct to call it a currency).

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by BeaverCleaver · 2011-06-20 11:41 · Score: 1

Bah. My beenz account will keep me comfortable in retirement.

--
sustainable living
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-20 12:16 · Score: 1

am i wrong?
Yes you are wrong:

while bitcoins might be designed to see an extreme rate of deflation, i see absolutely no difference in a capitalist market that raises the prices of goods but doesn't raise the laborer's wage to keep up
Probably because you never saw the definitions of inflation and deflation.

i see absolutely no difference in a capitalist market where a central bank dictates the interest rate of debt
That is because you are not paying attention. Nobody would issue a Bitcoin loan, because they would have little recourse if a person defaulted on their debt, and only a complete idiot would take out a Bitcoin loan, because the built-in deflation would make repaying that loan very difficult. You think that it is problem that banks can manipulate markets with loans? Try a world without loans, and see how much harder it becomes for the lower class to open a business when they can't find any capital.

except that in the bitcoin world, nobody has the power to adjust the value of the bitcoin via interest rate.
In the Bitcoin world, the developers and early adopters sold their currency at a huge profit, leaving the late adopters praying for more deflation and even more late adopters so that they don't lose everything they put into Bitcoin.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by nedlohs · 2011-06-20 14:37 · Score: 1

The Weimar Republic is irrelevant, the currency was what was being discussed. Governments and countries change, just because a particular currency is "safe" today doesn't mean it will be in 50 years time.
You missed c) The eurozone dumps the euro and reverts back to individual currencies.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by Dunbal · 2011-06-20 22:12 · Score: 1

Chill the fuck out or go die in a fire.
I guess you bought a lot of Bitcoin huh? I was reading the other day about how they were simply going to roll back the trades and pretend the crash never happened. Welcome to real world markets. Just the fact that it DID crash means that anyone who was seriously betting on the future of Bitcoin and has half a brain is now going to be pulling their money out as soon as possible. Those who are rabidly set on the greed concept (and by no means the minority) of making their millions through Bitcoin will be staying in, and are perhaps even buying Bitcoin right now taking advantage of this "opportunity", keeping the price afloat for a while.
But at some point you will run out of buyers. This means you will have no one to sell your Bitcoin to. The price will stagnate again, sellers will exceed buyers, and the price will crash again. Crashes come in waves. At that point Bitcoin will be well and truly dead.
This is not a property of Bitcoin, it's a property of MARKETS. Bitcoin's only purported value was safety. It's hard to get. It's even harder to sell. It has been proven unsafe. The game is over - you just don't know it yet. Now wait until the lawyers get involved - and they will if real money has been lost.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by ginbot462 · 2011-06-21 05:02 · Score: 1

At least it's not Pogs.

--
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
Re:Impact on bitcoins? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-22 09:21 · Score: 1

is that a jab? what is your point and why should i care? i know the definitions, maybe if you come down off your high pony you can see that.
You equated price increases with deflation. In a deflationary situation, we would expect to see decreases in the price of goods, as currency becomes more valuable.

Nobody would issue a Bitcoin loan
oh please, you know that's not true. same sentence...
Deflation makes loans harder to repay which means anyone issuing a loan with a deflationary currency would be less likely to be repaid. Sure, you could try to issue a loan at a very high interest rate, to account to the enormous risk that a Bitcoin loan entails, but the rate would be absurd and I doubt there would be enough people seeking loans to even make it worthwhile.

and only a complete idiot would take out a Bitcoin loan
duuuuhhh yeah. are you high? who are we talking about here? if bitcoins become more broadly accepted you betcha bitcoin loan sharks will come out of the woodwork. where have you been?
Only an idiot would take out a loan in a deflationary currency, because repaying the loan would be difficult. It would be like taking out a loan at %1000 interest.

try a world without loans? try living within your means. it's called responsibility.
Tell that to all the people who built successful businesses that started with a loan. We are not just talking about billionaires; there are plenty of small businesses out there that were started with loans, which are owned by middle class people who would never have been able to start a business if they couldn't get a loan. Money lending has been fundamental to business and economics for centuries.

If you think loans are only about buying expensive toys, you are living in another world.

--
Palm trees and 8

Misguided Intentions by what2123 · 2011-06-20 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I am not against their intentions of trying to open up the government-corporation love affair, this will only result in the creation of stupid legislature where everyone is forced to present an ID on the internet. Of course, those that want to get around this will, the same way all ID-thieves work, steal some other persons information.

Re:Misguided Intentions by halivar · 2011-06-20 02:39 · Score: 2

It's a case of "whoever wins, we lose."
Re:Misguided Intentions by LWATCDR · 2011-06-20 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is an ego trip. Notice they are not targeting China or North Korea or even Israel. The reason is those and some other nations wouldn't think twice about a few accidents happening.
Yes this little ego trip will end up convincing the average voter and politico that they need to have the capital punishment for possession of packet sniffers. Books on TCP/IP will become classified and computer programers will have to show that they need to know those skills before they are allowed to own documents on APIs. All software will have to be signed and all programmers will have to be registered.
Gee thanks thanks you creeps for spoiling all the fun. Hope you like the LOLs kids.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Misguided Intentions by rastilin · 2011-06-20 03:03 · Score: 2

In essence your opinion is that we shouldn't stand up for truth because there are worse people out there and the perfectly innocent government will beat the tar out of us. That's a wonderful reason to do nothing; I wonder why wikileaks exists. You should tell them your idea :D.

--
How do you kill that which has no life?
Re:Misguided Intentions by silanea · 2011-06-20 03:08 · Score: 1

Why would any civilian living in what is subsumed under "the West" target either of those proposed countries? It is our own politicians who lie to us, it is our own banksters who stuff their pockets at our expense. I do not care about China, North Korea or Israel. If they want to go ballistic on us, I as an individual certainly do not have any means of significance at my disposal to do anything about it. Our politicians, on the other hand, can be made to suffer by exposing their wrongdoings, running campaigns against them and turning their voters against them. This is an enemy I can take on, and one whose downfall brings me tangible results.

--
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Re:Misguided Intentions by icebraining · 2011-06-20 03:25 · Score: 1

this will only result in the creation of stupid legislature where everyone is forced to present an ID on the internet.

Please. We can hardly convince companies to switch to IPv6 when that will clearly benefit them, do you really think govt. will actually force everyone - including big companies - to implement such security measures? I doubt it very much.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Misguided Intentions by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-06-20 03:26 · Score: 1

No this will be used as the excuse for that kind of legislation. Big difference.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Misguided Intentions by Calos · 2011-06-20 03:31 · Score: 2

Or maybe they don't target some of these other nations because everyone already assumes a high level of corruption, and the censorship in those countries are at a high enough level that the people that really need to be informed and can try for change - their own citizens - are never going to see the leaks anyway.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:Misguided Intentions by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-20 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

In essence your opinion is that we shouldn't stand up for truth because there are worse people out there and the perfectly innocent government will beat the tar out of us. That's a wonderful reason to do nothing; I wonder why wikileaks exists. You should tell them your idea :D.
Which is great if what we're getting is truth. Wikileaks produces propaganda. Anonymous and lulzsec seem to produce little more than ego trips. What we have is groups thrashing around and creating really handy political targets for said "worse people" while producing very little for the effort. If anything, they are likely to be damaging the efforts of those who are or would be whistle-blowers producing evidence of real issues.
Re:Misguided Intentions by Infernal+Device · 2011-06-20 03:40 · Score: 2

Sure, they're going after governments, but the collateral damage comes from the civilian population - who look to the governments to take some action and actually remove the problem.
Not LulzSec - the average man on the street probably doesn't know who they are and doesn't care until their banking info is out there for the world to see, and then they're going to blame LulsSec, NOT the banks or the government.
I really think Luls and Anon are not out to do any actual good in the world, they just want to laugh and they really don't care who gets hurt in the process. I mean, it's certainly not them or anyone they know, so who cares, right?

--
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Re:Misguided Intentions by Device666 · 2011-06-20 03:44 · Score: 1

Governments always find reasons to do censorship or to publish cooked data and if they don't some companies will do for them (or lobby for it). Groups like Lulz and Anonymous will achieve to show that our government doesn't represent, protect and serve the best interests of it citizens. They don't represent their citizens when they are influenced by lobby (the banking lobby for instance, or the closed source lobby), they don't protect us because they don't secure our id data amongst other things and they fail to serve us by the latter but also by being utmost nontransparent to us about it also. So as long as the government and other high profile organisations are not confronted about this they will not change their behavior.

So talking is a good option, but if that takes ages to progress and with a lacking sense of urgency it doesn't help either. In a way the government is waiting for the inevitable. if Anonymous or Lulz will not do it, maybe some Chinese sponsered better equipped hackergroup will do it (or is doing it already without us knowing it). So I think the means maybe dirty to and end, but what alternative? I think none. And I am not a cracker, but I think digital actions are allowed since our digital rights are very badly handled by government. And also this kind of actions can give us insight to things we would never get exposed using the old school spionage way. I just stick a thumbs up for it. Public intelligence rebellion!

Kudos to Anonymous, Lulz. Go shake up some feathers!!
Re:Misguided Intentions by LWATCDR · 2011-06-20 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Funny but yea it is kind like being a hero that beats the crap out of jay walkers while the a serial killer is taking out a kindergarden. They do not pick on any really bad people just the safe ones like video game makers and front facing websites. Ewww they are soo worth looking up too. Wikileaks MODIFIED by adding emotionally manipulative video to the gunship footage to aid in fund raising. That right their makes them an outlet for propaganda. Instead of letting you decided for yourself they set you up to feel the way they wanted you too. Odds are that you will not see it or even believe it but that just shows how good of a job they did at manipulation.
Truth? Anon picks on the disabled and children and those that they don't agree with. They do not produce the truth they produce ego trips. They harassed a kid that put a website to discourage kids from using foul language just for the LOLs. That is anti-freedom of speech folks.
Sure stand up for the truth. Thing is no one stands up for the truth by hiding.
You know that whole Stand up and be counted thing?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Misguided Intentions by LWATCDR · 2011-06-20 03:56 · Score: 1

Yea sure what ever. What it will do is show the average person that they need to government to protect them from the "evil hackers".
Ewwww they took down Sony... So a lot of kids didn't get to play videogames. Ewwww they hacked the senates front facing Website and PBS.... They even hacked the CIA. To the average person do you know what message that sends? Probably not since you are dumb enough to think that it is a good thing.
To the average voter it means that we have criminals. When a bank gets robbed do you blame the police or the bank? No you hunt down the criminals and spend more on the police and give the banks more authority to secure themselves and more police protection.
When script kiddies attack PBS, Sony, and front facing websites for Congress and the CIA you pass stronger antihacking laws and spend more time and efforts to take out those criminals.
Oh and while you are at it you might as well crackdown on those evil movie and music sharing sites that the hackers love so much. And those Hacking websites like HakADay, Slashdot, and HAK5 where all those evil hackers hang out really need to be policed and blocked at schools.
You are a fool if you think Anon and Lutzsec are a threat to the people that want to crack down. They are gift. They are a god send. They are the greatest excuses I mean reason for the big corps to push for tighter anti-hacking laws that will cover everything from P2P to mod chips on consoles. They will become the reason for the cybercops and aid the thought police.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Misguided Intentions by X.25 · 2011-06-20 04:00 · Score: 1

It is an ego trip. Notice they are not targeting China or North Korea or even Israel. The reason is those and some other nations wouldn't think twice about a few accidents happening.
So, if someone wanted to expose their government's dirty laundry, they should go and hack Chinese, North Korean or Israeli servers?
Even though they don't (presumably) live in China, North Korea or Israel?
Great logic there :)
Re:Misguided Intentions by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 04:13 · Score: 1

They will become the reason for the cybercops and aid the thought police.
Not the reason, the excuse. Which, in my mind, is precisely the point of the movement. Those laws not on the books are already written, earmarked, and supported by powerful non-governmental interests. It's like a frog in hot water. Turn up the heat faster, the frog may have time to jump out.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Misguided Intentions by bws111 · 2011-06-20 04:23 · Score: 1

So you support warrantless searches and invasions of privacy? Or does that only apply if you are looking for 'truth' and/or the target is someone you don't agree with?
Re:Misguided Intentions by phyrexianshaw.ca · 2011-06-20 04:24 · Score: 1

When a bank gets robbed do you blame the police or the bank?
That depends strongly on what you mean by "robbed". when someone walks in with a gun and demands the bank put cash in their hand, we can all see who's at fault.

