Slashdot Mirror


LulzSec, Anonymous Reason For PROTECT IP Act, Says RIAA

Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that the RIAA is using the latest activities of hacktivists to bolster its