When that same bank robs people of their money and dumps all it's stored value into other markets, and just starts telling the Gov't that it "needs more money due to over-lending": people don't currently know who to blame.

People need to realize that "robbers" are on both sides of the counter.
Re:Misguided Intentions by LWATCDR · 2011-06-20 05:09 · Score: 1

Fool. You live in a tiny little world of your choosing and only deal for the most part with people that think like you. Those that disagree you dismiss as stupid.
Typical.
People will see that they can not log onto Sony because of a hacker, there bank account info was stolen because of a hacker, their government threatened by a hacker. PBS is the best example they where attacked because somebody didn't like what they reported.
The average person on the street is actually going to be right. The will see these people as nothing more than tugs and will want them stopped. The politicos will take that mandate and use it the help the entertainment industry. You do know President Obama is supporting a law that will make "illegal" streaming a crime that can punished by up too five years in jail! Next they will make console mod chips punishable by death. The thing is that most people don't have mod chips in their consoles or even know what illegal streaming is but if the hackers support it then it must be bad.
I find it borderline insane that so many people on Slashdot are so dim that they fail to understand this simple concept.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Misguided Intentions by Duradin · 2011-06-20 05:18 · Score: 1

The government is behind giving them enough rope to hang themselves, I'll give you that.
Hopefully there will be warning of when they'll let the hammer fall so I can have popcorn ready.
Re:Misguided Intentions by NeoMorphy · 2011-06-20 05:18 · Score: 1

I suspect the real reason China isn't targeted much is because they are probably supporting Anonymous. Or maybe they can't read chinese?
They hit wfaic.gov.cn, which implies that they aren't that afraid. However, I suspect that was a ploy to make it look like China was targeted as well. But if Anonymous wanted to really help the people and expose corruption and fight censorship, there's a lot to be targeted in China. They're way too obsessed with the United States. I understand that there is a lot of corruption in the U.S., but we don't have a monopoly on it.
We already know that hackers can safely operate from Russia and China without getting caught, as long as they don't target anyone within Russia or China. We also know that if a hacker in the U.S. challenged the wrong people, he'll get caught. There are hackers outside of China and Russia who are part of Anonymous, but they're the ones who get caught.
Re:Misguided Intentions by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 05:50 · Score: 1

Fool.
Those that disagree you dismiss as stupid.
Typical.
I can't imagine what I could add that would invalidate your argument more succinctly.
Thanks!

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Misguided Intentions by Grygus · 2011-06-20 06:58 · Score: 1

Let me throw on my tinfoil hat here, but is it possible that....
The government is behind all these attacks?
dun dun dun
No. The government has no need for such subtlety; this isn't scary enough to be worth the risk. It's also taking too long. If run by the government, LulzSec would be leaking a lot more personal information to engender greater fear in the populace. They would have hit a couple of banks by now and stolen some money or leaked customer information from there. They would have brought down Netflix for a couple of days. Hitting some video game sites and defacing PBS's website would be a waste of time toward the push for fearful authorization to pass laws. The longer the operation lasted, the greater the risk of discovery or leaks. If the government was behind this, LulzSec would have been more obviously dangerous and the prepared legislation would have already been introduced, if not passed by now.
Re:Misguided Intentions by geoskd · 2011-06-20 08:22 · Score: 1

I really think Luls and Anon are not out to do any actual good in the world, they just want to laugh and they really don't care who gets hurt in the process. I mean, it's certainly not them or anyone they know, so who cares, right?
Thats like saying that investigative reporters only write the stories, that they do, to get readers to pay for their publications. Its technically correct, but fails to tell the whole story. Like Journalists, these hackers are shining a bright light on other peoples dirty little secrets, and all of us can choose to benefit from the enlightenment, or embrace the blissfully ignorant darkness.

I, for one, choose the light, and judge others by which they choose. No matter how painful it may be.

-=Geoskd

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:Misguided Intentions by LWATCDR · 2011-06-20 08:25 · Score: 1

Actually I must say that I am sorry for that. I was speaking in general about the Slashdot posters and forgot that I was replying to an individual. That was terrible offensive and not polite at all and was just my anger speaking.
Thing is that the results of these attacks will be more really bad laws past and frankly LulzSec and Anon have done nothing of any value. They just threaten people and yes the attack on PBS was an attack on Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech.
So again please forgive me for flying off the handle and forgetting that you were on the other side of the post.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Misguided Intentions by silanea · 2011-06-20 10:13 · Score: 1

Calm down. I merely explained why it does not make sense for anyone here to attack the countries you proposed. There is nothing in it. Well, maybe lulz, but even that apparently is not enough of an incentive. Going after our own governments and industries produces a tangible result. DDOSing some state propaganda website in China? Who cares? I am not judging whether such a move is, overall, good or bad. I see lots of arguments for both sides. I understand that the attacks will be turned into prime-time proganda by our politicians. At the same time they hand out embarrassment as if there was no tomorrow and bring to light the incompetence of the very people who want to record every step we make, listen in on every conversation we have and monitor what we read and write online; It clearly shows that those people cannot be trusted with all the information they are collecting on us, that they cannot master technology the way they claim. That they are not omnipotent or untouchable.
But regardless of whether those attacks are good or bad, they produce results. That is why targets are chosen the way they are. That is why the choices make sense.

--
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Re:Misguided Intentions by Bucky24 · 2011-06-20 10:34 · Score: 1

Groups like Lulz and Anonymous will achieve to show that our government doesn't represent, protect and serve the best interests of it citizens.
The problem is that the only people who will care already realize this.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Misguided Intentions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 11:21 · Score: 1

They do not produce the truth they produce ego trips. They harassed a kid that put a website to discourage kids from using foul language just for the LOLs. That is anti-freedom of speech folks.
Sure stand up for the truth. Thing is no one stands up for the truth by hiding.
You know that whole Stand up and be counted thing?
What do you produce?
Putting your money where your mouth is, is already 90% better than polite "normal" passive sheep users. Just sitting there ranting about how the government has turned so and so against the little guy.
Re:Misguided Intentions by LWATCDR · 2011-06-20 14:33 · Score: 1

Only if the results you want is less freedom and more anti-hacking laws. They will not manage to hack any CIA secure data that the CIA doesn't want hacked. Nope it is like a hamster attacking a tiger. Just make it easier for the Tiger to find and yet you... If you are worth the effort.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

This is what happens when... by pandrijeczko · 2011-06-20 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

...one hacking group with small willies meets another hacking group with tiny penises.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Re:This is what happens when... by Stregano · 2011-06-20 08:55 · Score: 1

penii
FTFY
don't ask me how I know this

--
The world is how you make it

Focus, please by shockbeton · 2011-06-20 02:23 · Score: 1

Banks have classified "Government" information? What are these kids trying to achieve, exactly?

Re:Focus, please by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 02:27 · Score: 1

They might be trying to find evidence of the payoffs, bribery & backroom deals that go on between corporations and the government.
Or maybe just doing it for fun. Either way I applaud their efforts.
Re:Focus, please by tnk1 · 2011-06-20 02:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I hope they have forensic accountants, because just getting a list of accounts isn't going to do squat in uncovering anything.
Re:Focus, please by pla · 2011-06-20 02:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Banks have classified "Government" information? What are these kids trying to achieve, exactly?

Quick question - Why did we bail out Goldman, but not Lehman?

Totally unrelated second question - Which former CEO of Goldman Sachs "just happened" to also serve as the Secretary of the Treasury who oversaw the bank bailouts at the peak of the recession?

You want to find out who has the real power, you look at who has the money. Simple as that.
Re:Focus, please by jeffmeden · 2011-06-20 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Banks have classified "Government" information? What are these kids trying to achieve, exactly?
Emails, most likely. Like the alleged Bank of America scandalous emails that WikiLeaks talked up. Remember, these days nationwide banks and Governments have a LOT in common (see: speculation, regulation, insider deals, campaign contribs, etc.)
Re:Focus, please by ElectricTurtle · 2011-06-20 02:58 · Score: 3, Informative

All they have to do is get the raw data and dump it to the internet. Crowdsourcing will do the analysis, just as has been done with all previous email and doc dropping leaks. If you drop it they will come, bored or curious persons of all skillsets.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Focus, please by DarkOx · 2011-06-20 03:00 · Score: 2

Yes, I'd love to see a full accounting of the various bailouts, stress test results, DOJ filings related to the utter lack of documentation used to foreclose, which CEO's trade the most E-mail with the Treasury Dept, etc etc.
This is actually probably some of the most IMPORTANT to the public secrets the government is keeping. Who cares about military documents, and diplomatic cables, this is the stuff of why we evolved in the first place.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Focus, please by hedwards · 2011-06-20 03:06 · Score: 1

If they release it somebody is going to be interested enough in it to analyze it. Whether it's a forensic accountant as a hobby or a competitor that's willling to pay for the analysis so that they can hurt their competition. But trust me, if there's information like that out there somebody will analyze it. There's always journalists looking to do an expose.
Re:Focus, please by bws111 · 2011-06-20 03:29 · Score: 2

Yeah, a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons is really valuable stuff. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Or maybe, if the (unauthenticated) data indicates someone you don't like did something improper, then it simply MUST be true?
Re:Focus, please by artor3 · 2011-06-20 03:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Because the Goldman Sachs bailout came over a month after Lehman Brothers crashed! TARP was in many ways a response to that crash. It wasn't even three years ago! How have you already forgotten?
Stop lying. Stop spreading conspiracy theories. Just stop.
Re:Focus, please by robot256 · 2011-06-20 04:00 · Score: 1

How else are we supposed to get it? Since when were classified document leaks "verifiable" anyways? I didn't think leaked documents were usable in court, they just give ideas of where to investigate. And yes, plenty of leaked documents have been forgeries, and yes, you'd think docs leaked by the news media would be more reliable than those released by kiddie hackers, but at this point I'm not so sure.
Re:Focus, please by V-similitude · 2011-06-20 04:05 · Score: 1

Quick question - Why did we bail out Goldman, but not Lehman?
Um, we didn't bail out Goldman. We forced them to take some TARP money so that the banks that needed it wouldn't look so desperate. And we bailed out AIG which was more a bailout of the banks that were selling Goldman insurance against AIG defaulting. We didn't bail out Lehman for a variety of reasons, mostly due to stupidity, but also because we couldn't find a buyer for them at any price (unlike Bear Stearns). And there were some serious fiscal issues at that point as well.

You want to find out who has the real power, you look at who has the money. Simple as that.
While true, your example was poor.
Re:Focus, please by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 04:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons is really valuable stuff. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Or maybe, if the (unauthenticated) data indicates someone you don't like did something improper, then it simply MUST be true?
No, you're right. Better to not publish anything for peer review and instead make baseless accusations.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Focus, please by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 04:27 · Score: 1

Except that it's never as simple as MegaCorp paying $10million to PoliticianA. These idiots don't have the tools to do what the FBI and others do every day.
Maybe. You know that old saw about everything looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer? Well with enough hammers, anything can be used as a nail.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Focus, please by Americano · 2011-06-20 04:29 · Score: 1

Yeah, just like we've turned up all that hard evidence of war crimes and human rights abuses in the wikileaks dumps?
"Crowdsourcing" your analysis is absolutely fantastic if you want to simply propagate a bunch of myths and reinforce peoples' biases: "There's MILLIONS of documents in that leak, there MUST be some evidence of a war crime. I'm sure somebody else will find it, so I'll just assume it's there!"
As an actual tool for finding actual wrongdoing? Not so much.
Re:Focus, please by jellomizer · 2011-06-20 04:31 · Score: 1

No you shouldn't applaud their effort!
This could have a huge damage,and hurting the good people more then the bad ones. OK fine the backs should have better security, most of them have an upgrade scheduled and budgeted. All you did was force it up the pipeline and make the job more expensive... And who will pay for it, the average consumer. Companies may not like to pass the cost savings down to the consumer, but they are quick on passing on the expense.
And how is going to stop bribery and backroom deals? Do you think they are going to be written down as such... No, Unless you know what exactly you are looking for, you are not going to find it by looking at the data. So you just made everyone's lives miserable. Without coming up with any really exciting information.
Heck those Wiki-leaks wan't really that useful information anyways too.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Focus, please by pla · 2011-06-20 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Because the Goldman Sachs bailout came over a month after Lehman Brothers crashed! TARP was in many ways a response to that crash. It wasn't even three years ago! How have you already forgotten?

Well, one of us seems to have already forgotten, anyway...

For example, which of us remembers the 50 billion in TAF approved six months before Lehman collapsed, with hundreds of billions more in near-weekly expansions to that program?

Or that the the first big-money bailout happened at the end of July 2008 (two months prior to Lehman), with the US government starting its buyout of Fanny and Freddy thanks to 300 billion from the HERA and a guarantee of unlimited credit?

Or that quite a few smaller banks had gone belly-up in the two months after HERA and prior to Lehman?

Or the fact that congress hauled Bernanke's butt in, before the end of that week to justify his decision (it didn't "just happen", we let it happen) not to bail out Lehman?

Or most telling of all, that the Federal Reserve did bail out AIG the same goddamned day Lehman's value dropped by 2/3rds?

Stop lying. Stop spreading conspiracy theories. Just stop.

I have no interest in revisionism, but We The People got fucked, and hard. So, which financial institution do you work for?
Re:Focus, please by bws111 · 2011-06-20 04:45 · Score: 1

That is exactly what they are doing. They have already made the baseless accusation that the government is corrupt, and now they are going to 'find' some information to prove it. And what are you going to 'peer review'? There is only ONE source of data, and it can't be authenticated.
Re:Focus, please by bws111 · 2011-06-20 04:52 · Score: 1

Most leaked documents don't need verification, because no-one is denying their authenticity as they don't point to anything illegal. You might wish that your enemy didn't know some information, but there is no point in denying that the information is true. In this case however, they are supposedly 'leaking' information which shows illegal activity, so you can bet there will be denials. This exercise is nothing more than a witch hunt.
Re:Focus, please by Sprouticus · 2011-06-20 05:48 · Score: 1

wish I had mod points.
Re:Focus, please by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 06:04 · Score: 1

That is exactly what they are doing. They have already made the baseless accusation that the government is corrupt, and now they are going to 'find' some information to prove it. And what are you going to 'peer review'? There is only ONE source of data, and it can't be authenticated.
I wouldn't say the accusation that the government is corrupt is entirely baseless - there seems to be a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to at least support investigation, and you can hardly expect a suspect office to investigate itself.
As for cloud peer review, you have no basis for an assertion that any leak cannot be authenticated by some other means, because we aren't actually talking about a real leak but some theoretical future leak. Someone within an organization, or an affiliate organization, may have access to information that Lulzsec do not, and may feel compelled to help (or hinder) corroboration.
Let's see if they scare anything up, and then we can take it apart and see if any of it holds water - if you'll excuse the fractured metaphors.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Focus, please by V-similitude · 2011-06-20 10:52 · Score: 1

Or most telling of all, that the Federal Reserve did bail out AIG the same goddamned day Lehman's value dropped by 2/3rds?
Do you really not understand the difference between Lehman and AIG? Lehman's collapse hit the market hard due to fear (of more big bank failures to come); its actual impact on the financial system was relatively manageable. (Whether it was the right decision nonetheless is a separate issue.) AIG on the other hand had far too many outstanding obligations both broad and deep in the economy. If AIG were to have gone bankrupt, its effect would've be more than fear; it would have endangered the entire system. Many more major banks would have been teetering on the brink of collapse.
The same logic applies to the Fannie and Freddie bailouts you mentioned. They were far too entrenched to let go. You're comparing apples and oranges here. If you want apples to apples, start with why *Bear Stearns* was bailed out, but not Lehman. That's a far more relevant question (with plenty of good answers if you do some reading) than any of your conspiracy theories.

We The People got fucked
By the previous decade of tax cuts and wars, yes. If we had stuck with Clinton's budget, we would have had plenty of resources to deal with this crisis without causing the painful debt we currently have.

So, which financial institution do you work for?
Well, you obviously have no significant experience in finance, given your cursory understanding of it.
Re:Focus, please by pla · 2011-06-20 13:12 · Score: 1

The same logic applies to the Fannie and Freddie bailouts you mentioned. They were far too entrenched to let go.

And there, we have our disconnect. I haven't failed to grasp the difference here - I simply prefer to take my pain up-front and get it over with, rather than drag it on forever. As I see it, bailing out one private corp (okay, I'll admit Fannie and Freddy sort of form a unique historical exception there) poisons the whole barrel; If we really do need one particular company so much, why the hell have we let them remain private? And on the flip side, if we do start absorbing banks "too big to fail", such as F&F, we need to strip them of their corporate-charter-enforced "profit motive" ASAP. Because playing both sides of that fence leads to... Hmm, the last three years?

Let 'em all succeed or fail on their own merits, or accept ownership. None of this dancing around the issue.

By the previous decade of tax cuts and wars, yes. If we had stuck with Clinton's budget, we would have had plenty of resources to deal with this crisis without causing the painful debt we currently have.

Did you expect me to disagree with that? We ran a surplus under Clinton, and despite the tech crash, if we still had his exact budget, we'd have a surplus today. I would absolutely love to see the federal government revert to his last budget.

That, however, won't happen, because even the hardest-core fiscal-only Republicans would rather fiddle while Rome burns than admit Clinton did anything well (much less, that soon after their failed hero Reagan).
Re:Focus, please by V-similitude · 2011-06-21 00:00 · Score: 1

And there, we have our disconnect. I haven't failed to grasp the difference here - I simply prefer to take my pain up-front and get it over with, rather than drag it on forever.
This is like saying you'd rather fall off a 5-story building than roll down a 5-story high hill. Sure, you might get to the hospital sooner, but you might also be severely crippled.

If we really do need one particular company so much, why the hell have we let them remain private?
The problem is we have let such companies exist. With the repeal of Glass-Steagall, we've dismantled every protection put in place after the Great Depression. And totally failed to follow their example with new regulations to combat new issues. Given that, bailing out these companies was entirely necessary to avoid a much more massive dip in our economy.

And on the flip side, if we do start absorbing banks "too big to fail", such as F&F, we need to strip them of their corporate-charter-enforced "profit motive" ASAP. Because playing both sides of that fence leads to... Hmm, the last three years?
Yes, but this is pretty much what we've done with F&F. All the various loan-modification programs (of which there should be more) and rolling back their influence (by having a lower max loan size) in the markets, are all evidence of this. However, one thing to be clear, F&F were not really the major players in this crisis. They exasperated it, yes, but it was the private mortgage issuance that led the charge into subprime; and it was the firms that had too much non-F&F exposure (Bear and Lehman) that went under.
Bottom line is that we failed in our regulation of the financial industry in the past 50 years, and now we've had to pay for it. But there are ways to do this without falling off the building; it's not a zero-sum game.

Did you expect me to disagree with that? We ran a surplus under Clinton
No, just attempting to redirect the blame to where it appropriately belongs. My point is that the government is best used in extraordinary times like these to keep the economy running smoothly. And if we had a better budget in other times, we'd have no problem using this sort of support.

That, however, won't happen, because even the hardest-core fiscal-only Republicans would rather fiddle while Rome burns than admit Clinton did anything well (much less, that soon after their failed hero Reagan).
We're on the same page here, for sure.
Re:Focus, please by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-23 15:39 · Score: 1

Sorry to come back to this old thread. This conversation got stuck in my head somehow. The topic was authentication of data.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110623-714031.html
It seems the first leak has already been authenticated at the source. See? Peers! =)
AS

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:Focus, please by bws111 · 2011-06-24 00:58 · Score: 1

First, the discussion was about publishing purported illegal financial transactions, not police training manuals. Second, 'peers' had nothing to do with it - it was confirmed by the agency that was hacked. Third, there is nothing worth denying in there, so why would they deny it? Fourth, they have every reason to admit that these documents are authentic - it is proof that a crime was committed, and will be used against the criminals when they are caught.
Re:Focus, please by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-24 03:18 · Score: 1

The discussion was about a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons, as far as I could tell. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just wanted to illustrate my point with a real-world example. I'm satisfied that I have, but I take your points as well.
Best,
AS

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."

They're scared cause they got doxed... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 02:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/

Re:They're scared cause they got doxed... by Xest · 2011-06-20 03:01 · Score: 1

I read it and it doesn't really make sense.
They got exposed, so now they're going after even more high profile targets which would net them even more jail time? How does that make any sense whatsoever?
Re:They're scared cause they got doxed... by hedwards · 2011-06-20 03:11 · Score: 1

If you look at the site, they've had to retract some of the dox. That doesn't necessarily mean that the ones they've allegedly forwarded to the FBI aren't good, but it does make one somewhat suspicious as to whether or not they really have the goods.
Re:They're scared cause they got doxed... by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:34 · Score: 1

I speculate thats what they'd do as well. If it were a real dox it wouldn't be released to the general public in this fashion for one. Second they probably wouldn't all be Americans. In fact I'd have expected them to be spread out, if they are all in one place they'll be easily stopped.

Wait... wut? by d3ac0n · 2011-06-20 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Top priority is to steal and leak any classified government information, including email spools and documentation. Prime targets are banks and other high-ranking establishments

Soo... Do they think that various governments are keeping their email at the bank?? Or have they swallowed that stupid "The government is run by the banks!" argument? Are they gonna go after "Da Joooos" next?

Meh, sounds like Lulzsec is just graduating from general annoyance to genuine criminality and using pseudo-political cover from some Anons to try and hide it.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory

Re:Wait... wut? by jmottram08 · 2011-06-20 02:40 · Score: 1

I think they swallowed the whole "The Fed is run by the government" bit. . . which is more true than not.
Re:Wait... wut? by d3ac0n · 2011-06-20 02:47 · Score: 1

Ok, but "The Fed" is a specific institution, not "banks" in general. To think otherwise is a profound misunderstanding of the relationship these entities share with The Fed.
So again, no reason to be attacking random banks, unless they are actually after money rather than a political result.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Re:Wait... wut? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 02:51 · Score: 1

"graduating from general annoyance to genuine criminality and using pseudo-political cover from some Anons to try and hide it."
You are absolutely correct.. The leader of LulzSec runs botnets.. His second hand man is a guy who demands payment for hacking... They're recruiting innocent anonymous people under the guide of "hacking banks to get to the truth", but the leaders of LulzSec are really after power and money.. They need more people to help..
LulzSec not only exploits the companys that they go after, but they also exploit PEOPLE. I feel sorry for people like Topiary and others who were just innocent people and now will spend a good part of their lives behind bars.
Re:Wait... wut? by jmottram08 · 2011-06-20 03:00 · Score: 1

Banks are at best semi-public. Yeah, your local small bank is more private than public, but at this point the big boys are so closely tied to the govt than something like Walmart is.
Yeah, i agree that banks are questionable if you want government targets, but so are the government contractors they have gone after in the past.
Re:Wait... wut? by d3ac0n · 2011-06-20 03:20 · Score: 1

Still though, as a political target it is VERY poor choice. There are plenty of fully governmental "soft targets" available throughout the US government structure that could be used to gain greater systemic access.
While I agree that the bank bailouts and other tax money giveaways were horrible (Note that as a libertarian/Conservative I LOATHE the idea of bailing out private institutions of ANY kind with taxpayer money.) Doing what amounts to attacking the bank-accounts of the tax-paying victims of said graft and corruption just doesn't makes any sense.
Unless, as I stated, your entire purpose is to simply steal shed-loads of money from as many accounts as possible, using pseudo-political rhetoric as a cover.
Lulzsec is merely graduating to organized criminal status, full stop. Nothing else to see here.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Re:Wait... wut? by d3ac0n · 2011-06-20 03:27 · Score: 1

Banks are at best semi-public.
Also, I take issue with this statement. This is part of that whole silly argument. The banks are NOT run by the government, and they don't run the government.
Is there a FAR too close relationship between many large corporations and the government? Oh yes, absolutely. So they have influence over each other to a limited extent? Yes, absolutely. However, they do not RUN one another, and they are NOT the same entity.
However, that aside, By attacking the banks in the way they are and making semi-veiled threats against ordinary people's accounts ("Change your passwords!") they are tipping their hand. This isn't about politics. It's about stealing money, pure and simple.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Re:Wait... wut? by pinkeen · 2011-06-20 05:42 · Score: 1

It makes some sense. Having financial information about someone (e.g. politicians) can be even more helpful than having his offical e-mails.

Re:1 child dies every 5 summer days in portable po by Dunbal · 2011-06-20 02:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Should just ban children. Problem solved.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Ignore the script kiddies by Bloodwine77 · 2011-06-20 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am getting tired of hearing about Anonymous and LulzSec.

While I do want a more transparent government, I am also to the point I want these script kiddies hoisted on their own petards before they do enough damage to cause more draconian laws and measures to be enacted by a knee-jerk (or carefully scheming, depending on your tinfoil hat) government.

Re:Ignore the script kiddies by pitdingo · 2011-06-20 02:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

So it is their fault you voted for a totally corrupt out of control government who tramples on your rights daily in the name of "security"? Perhaps you should vote for someone who will actually uphold the US Constitution?
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by MonsterTrimble · 2011-06-20 02:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Mop Up Please! The way these guys are acting it's almost as if they WANT the thunder to come down. If I was more of a conspiracy theorist I'd say the government is using these guys to get the laws passed. It seems crazy until you think about it, much like PETA being funded by meat producers.

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by stonedcat · 2011-06-20 03:00 · Score: 2

You're under the assumption that voting actually matters and isn't just a massive farce designed to keep the masses quelled.

--
You can't take the sky from me.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 03:00 · Score: 1

Did Anonymous and Lulz meet here ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/16/bilderberg-2011-tipping-point
"Speaking of personality disorders – when Peter Mandelson, who pushed through the digital economy bill, sits down with Keith Alexander – the director of the NSA and head of United States Cyber Command to discuss "Social Networks: Connectivity and Security Issues" you can be pretty sure they aren't hammering out how best to preserve the freedom of the internet.
Add a liberal sprinkling of cyber power in the form of Mark Hughes (Facebook), Eric Schmidt (Google) and Craig Mundie (Microsoft) and you have the perfect formula for a lock-down. Let's hope Neelie Kroes, the European commissioner for digital agenda, got to push her "No Disconnect Strategy". I'd pay good money to have heard the head of the NSA's views on that one."
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by pla · 2011-06-20 03:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

So it is their fault you voted for a totally corrupt out of control government who tramples on your rights daily in the name of "security"? Perhaps you should vote for someone who will actually uphold the US Constitution?

Because in the US, we have a choice between people who will ignore the constitution to build their utopian socialist welfare state, and people who will ignore the constitution to build their Christian-Industrial heaven-on-Earth.

I'd say showing support for the likes of LulzSec by publicly cheering them on comes about as close as most people can get to really voting for "none of the above".
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by hedwards · 2011-06-20 03:14 · Score: 1

As long as people take that view we won't get real, meaningful change. Voting for the GOP promises to cut the size of the government is a large part of the problem. No matter how extreme they get, and considering the death threats at some of their Presidential rallies in 2008, people keep voting for them because teh gubbmint is always evil.
If you vote for people who take the view that government is never the solution to anything, what on Earth makes you think that they're not sabotaging the government to get reelected?
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-06-20 03:17 · Score: 1

That's why they team up to give you a more transparent government. It is Axis vs. Allies all over again.

--
New Economic Perspectives
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by creat3d · 2011-06-20 03:30 · Score: 2

You're under the assumption that Republicrat/Democran promises of cutting down the size of government are anything but false promises that'll turn out to be the exact the opposite, once in office, as they've always been.

--
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by EvilStein · 2011-06-20 03:43 · Score: 2

yeah, all of that "hope & change" bullshit sure worked. It got us *five* former RIAA lawyers in high cabinet positions, and a big government bought off by the RIAA/MPAA. The other choice were abortion hating Bible believing nuts.
Lovely. :/
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by regimechange · 2011-06-20 03:43 · Score: 1

Voting is one of the most import things you can do. Republicans and Democrats are totally corrupt, unethical traitors who have zero interest in doing what's right for the majority, yet the gullible masses continue to vote for them. Talk about insanity. Vote for someone else, it really is that simple. No one can mess things up worse than they already are. If you believe they can, you are brainwashed by the propaganda coming out of the two party system.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by artor3 · 2011-06-20 04:03 · Score: 1

When was the last time the Democrats did anything remotely like that? The seventies? Vote Dem every time, because if the GOP gets the White House any time in the next 8-12 years, their grip on the SCOTUS will become absolute, and your rights won't mean shit for a generation. Distractions like this won't do a damn thing to stop them.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by Opportunist · 2011-06-20 04:15 · Score: 1

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
If you have a broken system, voting does not change jack. Having the choice between shooting or hanging still means that you're dead in the end, it might just be less painful.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by Hatta · 2011-06-20 04:17 · Score: 2

Anonymous is the only group fighting back against encroaching authoritarianism. What alternatives are there? People have been working through the system for decades, and for decades the people have been losing power. Vigilantism is our only hope. I can't say I agree with all their methods, and all their targets, but on the whole they've been doing a lot more harm than good.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by Hatta · 2011-06-20 04:23 · Score: 1

Are you that afraid of your government overreacting to a little dissent? Really? Then it sounds like you need to replace your government immediately. Working with Anonymous, which is in active defiance of the government, is one of the few credible ways we can start doing this. Simple obedience is not going to make anything better.
Rule of thumb: If you're more afraid of your government than you are of rebels, then you should be on the rebel's side.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by HockeyPuck · 2011-06-20 04:32 · Score: 2

I'd say showing support for the likes of LulzSec by publicly cheering them on comes about as close as most people can get to really voting for "none of the above".
I guess you keep all your finances in your mattress then?
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by cyberchondriac · 2011-06-20 04:33 · Score: 1

Because in the US, we have a choice between people who will ignore the constitution to build their utopian socialist welfare state, and people who will ignore the constitution to build their Christian-Industrial heaven-on-Earth.
Bingo! Well put, sir. We're between a rock and a hard place.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by pla · 2011-06-20 05:07 · Score: 1

When was the last time the Democrats did anything remotely like that?

Skipping the obvious crack about ObamaCare, we have a congress about to let the US default on its national debt because the Dems won't let us touch their precious welfare entitlement programs.

Make no mistake, though - For their part, the Republicans won't let us touch the military. God (by which we all mean "Jesus", of course) forbid we can't kill brown people on the opposite side of the globe!
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by Yosho-sama · 2011-06-20 08:34 · Score: 1

Take away the precious welfare entitlement programs, some people will die of hunger, die from lack of medical care or lose their homes. Take away the American Military's budget, the imperialism will end and some people will live because there won't be hellfire missiles landing on their house instead of a terrorist enclave. 2001-2008, the debt ceiling was lifted 14 times. 3 years into the first term of Barack Obama, they want to lift it once while finding ways to reduce the spending deficit. I call bullshit on false equivalency.

--
My kingdom for a donkey!
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by pla · 2011-06-20 08:58 · Score: 1

Take away the precious welfare entitlement programs, some people will die of hunger, die from lack of medical care or lose their homes.

Yes. Yes, they will. And if the US defaults on its national debt, instead of just the sick and extremely poor, you'll see the middle class among the ranks of those you describe.

Take away the American Military's budget, the imperialism will end

Yes, very true - Because we would end up a colony of China within the week. Or perhaps Russia... Or France. Or Belgium.

Both of those expenses have some good to them. Maintaining a modest defensive military makes sense, in the real world full of violent domesticated apes intent on killing each other and taking each other's food, women, and land. Minimizing the number of people starving or freezing to death makes sense, because it keeps them from rioting in the streets in the process (thereby killing each other and taking each other's food, women, and land). What we have now both fails to accomplish its goals and costs way more than we can afford.

I call bullshit on false equivalency.

I didn't call them equivalent, I called them both intolerable. Not a matter of who we call "worse" - I really don't care about playing blame games, except insofar as they have both caused the problem, and both lack the balls to do anything about it.

The funny part of all this, I would personally tend to side more with the Democrats, except the second I say things like my first sentence above, they make it quite clear they don't want me. "How dare you put a price on human life!"... Sorry, but my compassion ends where it starts hurting me, simple as that.
Re:Ignore the script kiddies by RazorSharp · 2011-06-20 14:27 · Score: 1

Perhaps we need a new constitution if the current one is so unfavorable. I think it's about time. It's so silly how the 'interpretation' of the constitution varies from justice to justice, judge to judge, politician to politician, ect. How ridiculous is it that we deify the founding fathers and their words? James Madison was the father of the U.S. Constitution. He was the same idiot who led American troops into battle only to retreat minutes later with Washington D.C. in flames. The document is nothing but a bundle of compromises between issues that mattered 200 years ago -- the 3/5ths compromise and the bicameral congress are primary examples.
At what point will we finally say 'fuck that document and it's archaic language and ideology' and start anew? We don't even know what half the amendments mean in the context of modern society -- we've had to have judges set these ridiculous precedents that later get changed by new precedents (Dred Scott, Miranda, warrants, ect.). For some reason, everyone thinks the U.S. Constitution is in complete agreement with their own political views when nothing could be further from the truth.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."

Lizard blood? by DemonGenius · 2011-06-20 02:32 · Score: 2

If they try to censor our progress, we will obliterate the censor with cannonfire anointed with lizard blood.

I guess this is the media corps opportunity to finally test out the potency of Charlie Sheen's tiger blood in retaliation.

Re:Lizard blood? by Pope · 2011-06-20 02:58 · Score: 1

I prefer snake blood in my vodka, damnit!

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Lizard blood? by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 05:10 · Score: 1

Watch out for a run on pet stores. Price of lizards is going to skyrocket.
You think it's bad now, wait until bitcoins start using lizards as backing.
Chaos.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."

If they actually accomplish this impact by EQ · 2011-06-20 02:32 · Score: 1

... then they are dead. Government and other types will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Recall that only a week ago they used a SWAT team on defaulted student loan - what do you think they will do with these losers if they do disrupt important government and economic activity? They will possibly be shot dead if they do this. But that's nto the worst part: they will be giving the government all the excuses they need to take tight control of the internet, destroying net anonymity and controlling access. Damned fools. If anyone knows anyone that is in Anonymous or Lulzsec and who is planning to take part in activities, do us all a favor - beat them in the head with a shovel until they change their mind.

--
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO

Re:If they actually accomplish this impact by modmans2ndcoming · 2011-06-20 02:57 · Score: 1

SWAT was used because of a search warrant issued for a CRIMINAL investigation, not a defaulted loan.
Re:If they actually accomplish this impact by nschubach · 2011-06-20 03:03 · Score: 2

Still... that requires SWAT? A group specially trained for hostile situations to be used as last resort? Are the fraudsters going to throw sharp pointy money at the officers?

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:If they actually accomplish this impact by DarkOx · 2011-06-20 03:09 · Score: 1

Recall that only a week ago they used a SWAT team on defaulted student loan
I don't know what incident you are referencing but if any part of that is true, its outrageous on many many levels.

If anyone knows anyone that is in Anonymous or Lulzsec and who is planning to take part in activities, do us all a favor - beat them in the head with a shovel until they change their mind.
Reply to This

Is that doing us a favor, maybe this is the sort of thing that start a revolution. Which if SWAT teams are being used for debt collection, I might be supportive of.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:If they actually accomplish this impact by mlts · 2011-06-20 03:45 · Score: 1

I doubt that. If they are any good, they may not be caught. What will happen is that we will have an insane witch hunt on our hands, especially if the press starts spewing out "news shows" about how the bad, evil hackers can with a push of a button turn whole swaths of the US into grey goo, activate Skynet, or erase Joe Sixpack's pr0n collection.
Result: Say buh-bye to any freedom of speech, anonyminity, and hello to mandatory DRM stacks, mandatory tracking, and more BS than the King Ranch uses for fertilizer in a year.
I'm almost betting that some lawmakers have laws drafted, saved to go, and marked as final copy in Word by their lobbyists the second this stuff actually starts getting the masses scared. Here is what will be the text:
Only "approved" machines will be allowed on the Internet. This means that all core routers will enforce some type of NAC, either to a router requiring a signed OS, or if connecting to a machine, requiring a signed DRM stack, perhaps on the hypervisor level.
Machines with the DRM stack would have something that functions similar to an antivirus, but looks for signatures of known files on torrent sites. It then would shut the machine down and phone to the nearest LEOs about the IP infringement, similar to how a certain printer maker was alleged to have drivers that would brick the printer and phone home if it thought someone was copying currency.
Mandatory ID systems... yep, made by the lowest bidder and riddled with security holes, similar to Europe's Chip & PIN. The real blackhats will have a field day, while the people whose ID gets stolen end up facing prison terms with no jury believing them.
ISPs will have a field day. They can block access to anything they please for "security reasons." Don't forget the added fees for this.
So, what the end result of all this will be is that ISPs, telcos, Big Copyright, LEOs looking for "low hanging fruit" to prosecute and companies with actual stuff to hide will all profit. The end user gets boned.
But what else is new?
Re:If they actually accomplish this impact by Hatta · 2011-06-20 04:28 · Score: 1

But that's nto the worst part: they will be giving the government all the excuses they need to take tight control of the internet,
If the Gov't actually wants control of the internet, they will get it with or without Anon. If you truly believe what you said above, the time to start fighting is now. By the time you realize we live in a dystopian police state, it will be too late.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Good by jimmerz28 · 2011-06-20 02:34 · Score: 1

I like this version of government transparency better. Not only is it quicker but it certainly makes for better reads and watching than CSPAN!

So, kinda like LOD vs. MOD by axl917 · 2011-06-20 02:37 · Score: 1

but without the cool t-shirt?

Consequence will never be the same... by VortexCortex · 2011-06-20 02:39 · Score: 2

From TFA:

Top priority is to steal and leak any classified government information, including email spools and documentation.

I can't help but think that this is exactly what I would do if I were a once hacktivist turned undercover government agent trying to further the polictical agenda of censorship.

Around the same time that the US declares they will create a Cyber-Security strategy, (they already have cyber-attack force NSA, and professional espionage agencies as well) LulzSec is formed from those who cracked HBGary... Soon "the lulz" dictates that the common man (young and old) become witness to the threats of hacking (via attacks against porn and game servers).

Now, we have LulzSec requesting the assistance of everyone (including Anonymous -- though they have not confirmed their participation), to directly attack all governments while their are Internet censorship and cyber security bills afoot. It seems to me just the sort of disinformation and FUD campaign I would perform if I wanted to give all hackers an even worse name, and drag down Anonymous too.

Funny how Anonymous used primarily an unsophisticated traffic generation tool -- the equivalent of repeatedly pressing [F5] while viewing a website (not even a reflected distributed denial of service, which would have been much harder to trace and deliver more traffic) -- to attack primarily pro censorship political targets, yet LulzSec focuses on the most buzz generating of targets with much more sophisticated attacks.

What do you want to bet that LulzSec is taken down as soon as the powers that be wish them down, and that no real damage will come of their attacks?

Even if they are not government agents, anyone who follows behind the LulzSec banner is playing directly into the censors hands...

Re:Consequence will never be the same... by TeethWhitener · 2011-06-20 04:35 · Score: 1

You know, I'm not one to don my tinfoil hat too often, but that's exactly what I thought when I read the "call to arms." Either that or it's a honeypot.

vigilantism is not justice by circletimessquare · 2011-06-20 02:40 · Score: 1

that being said, when there is no justice, people turn to the vigilantes

banks are open season as far as the court of public opinion is concerned, as long as us taxpayers are footing the bill for their irresponsibility

so fire away, hooligans. you have my approval

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Federal Reserve? by taiwanjohn · 2011-06-20 02:40 · Score: 2

Since Congress seems unable or unwilling to audit the Fed, maybe these guys can handle the job. At least that would be a useful application of their "l33t skillz" for a change.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC

Please be nice about it by Bengie · 2011-06-20 02:40 · Score: 2

I hope they just keep it to a wikileak+smear campaign and not actually leak info that can get people killed.

In this news: by koolfy · 2011-06-20 02:40 · Score: 1

- We talk about the fact that the press sucks and tought lulzsec and anon were at war when they were not.
- We laugh at Sony/Senate/Fox/Whatever 's security, and pity the fool who uses the same password everywhere.
- We discuss the morality, utility and cleverness of an "action" made for the lulz, by people only doing random stuff because they can. And we take this all very seriously, like it's the masterplan of some very serious organization.
- We defend banks and gov's secrets and talk about National Security and Cyberwar, or we compare antisec to Wikileaks and team up behind them like they're the next Ghandi
- We try to find a random, crazy link between this and the bitcoin thing, and go on trolling on whether it has volue or not

Or, if we don't give a crap about all this, we click on the slashdot news we're not interested in, and post a comment about how bad editorials are, and why this is of no interest.

If you find something else in this news's comments, please mod me down.

--
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.

Re:In this news: by artor3 · 2011-06-20 04:08 · Score: 1

You forgot the most common /. post of all -- the random racist troll post!
Re:In this news: by RazorSharp · 2011-06-20 14:42 · Score: 1

What does your post fall under?
- We try to predict the content of posts based on our years of sociologically studying Slashdot to demonstrate our own importance and keen insight
Posts like yours, which say, "you people are going to say blah blah blah and it all amounts to nothing," show up at least once a day here. Why? I'm going to find a story about Google in the firehose and make a post that says, "You will all discuss something somewhat related to Google with the exception of some trolls and some responses to responses to responses to responses which will be offtopic; one of which will contain a Godwin. I am the Great Wizard of Slashdot. Bow before my greatness!"

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:In this news: by koolfy · 2011-06-20 18:32 · Score: 1

Posts like yours, which say, "you people are going to say blah blah blah and it all amounts to nothing," show up at least once a day here. Why?
Maybe because that's what's left, when you have nothing to add to the debate, but still want to get modded up, and be accepted by your peers.

I am the Great Lizard of Slashdot. Bow before my greatness!
There, FTFY.

--
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.

Wrong enemy to provoke by Coisiche · 2011-06-20 02:44 · Score: 1

So they're going to annoy corporate entities which are immoral and unethical and while bound by legislation will do their utmost to have any particularly inconvenient laws they are subject to repealed. I don't see it ending well.

They don't know diff between Privacy and Secrecy by stating_the_obvious · 2011-06-20 02:45 · Score: 1

These groups use the fight against government/corporate secrecy as a cover to justify silly cracking and DDOS. "Catch Us if you can" isn't a negotiating position -- it's a silly taunt from people who think: a) there is anonymity, and b) they're smarter than they are.

How does pilfering and publishing my personal information that I've entrusted to a government/corporation do anything to hurt the corporation. If anything, if makes we wish for stronger protection and enforcement -- something I never thought I'd want...

It was hot the night we burned chrome... by tekrat · 2011-06-20 02:45 · Score: 1

Blank is beautiful.

Hackers have declared war, it's time to take back our internet from the corporate fools and government cronies who have polluted it.

Thank the deities that there's someone out there keeping the online universe interesting. Not since Operation Sundevil have I been this excited to see the outcome.

Knight Lighting and Phiber Optik have been awaiting this day when the shackles have been thrown off and the geeks shall inherit the Earth.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:It was hot the night we burned chrome... by Lifyre · 2011-06-20 03:27 · Score: 1

While you're vision is pretty this whole thing will have to get much bigger much more damaging if you think you can drive back corporate and government control of the networks. Especially when you consider who OWNS the wires (tubes if you will) that these networks run on. What percentage of the connections are owned by the corporations and government you're advocating against?
The free internet we grew up with no longer exists and hasn't existed for years. You are just now beginning to see through the veil. Geek shall inherit the earth the same way every generation has, by becoming "The Man" and holding the chains that bind.
Hack the Planet is a pretty ideal but it is too little too late, and it might have always been.

--
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Re:It was hot the night we burned chrome... by Bucky24 · 2011-06-20 10:46 · Score: 1

it's time to take back our internet from the corporate fools and government cronies who have polluted it.
You do realize that corporations and the government CREATED the internet, right? Just saying....

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents

Re:*takes out popcorn* by MightyMartian · 2011-06-20 02:47 · Score: 1

Revolt against it by supporting a bunch of hooligans who most definitely do not have your best interests at heart? At least a Congressman has to run for office. Who gets to choose who these twerps are?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

If you wanted to get rid of internet anonymity... by Smigh · 2011-06-20 02:53 · Score: 2

What kind of news would you want if you wanted to get rid of internet anonymity?

Probably this kind and the kind we've been reading for the last months.

I don't see the lulz in this.

Whistle-blower hacking --- Good or bad? by adosch · 2011-06-20 02:55 · Score: 1

When Lulzsec started out, their main 'mission', that I could gather, was their shear intolerance of weak web security and exploitation that surrounded it. Exposing pron.com admin/end-user base? Great. Displaying Nintendo's Apache's configs? That's fine. With the latest news front about Lulzsec rants in regards to 'Anonymous' attacking Sega and the 'we-like-dreamcast-so-you-are-going-down' seems quite juvenile, but whatever. It's publicity and it's getting people to take them seriously, no matter if it looks like nothing more than a swinging dong contest on digital playground.

Now they've taken a big step to team up with another group. Nothing wrong with that. I think what's going to cause some stir is not perhaps gaining access to government networks and getting their mits on classified material? It's the release of 'all' of it with zero disregard to national security as a whole. I think that's a real big problem with groups trying to drop in line and be the next 'Wiki-leaks' because it's not the 'uncovering' as much as it is the 'bragging rights'. There's a fine line between whistle-blowing government wrong-doing and nefariously, not to mention recklessly, leaking and or all classified material they get a hold of.

These groups could be useful by greymond · 2011-06-20 03:04 · Score: 2

Groups like Anonymous and LulSec could probably do a lot more good for a lot of people if instead of pontificating about leaking government information actually did something useful like erase consumer debts instead of just posting passwords to porn sites online...

--
Ave Molech Setting

Re:These groups could be useful by Smigh · 2011-06-20 03:10 · Score: 2

Any vigilante could potentially do good things but would you really trust random individuals (as egotistical and immature they may be) going around making justice by their own hands?
Re:These groups could be useful by Lifyre · 2011-06-20 03:37 · Score: 1

That would be vastly beyond their ability to accomplish. They may be able to erase a record in one place but they would have to have complete control over the entire network, including back-ups (on-line, off-line, on-site, and remote), as well as physical access to all of the paper work (which is required to exist in a hard copy or ROM state). So not only is that well beyond their capabilities but it would effectively destroy the foundations of large parts of the economy as you arbitrarily remove balance from the system.
Being Robin Hood is great in theory but can cause tremendous damage if done on any sort of scale.

--
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Re:These groups could be useful by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:22 · Score: 1

Any vigilante could potentially do good things but would you really trust random individuals (as egotistical and immature they may be) going around making justice by their own hands?
You can't trust the government either unfortunately.
Re:These groups could be useful by Lifyre · 2011-06-20 05:45 · Score: 1

While being a typical anarchist dream that from chaos will rise a better order the very idea would be nigh on impossible for a government to accomplish much less a group such as LulSec. I don't think you quite realize how many different places consumer debt is reported to outside a company much less how many different places it is tracked internally. That is all before they look at risk mitigation or selling the debt...
Without judging your ideas or goals I think you need to find a different method to accomplish them.

--
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Re:These groups could be useful by geoskd · 2011-06-20 09:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Groups like Anonymous and LulSec could probably do a lot more good for a lot of people if instead of pontificating about leaking government information actually did something useful like erase consumer debts instead of just posting passwords to porn sites online...
Although I agree that eliminating individual debt would be a worthwhile goal, it is very unlikely to succeed in this day of nearly permanent data. There are so many backups that permanently destroying data is damned difficult. You can make the information harder to retrieve, but an attack on the financial system on that scale would galvanize nearly everyone against them. Economic collapse is too easy to cause by messing with banks, and the specter of a new depression terrifies most people old enough to have heard the stories. Even young people who can't get a job because of the current recession will fully understand the implications of economic collapse.

To put in simple terms, a cash economy can only be so big because cash moves around very slowly, and requires large deposits of cash (savings) to allow open spending. Credit accelerates the economy by allowing much more efficient processing of funds. Our current cash economy is roughly 2% of the world economy. If you wipe out the credit economy, the world product drops by 98%, and people start starving by the hundreds of millions. Only the truly crazy, or exceptionally ignorant want to see that. So, we're stuck with the bad side of credit, like it or not, because the alternative is a nightmare.

The basic underpinning of how credit accelerates the economy, is how any large company processes their payroll. Back in the 19th century, a large company would maintain a large cash reserve for paying its employees. That way when employees cashed their checks each month, they would not bounce. This meant that companies had to have earnings *in advance* of their payroll needs. Today, large companies have payroll credit accounts which allow them to pay their employees from an account similar to a Home Equity Line of Credit. They pay a small interest rate on this debt, but it frees up their entire payroll for investment, so instead of having to tie up their entire payroll, they can invest that money in growth, with little or no penalty in financial terms. The entire concept is called leverage, and it is so powerful it has allowed our economy to grow to many tens of times the size it would be without it.

Pull that rug out from under everyone, and companies will not be able to pay their employees, who then will not be able to pay for anything, which will cause every companies revenues to drop which will exacerbate the problem. It s a nasty downward spiral which would make Black Tuesday look like a ticker tape parade. If the banks closed all of the payroll credit lines today, almost no one would get paid for many months. The ensuing run on the banks would collapse all of the banks, which would then default on all payments, preventing credit card payments from being paid out, preventing companies from paying their employees at all and causing the weaker governments to default on their payments. When they collapsed, it would take down the IMF and the world bank, and the snow-ball effect would take down the U.S., China, Germany, and the rest of the worlds "strong" governments withing a few months. If we were lucky, we would not end up in the middle of a global civil war. Food riots would commence in every medium sized and larger city in then world. People would exit the cities in mass and descend on the rural countryside, devastating crops. A very large percentage (50%+) of the population of the world would starve during the first winter, with most of those remaining starving in the next few years. It would be a return to a farm economy, and anything you didn't make with your own hands would be a rare luxury.

the U.S. TARP measures weren't the result of congress people not understanding a problem and responding wrongly, it was a matter of avert

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted

Re:1 child dies every 5 summer days in portable po by localman57 · 2011-06-20 03:10 · Score: 1

Or water.

BTW, could I have what's left of those puppies? We're having a BBQ this weekend, and I'm a bit short on cash...

Re:*takes out popcorn* by History's+Coming+To · 2011-06-20 03:15 · Score: 1

Presuming we're just talking about the US government here, blaming the electorate for the government (basically a choice of two, so we might as well toss a coin) is like blaming somebody who voted for either Kodos or Kang. Get a substantial proportion of non-Democrat, non-Republicans realistically competing for seats and you might have a point, but as it is it's not really democracy is it?

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

oops, they accidentally the whole monetary system by Thud457 · 2011-06-20 03:15 · Score: 1

But I don't want to have to hunt elk to survive in a Tyler Durdenesque utopia!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:1 child dies every 5 summer days in portable po by Thud457 · 2011-06-20 03:23 · Score: 1

wait, I thought OP was claiming that statistic wasn't high enough!
Maybe I better get my sabersaw back from little Nancy before she ruins it...

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

the choice between 2 evils by Device666 · 2011-06-20 03:33 · Score: 1

Governments always find reasons to do censorship or to publish cooked data and if they don't some companies will do for them (or lobby for it). Groups like Lulz and Anonymous will achieve to show that our government doesn't represent, protect and serve the best interests of it citizens. They don't represent their citizens when they are influenced by lobby (the banking lobby for instance, or the closed source lobby), they don't protect us because they don't secure our id data amongst other things and they fail to serve us by the latter but also by being utmost nontransparent to us about it also. So as long as the government and other high profile organisations are not confronted about this they will not change their behavior.

So talking is a good option, but if that takes ages to progress and with a lacking sense of urgency it doesn't help either. In a way the government is waiting for the inevitable. if Anonymous or Lulz will not do it, maybe some Chinese sponsered better equipped hackergroup will do it (or is doing it already without us knowing it). So I think the means maybe dirty to and end, but what alternative? I think none. And I am not a cracker, but I think digital actions are allowed since our digital rights are very badly handled by government. And also this kind of actions can give us insight to things we would never get exposed using the old school spionage way. I just stick a thumbs up for it.

Kudos to Anonymous, Lulz please shake up some feathers!!

they're called "Fnords" by Thud457 · 2011-06-20 03:33 · Score: 1

I don't think that's the kind of lizard they're referring too.

More likely the kind that a heroic dose of LSD revealed to Hunter S. Thompson in the lobby of the Mint hotel.
Noted political theorist Lyndon Larouche exposed the Queen of England as being one of them. And nobody cared.

That's not a metaphore, man.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

How would that be implemented? by elucido · 2011-06-20 03:40 · Score: 1

While it sounds good on paper, how would that ID scheme be implemented when credit card scanners aren't even available?

That internet ID bullcrap would only empower hackers more because now they'll literally be able to SWAT you and the courts will believe you did download all that child porn and hacked all those banks because it will be connected to your ID.

The internet ID idea is just plain stupid. A smarter idea would be to simply pay Microsoft and Apple to force them to put backdoors into their software and simply have a classified database keep track of each identity on each computer without the user having to even know it happens.

Right now the FBI could already have a computer identity database.

Re:How would that be implemented? by AlamedaStone · 2011-06-20 04:20 · Score: 1

Right now the FBI could already have a computer identity database.
You don't have to look very hard to find the FBI tracking and targeting individuals involved in anti-war and civil rights groups. This is a pattern documented heavily since at least the 60s. It's perfectly safe to assume they already have such a database and are actively engaged in its development, regardless of an individual's actual affiliations. See: domestic wiretapping.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."

Wikileaks by metrometro · 2011-06-20 03:46 · Score: 1

Uh, there's been a team of hackers doing that for some time. You may have heard about them.

Also, it takes a special person to make Wikileaks look like the adults in the room. Thanks for that.

Re:Wikileaks by cosm · 2011-06-20 08:35 · Score: 1

Uh, there's been a team of hackers doing that for some time. You may have heard about them.
Also, it takes a special person to make Wikileaks look like the adults in the room. Thanks for that.
WikiLeaks doesn't steal information! Get that through your heads! It is given to them and they publish it. Publish it! Publish! Not Steal. Not break into. You cannot compare these folks to WL.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF

The first rule about operation AntiSec by dutchwhizzman · 2011-06-20 03:47 · Score: 1

..... fight club deja-vu all over again.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?

Re:The first rule about operation AntiSec by abyssalson · 2011-06-20 05:45 · Score: 1

"We fully endorse the flaunting of the word "AntiSec" on any government website defacement or physical graffiti art. We encourage you to spread the word of AntiSec far and wide, for it will be remembered." Not exactly fight club

Re:*takes out popcorn* by camperdave · 2011-06-20 03:48 · Score: 1

I live in a different country, but somehow US legislation keeps leaking across the borders like toxic waste. I had no say in electing those idiots, and it doesn't matter which idiots I vote for in my country because no matter how the fleas vote, the dog is in charge.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

The government doesn't run the government though. by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:01 · Score: 1

And Lulz, and Anonymous aren't going after the non-government influence that runs the government. Nobody really cares if they crash the CIA website except for perhaps the CIA and the tax payers. Ultimately this is not going to do anything to change political polices. And the people who are influencing political policies are doing it by going after policy makers, Senators and Congressmen who make policies by bribe, blackmail and general coercion. This is not something Anonymous or Lulz is smart enough to do which is why the policy makers will most likely use the law against them.

If Lulz and Anonymous were truly serious, and truly smart, they'd focus on getting their candidates into political power in the next election. They'd support Democrats and Republicans who support their agenda and who their organization has a degree of control over. And they'd become the cops, they'd join the feds. All they are doing right now is pissing the feds off, which will increase funding to stop them which will benefit white hats who are their smarter big brother counter parts, but not benefit their political agenda as the result could possibly be a major crackdown.

You know, if they were really smart they'd be part of a dirty tricks campaign. I could see politicians utilizing their services to research their competitor or to get elected. Once again, they are too confrontational, and in the end they wont accomplish much. I suppose if they manage to accomplish stuff overseas, such as lead a revolution or win a foreign election then we'd have to take them serious but as of right now they are just pissing the feds off who could crush them like ants literally. They have no idea the level of technology and brain power the feds have but for whatever strange reason have not unleashed on them.

The feds could probably pinpoint their locations despite that tor stuff, despite their proxies, and could probably unleash military and CIA assets on them, but as of right now it's just the FBI and DOJ. The NSA, CIA and US military for the most part has treated them as an annoying nuisance but has not unleashed their A-team.

And they better be glad the A-team has not been unleashed because from a skill standpoint they can't compare, and from a technological standpoint they can't compare.

not really smart by SuperDre · 2011-06-20 04:06 · Score: 1

Are they really that dumb? Oh yes they are.. They really think they can get away with that? I certainly won't mind or being suprised if they disappear or get a lethal accident.. They are nothing more than a bunch of stupid assholes who really have no moral at all..

It's not in their best interest. by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:12 · Score: 1

If you look at what will happen, they are trying to create anarchy. Their goal is to create chaos. The problem is they don't understand half of the technology they are using.

Assuming some of them have some degree of skill to write code, they aren't on the level brainpower wise of the skill the government could recruit. The government will use it's money to get all the best brains, whether it be mathematics, programming, or social engineering. This will leave Anonymous and Lulz in a position to try to corrupt or double these people to work for them. And the only way they'll be able to do this would be through some sort of blackmail or coercion because that $500,000 they got from bitcoin simply wont be enough money. Now if they started getting millions from bitcoin, then you'd have a much more serious organization but still their weakness is they don't have the funding to compete with any government, not Israel, not the USA, not Iran, not China, and if they go up against any government or any sufficiently large ruthless corporation, millions if not billions of dollars in bounties will reign in upon them, and thousands of mercenaries will target them to collect those bounties.

And in the end, they'll all be either corrupted(doubled), arrested or exterminated depending on the nature of the organization they piss off. I feel bad for the innocent teenagers who get caught up in this mess thinking they are fighting for human rights or for some political reason, because I can understand why any teenager would be suckered into that. It's the same stuff the US military or any government would tell them. These kids will likely be radicalized into political soldiers, and then used as "useful idiots" for these groups. The US government will turn most of them into informants and arrest and torture the ones who are strong enough to put up any sort of fight (Bradley Manning?).

So from that perspective the best thing the US gov could do at this time would be among these options: 1. Unleash their A-team of cyber mercenaries 2. Form a cyber militia and draft the most skilled into it. 3. Unleash their high tech surveillance technologies. 4. Throw billions of dollars in bounties and in grants to develop the technology and start the arms race.

Re:It's not in their best interest. by Bucky24 · 2011-06-20 10:39 · Score: 1

4. Throw billions of dollars in bounties and in grants to develop the technology and start the arms race.
I see this as the most likely option. it's easier to just put out a bounty and let someone else do the work than to train their own "cyber soldiers"

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:It's not in their best interest. by elucido · 2011-06-21 06:11 · Score: 1

4. Throw billions of dollars in bounties and in grants to develop the technology and start the arms race.
I see this as the most likely option. it's easier to just put out a bounty and let someone else do the work than to train their own "cyber soldiers"
The problem isn't lack of skill, it's lack of funding. If the bounties are high enough then hackers and IT professionals will be falling all over each other trying to get contracts.

Thank you by ADRA · 2011-06-20 04:12 · Score: 1

Thank you, you moronic fucks that give governments and corporations just cause to hunt down and destroy anonymity on the internet.

--
Bye!

Re:*takes out popcorn* by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-06-20 04:12 · Score: 1

now suck it up or revolt against it.

You first. Oh wait, you're a pansy armchair general.

OTOH by Tarlus · 2011-06-20 04:13 · Score: 1

Y'know, I've been watching this for the last few weeks and can only wholeheartedly agree that these people are scum who are only succeeding in making life difficult for millions of people. I personally want to slap people upside the head when they use the word "lulz" as part of their daily vocabulary. That they're willingly leaking and/or selling people's information is immensely appalling. That they're getting so much attention for this is exactly what they want.

But on the other hand, I'm glad that the abundance of security vulnerabilities in the world are being brought to light. These weaknesses are not just one person's oversight, but rather that of a strikingly vast number of server admins in the world. I hope this wave of attacks will be an eye-opener not only for server admins but for everybody else who has user accounts throughout the web. You have to adopt and follow good practice. You have to know what you're doing. And if it requires a nerve-wracking breach of your false security to do so, then so be it.

Considering the sheer number of large entities that have fallen victim, it was only a matter of time. If not "Anonymous" and "LulzSec," then somebody else.

--
/* No Comment */

Re:Ego, Ego, Ego by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-20 04:14 · Score: 1

the spooks are already well along in backtracking the traffic.

So you're saying that LulzSec dun goofed, and consequences will never be the same?!

They aren't all script kiddies... but by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:15 · Score: 1

They know how to hide behind the script kiddies.

The government is allowing them to exist. I don't know why, maybe because the government is having a budget crisis and can't pass a budget or can't spend the money because Republicans don't want to pay for it. But the government has every single advantage, they have more brainpower, they have more money, they have more sophisticated technology, some of which the hackers don't even know exists and would have no way to detect or deal with.

The reason the technology isn't being used on them but was used on Bin Laden is because for whatever reason the government does not see them as a terrorist group or as a threat. Obama has the ability to simply give an order and they'd be captured probably in a matter of weeks.

Re:They aren't all script kiddies... but by Bucky24 · 2011-06-20 10:43 · Score: 1

they have more brainpower
While this is true, more often than not that brainpower is bogged down by red tape and regulations. While some of these do serve a purpose most just clog up the works and prevent things from getting done in any decent amount of time.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:They aren't all script kiddies... but by elucido · 2011-06-21 06:10 · Score: 1

they have more brainpower
While this is true, more often than not that brainpower is bogged down by red tape and regulations. While some of these do serve a purpose most just clog up the works and prevent things from getting done in any decent amount of time.
That really depends on the agency doesn't it? Or do they all have the same problem of red tape?
Re:They aren't all script kiddies... but by Bucky24 · 2011-06-21 07:17 · Score: 1

I'd assume they all have to deal with red tape to some level, but you're probably right, it depends on the agency.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents

Re:I can't wait... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-06-20 04:19 · Score: 1

And then during their first shower in prison, Bubba and his gang are going to have their own "epic lulz" with these kids' assholes.

They aren't that skilled or that smart. by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:21 · Score: 1

And there aren't very many of them. They are vulnerable in many ways. First they are physically vulnerable. They don't understand that some types of surveillance technologies can see through walls, through their clothes etc. They don't understand that hiding isn't really an option and that using something like Tor is like wearing a hook in the Klan. Sure this would protect you from angry minorities, but it will not protect you from the FBI. Just look at how the FBI took down the Klan.

Finally, for whatever reason the government isn't using it's military assets. It's using it's law enforcement mechanism. This is why they are still allowed to do what they are doing. If the not so law abiding organizations in government get involved in this, that changes the game entirely for these hackers because torture, murder, extortion, basically the whole range of criminal activity could be used to stop whatever the national security threat is. And all of it would be completely off the record and who knows whether or not a black budget exists but if it does then the funding would be off the record also.

Re:They aren't that skilled or that smart. by drinkypoo · 2011-06-20 05:50 · Score: 1

using something like Tor is like wearing a hook in the Klan.
Avast, me hearties! Scurvy minorities off the port bow!
Yar, what ye be lookin at?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:They aren't that skilled or that smart. by psiclops · 2011-06-20 10:51 · Score: 1

Yeah but not living in America would protect you from the FBI.
There's a whole big world outside of the US, and hackers exist there too.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig

None of them will get away with it. by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:26 · Score: 1

And the reason is the same technology they've learned to defeat will be the technology to put them under surveillance.

And technology, especially surveillance, is becoming so much more sophisticated that it's only a matter of time before there will be no activity that you can hide from the feds. At some point, whether by informant, by surveillance technology, or by persecution (as NATO said), they'll be stopped.

And the reason is, their strategy of pissing off the one group that can stop them this early in, is about the dumbest possible strategy and it doesnt matter if its chess or checkers. You don't go after the queen in the first few moves and expose yourself to checkmate but thats basically what they are doing. So all the government has to do is use their best minds, best programmers, and throw billions at it, or if the government wont do it Sony and a group of gaming corporations could decide to pool together 100 million dollars and stop them that way.

This should be good for a giggle: by Hartree · 2011-06-20 04:26 · Score: 1

It'll be at least as fun to watch this trainwreck as a three legged race at the triple amputee's convention.

Pop a beer and pass the popcorn.

This sounds like revenge, not just for the lulz... by realsilly · 2011-06-20 04:28 · Score: 1

Is it really necessary to destroy people in order to go after a corporation or a government operation? Will these individuals feel differently if the results of their efforts directly impact them in a negative fashion? Or will they ensure that their information is kept safe and damn be the rest of the world?

I cannot say I agree with what how high profile companies handle themselves, or even how our own government operates, but neither do I agree they should be hacked and all their customer's data or citizen info be dumped out in public for all eyes to see.

If you feel it is ok to dump out customer information because you're teaching corporations and governments that they aren't very secure, why aren't you divulging who you are so that this is done on the up and up level. It seems to me that the various groups are hell bent on keeping their identity and information private and secure but everyone else's info is fair game, to this I disagree.

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.

It's not a bad thing. by Aphoxema · 2011-06-20 04:42 · Score: 1

We'll never know if security amounts to anything if it isn't tested tenaciously. Evolution of any kind requires selective pressures; as new methods, protocols and cryptographic techniques rise they will need to be attacked to know if they're even worth pursuing, which ones are worth fixing.

Sony had poor security, but anyone could have speculated that... you don't know until you get hurt and someone's got to do the hurting.

--
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Government shouldnt and doesnt need to by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:43 · Score: 1

The government does not need to and I advocate should not destroy net anonymity or freedom.

The best course of action for the government would be to allow only one military style agency, perhaps the NSA? or something else? Monitor the entire internet at the packet level. Any activity on the internet should remain free. Any backdoors in software, or in compilers, should remain hidden. Anyones secrets legal or illegal should remain secret. I don't care if my neighbor is downloading child porn. I don't care if my neighbor is Googling how to kill his wife. I don't care if he's trying to learn how to make a bomb. No individual crime is bad enough that we should give up our collective liberty.

However if someone is out to destroy the USA, by attacking the government, or it's troops, the government has the right to use whatever means necessary to protect itself. This does not require that civilians lose liberty. Civilians can be watched and keep their liberty, just so long as we don't treat this as a law enforcement thing.

Treating it as law enforcement is what causes us to lose liberty because then everyone wants to pass new laws. Treating it as war on the other hand, means that the threat is so bad that this is beyond the law and only the laws of war apply and knowing the USA, those laws don't really apply either. If we are going to deal with cyberwar correctly, then Obama or someone else has to set a line in the sand and decide just when it's an act of war. Civil liberties and internet anonymity should not be on the table. If these hackers truly believe in internet freedom enough to go to war against the US government, they should be prepared to die for internet freedom and we should not allow government or any hackers to reduce our collective freedom.

If they are just doing this to give the government cover for a censorship agenda, and if the government tries to pass a censorship bill, then the government and these hackers are both betraying the liberty this country is supposed to be fighting to defend.

awesome, finally! by hesaigo999ca · 2011-06-20 04:47 · Score: 1

I am all for this, if the government wants to be really stupid and start trying to censor documents they have no right to, and then put someone (framed? who really knows) behind bars for shedding a little light on certain political practices that leave to be desired, I would say they have it coming.....
just like when the Egyptian government was stupid in cutting off access to internet to "control" their people.....if we allow the government to continue doing whatever the f*ck it wants, then we are just as much to blame.

If i could help them out, i would, but alas, i am no haxor, and have no real time to stay up late nights hacking away through multiple firewalls, to fingerprint an entire organization to then start dropping payloads and pings, until such time a port makes itself aware to me as being open...from which then I would start culminating ways of accessing the personal data on that pc, to use in such a fashion as to obtain root within that whole domain, and invoke new privileges to install special payloads that would give me uncontrolled access remotely at any time, and from where ever i wanted. Yeah, i have no clue how to do those things, ....pity really!

is there anywhere we can donate money for their continued efforts???

Attacking civilians wont improve security by elucido · 2011-06-20 04:48 · Score: 1

And if the gov gets rid of internet anonymity they are attacking civilians, just as the hackers are attacking civilians when they release their personal information out to be abused and exploited.

If the goal is to secure the information, and if most civilians don't know how to be anonymous anyway, this will have no impact on hackers who will still be anonymous, only even more anonymous than before because new tools will be invented. And the government will trigger an arms race just as other governments across the world have done when trying to crack down on internet anonymity.

The result is that ordinary people will have their lives disrupted and for no real benefit securitywise. Ordinary people will have less security, less privacy, less anonymity, and hackers will develop better tools to get beyond the censors. It wouldn't solve a damn thing and in fact the solution would be worse than the problem, just like with the War on Drugs.

Re:Ego, Ego, Ego by ackthpt · 2011-06-20 04:57 · Score: 1

the spooks are already well along in backtracking the traffic.

So you're saying that LulzSec dun goofed, and consequences will never be the same?!

There's a lesson to take from Fight Club - never talk about Fight Club.

The real sinister hackers are the ones who keep their heads down and seek anonymity, not notoriety - those who see self glorification are much easier to catch.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Why is this happening? People have had enough by TheCarp · 2011-06-20 05:05 · Score: 1

> I believe in the law and follow it to the best of my ability

Right there, I believe, is why you fail to understand these people. I am not amongst their numbers (not my skill set and I am dubious as to what the real long term game is), but I get it...

Why believe in the law? Its not you rlaw. You never wrote it, you never were asked to ratify it. I wasn't, I don't consider it mine, its the law of a government that was bought by the highest bidder a long time ago. Not my government, not our government, its their government. It BELONGS to the ultra rich who purchased it.

We owe them no allegiance, and I see no reason to follow what they call "laws" any more than to avoid getting caught by their thugs. Lulssec is pretty good at not tgetting caught by their thugs. So, why should they follow thei rlaws?

Oh...and I have gotten little more than a ticket or two since I was 16 too... but I don't try AT ALL to do more than look like I follow their laws, their laws are irrelevant to my world view.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:Ego, Ego, Ego by cavreader · 2011-06-20 05:11 · Score: 1

The government will most likely try to infiltrate the group using someone with the impressive tech skills. The person infiltrated would most likely participate in several successful attacks to prove their cred and from then on start collecting the information needed to roll up the entire group.

Misguided by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-06-20 05:36 · Score: 1

Which seems a more likely outcome of all their Lulz?
1. The 'Powers That Be', have the scales fall from their eyes and turn over a new leaf of openess, honesty, and truth in all things.
2. The Internet is turned into a Panopticon, with every transaction pre-approved by the security organs of the State and anonymity is a crime punishable by death.

Go! by mmcuh · 2011-06-20 05:56 · Score: 1

I doubt that something will actually happen, but I really hope they manage to pull off some really spectacular stunts. I've long since passed the point where I thought that anyone in government or in the private sector could do anything actually useful, now I'm just hoping for some entertainment.

Re:This sounds like revenge, not just for the lulz by mmcuh · 2011-06-20 05:58 · Score: 1

If you feel it is ok to dump out customer information because you're teaching corporations and governments that they aren't very secure, why aren't you divulging who you are so that this is done on the up and up level.

Because then they would be stopped?

Internet Anonymity doesn't exist. by the_raptor · 2011-06-20 05:59 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as real Anonymity on the Internet. At best you have a masquerade and hope the Government isn't interested enough in going after you. That is what Anonymous is founded upon. Security through obscurity in the crowd. Sure, some individuals get nabbed but the rest of the horde escapes capture.

I have hung around Anonymous and the like long enough to know that anyone who has a consistent online identity can be easily traced and "doxed". The only reason the Government doesn't do this kind of tracking much is because it is expensive and generally not worth the time (but you can be sure Bin Laden used the "air gap" network security method for a reason).

The only thing that stops the Government tracking every-bodies online activity is cost (the same thing that stops them doing it in physical space). But if you are a member of a small group like LulzSec then all the mythos of Anonymous won't protect you for Jack (most members of LulzSec have apparently already been doxed by a private group).

LulzSec and the like were hoping to be the "anarchist in a riot" and stir the masses up in revolt against The System. They failed and will be tracked and arrested. Unfortunately for The System they will be replaced as fast as they are caught.

--

========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion

Re:The government doesn't run the government thoug by ZenDragon · 2011-06-20 06:12 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right. Having worked as a contractor for the government at the state level, along with local authorities, the FBI, Homeland Security, and the Army. I can tell you from first hand experience that it is impossible to compete with the resources available via tax payers dollars. That said, a vast majority of the IT staff at all levels of government are completely incompetent, and have no idea how to utilize the power at their finger tips. All this really comes down to however, is just a matter of time for these groups to step on the wrong toes. There ARE a few individuals working for the feds and can and will exploit the nearly limitless power of our tax funded infrastructure to seek out and eliminate these groups. The level of skill of Lulz and Anonymous really has nothing to do with the argument. They may or may not be vastly more skilled than their government counterparts, but they are forced to break their way through countless security measures and have no help from any enforcement agencies, so they are always at the disadvantage in fighting from the outside. That alone makes any and all of these efforts completely pointless. Fighting with the government is not the answer. Establishing a presence from within the government is really the only way to accomplish anything of value. Honestly I think it is quite naive of these groups to assume that they can change anything with this campaign. Though I support government and industry transparency as much as Im sure they do, I realize that this is only going to make change harder in the future, and thus am adamantly against what they are doing.

Rubber hose cryptography by Caerdwyn · 2011-06-20 06:15 · Score: 1

What is it with those people? Do they really want to be (rightfully) classified as terrorists? Do they really want to find out that that means? These boys are about to learn what it's like to go up against a governmental agency that has full prosecutorial immunity. If they're grabbed and shown what "rubber hose cryptography" means, nobody's going to miss them or come looking for them. They won't have a lawyer, or a trial. They won't have rights. They will find that a black T-shirt and a r0x0r screen name won't protect them from men with guns and the ability to squeeze informants as hard as they like to learn who the Lulz people are.

This isn't a game, in the truest sense of the phrase. The worst thing is that as a result of this, laws are going to be passed that are even more draconian than what we already have, and those laws will be upheld. Thanks, Lulz. Thanks a lot for handing a whole bunch of ammo to the security state and permission to use it against ordinary people. Thanks for shilling for the DHS. Thanks for being useful idiots to the surveillance state.

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.

Re:Ego, Ego, Ego by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-20 07:21 · Score: 1

Yep, they're gonna get backtraced and arrested by the cyber police.

Unless they're behind 7 proxies, in which case, good luck.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

This is taking aim at the correct opponents by RanceJustice · 2011-06-20 07:45 · Score: 2

THIS is the kind of stuff that these teams should be spending their time on. Loathe as they are to admit it, Anon is at their best when they're fighting an "actual evil". There is an element of the "We don't give a fuck! Look how cool we are!" groups that decide to hack some game developer's site for the lulz and release everyone's passwords, but its really not that lulzy - its causing real damage to real people who don't deserve it. The greatest lulz are had from exposing corruption - sticking it to people who didn't know ZeniMax had terribad security and were stupid enough to make such accounts? Not so great. Sticking it to Sony for their heavyhanded punishment of PSN users, law suits, and horrible response to anyone who wanted to use the console they paid for as they wished? Better. Unveiling that an FBI-employed individual who runs his own private infosec company is not only incapable of securing his own website, but is corrupt enough to use our tax money to offer LulzSec a contract to take out his private industry white hat competitors? This kind of stuff is the best.

These movements are truly the only light we have in the darkness - moneyed private interests and their government puppets have become complacent in their corruption and the average citizen has little power to stop the cycle. They have a near unlimited amount of money and power, but through hubris their lies become visible through the actions of Anonymous, WikiLeaks, LulzSec and the others that fight against censorship and other abuses of power. Look at websites like BoASucks - showing conclusively they knew they were handing out bad loans and looking to screw people financially. WikiLeaks data showed that my tax dollars went to funding boy-fucking parties for Afghan leaders and a private contract merc corp, a couple of chucklefucks laughed like they played Call of Duty while shooting a makeshift ambulance known to have children inside during the Iraq conflict, and that all the corruption of the 2 quagmire conflicts over the past 10 years were just as bad as we thought they'd be.

We need these groups to help inform the people and make them angry. Angry enough to look beyond the puppet show and realize that we're living in a corporate plutocracy and its only getting worse. These groups use the force multiplier of the Internet to strike at a vastly better funded and protected enemy; its one of the only options we have at the moment until Americans are willing to do what the Arab World is doing...which doesn't seem likely as long as the bread and circuses are cheap enough. However, the fight against the Scientology proved the power of groups like Anon to provide a "spark" to ignite when the powder keg is packed full enough, and information to fill it. Prior to Anon's campaign, most of America thought Scientology was just "some weird new age thing celebs do", but those who's families were torn apart by Fair Game tactics and lost loved ones were suffering alone against a seemingly invincible opponent with a horde of lawyers and crooked power-brokers on its payroll. Anon's activity is nearly singlehandedly responsible for bringing their offenses into the light. Though some will say "but they didn't totally destroy it, so its a loss", this isn't the case at all. Now, the average American will at least know its a "creepy cult" and instances such as certain states and countries (Texas and Germany come to mind, plus others) have revoked their tax-exempt status due to Anon's work. Recruitment is down and those who have been abused by Scientology Orgs are now more willing than ever to engage in legal battles. Its really a pretty amazing thing when you think about it, fostered by a bunch of typically 20's-30s upper-middle class males who decided to wear masks, protest, and get the word out. For some it was an issue of ethics, for others simply for the lulz, its effect is undeniable. I've even heard from some Arab Awakening youth who said that Anon was one of the inspirations for them to join the various movements, showing that young

Gobels@wikileaks.com by TiggertheMad · 2011-06-20 07:46 · Score: 2

Which is great if what we're getting is truth. Wikileaks produces propaganda.

Funny, I thought they just posted leaked documents. That seems fairly truthful to me. Sure, there is some grandstanding in the manner that they release them, but that doesn't make them any less truthful. Unless you are suggesting that they are just fabricating all the info that they are releasing, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:Gobels@wikileaks.com by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-20 08:32 · Score: 1

Funny, I thought they just posted leaked documents. That seems fairly truthful to me. Sure, there is some grandstanding in the manner that they release them, but that doesn't make them any less truthful. Unless you are suggesting that they are just fabricating all the info that they are releasing, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.
Let's take the "collateral murder" video as an example. There are two versions. One edited, one raw. The version that gets linked and advertised is the edited one. The one that edits out footage of weapons within the group of men accompanying the reporters yet can highlight cameras, spends time to re-play callous banter from troops, and zoom in and label blurry dots that turn out to be children in a vehicle. This isn't just presenting leaked documents. This is carefully edited footage containing commentary with a specific goal in mind; propaganda.
Don't discount the grandstanding. Assange talks up each release despite the fact that these data dumps, while interesting, tend to offer few insights of criminal activity. At least, nothing that comes close to the grand-standing that Wikileaks and its supporters claim. But it all looks rather dire if you don't actually dig in to the material.
I don't claim that Wikileaks is fabricating what they release. But what they're producing isn't necessarily truthful either.

china == remote excahnge backups? by TiggertheMad · 2011-06-20 07:53 · Score: 1

So, if someone wanted to expose their government's dirty laundry, they should go and hack Chinese, North Korean or Israeli servers?

makes sense to me, china has hacked and stolen half the IP from the US, so it stand to reason they would have copies of all the government's email too...lolz

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

What??? by lennier1 · 2011-06-20 08:07 · Score: 1

4chan???

Doesn't this kinda violate the "don't shit where you eat" rule?

Re:What??? by mmcuh · 2011-06-20 08:42 · Score: 1

I think 4chan has a board for exactly that.

The technology equivalent of... by EricTheGreen · 2011-06-20 08:39 · Score: 1

...the People's Front of Judea joining forces with the Judean People's Front.

That'll show 'em!

I still think that Lulzsec is CIA... by CPE1704TKS · 2011-06-20 08:43 · Score: 1

Lulzsec is funny and clever, but they haven't attacked a really big name site. But if they were real hackers, they would have tried to take down Facebook, E-trade, WoW, etc, something to generate an enormous amount of press. Instead, they've attacked small sites, security companies that didn't exist until a few months previous, and they attacked the CIA website. They've generated a lot of light, but not a lot of heat. For someone with their level of coordination, they certainly are trying to get themselves caught by posting on Twitter, going on IRC, leaving voice traces, etc. I don't buy the idea that they are complete nihilists, it's too exhausting.

The only thing I can think of is that these guys really are CIA, and they're trying to get blackhat credibility, in order to infilitrate and take down Anonymous. Sure, there's some collateral damage, but it's for the "greater good", right? My only hope is that I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The fact that they've teamed up with Anonymous after only a couple of months in existence makes me think I'm right.

I think it's less being hurt by bitcoin by sean.peters · 2011-06-20 09:33 · Score: 1

And more being annoyed by the constant Slashdot flogging of bitcoins. If we saw a couple articles every month about Linden dollars, people would be foaming at the mouth over those too.

Being able to create money out of thin air by sean.peters · 2011-06-20 09:35 · Score: 1

... is an essential attribute of any currency - unless, of course, you don't actually want your economy to grow. Conversely, consumers knowing exactly how much money is "in the system" is not in any sense an important attribute for currency to have.

You're kidding, right? by sean.peters · 2011-06-20 09:44 · Score: 1

Because in the US, we have a choice between people who will ignore the constitution to build their utopian socialist welfare state

"Utopian socialist welfare state"? You're kidding, right? The real choice we have in this country is between the guys who are going to give (well, HAVE given) all the fruits of economic growth to the very rich, and the guys who are going to give ALMOST all of them to the rich (while pretending to care about the poor). Between the guys who used to throw people in GTMO forever, without trial; and the guys who are CURRENTLY throwing people in GTMO forever, without trial. Between the guys who bombed Iraq without a declaration of war, and the guys who are bombing Yemen and Libya without a declaration of war.

We should be so lucky as to have a an actual left-oriented option.

attacking the wrong people by mehemiah · 2011-06-20 10:02 · Score: 1

can't luslec and anon attack china china and Russa and N. korea

Re:attacking the wrong people by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-06-20 15:57 · Score: 1

It's fairly tricky to attack North Korea on the Internet, given that there are no known public servers physically located in North Korea.

bankers are stupid, but they are mean by decora · 2011-06-20 10:18 · Score: 1

yes, most banks have horrible security, because bank managers are fucking idiots at anything that doesnt involve moving piles of cash around.

however.

they are like autistic masters at what they are good at, and one of those things is politics and dealing with the court system. and they will royally destroy Lulzsec and everyone within 10 city blocks (cyberverbally speaking) with various threats, suits, etc.

and it won't be piss ant state law, it will be Federal Department of Justice, starring Eric Holder, who is best known for standing up for the rights of Chiqita Banana to funnel money to right-wing terrorist groups who murdered union activists in latin america.

chiqita allegedly. funneled. money. by decora · 2011-06-20 10:19 · Score: 1

to alleged right alleged wing alleged terrorist alleged death alleged squads in alleged latin alleged america.

you just dont get it dude by decora · 2011-06-20 10:23 · Score: 1

if i was caught using 'zip' on anything at work, i would be fired for 'hacking'.

let alone encryption, sftp, and p2p tunnels.

my boss literally has sent out memos saying that training is to be avoided because it takes away from 'producitivty'. my coworkers do not know the difference between https and http, they plug in their phones into their computers, nobody cares, why? IT staff is continually cut because it 'doesnt make money'.

you just dont get the mentality out there man.

Re:you just dont get it dude by jhoegl · 2011-06-20 12:05 · Score: 1

Oh trust me I do.
I am fully aware of fighting the good fight for security, especially in small business.
In fact, in small business, security is usually an afterthought. But my solutions were not put into the hands of the workers. They were all automated, the employees never knew about them. The boss knew there was some security, but not what.
Now if you are working at a medical facility and they do not even attempt to send things password protected... they are very open to lawsuits and HIPAA.
That is a serious issue that WILL affect the bottom line, and peoples jobs.

a short lesson in customer service by decora · 2011-06-20 10:34 · Score: 2

Jim - call center worker
Boss - the boss
Irate caller - you

Jim: "OK sir, i just need to verify your ID with some recent transactions..."

Irate caller: "Wtf is this, security theatre?"

Jim: "OK, sir, you have a great point. I'll be sure to take that complaint to the proper authorities!"

Jim: "Hi boss, we got a caller... he says that our identity verification process is just security theatre!!!'

Boss: "Wait, what the fuck is your name again?"

Jim: "Uh... Jim.. sir... "

Boss: "Well, Jim, Sir, get your fat ass back in there, back in your fucking seat, and take some fucking calls. "

Jim: "Yes uhm.. yes sir.. u"

Boss: "Hold on. Let me look at your fucking numbers. Jim. jim. What the fuck Jim? Your job is to answer calls, not chitty chat with the users. Resolve them, and get to the next one. Understand? How .. fuck it. youre fired. "

Jim: "..... "

they probably are a government group by decora · 2011-06-20 10:36 · Score: 1

who the fuck knows any more man. its mirrors inside of mirrors inside of mirrors.

Re:they probably are a government group by cavreader · 2011-06-20 12:11 · Score: 1

No matter how distributed the group is they do need to communicate with each other occasionally or how else would they all work to target the same system? Infiltrating someone into this communication loop could let the enforcement agencies know when new attacks are planned and who the target is. It would be foolish to underestimate the governments technical capabilities. Each new data point could provide information needed to back track the attacks.

the NSA already monitors the.. by decora · 2011-06-20 10:38 · Score: 1

theres a book. The Shadow Factory. read it.

Obama's Espionage prosecutions and computers by decora · 2011-06-20 10:39 · Score: 1

Obama has prosecuted 6 non-spy Espionage Act cases, people who give information to journalists.

more than any modern president.

3 of those involve the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Drake, Manning, and Wikileaks.

the 'anti-hacking' laws are really expansions of the Espionage Act, if you dig into the language.

and the Espionage Act is really a backdoor way to kill freedom of speech / press

wine growers? by decora · 2011-06-20 10:41 · Score: 1

im not sure if there are any 'tomato developers' or 'cucumber developers'

Slashdot Mirror

LulzSec Teams With Anonymous, In Operation AntiSec

271 of 419 comments (clear)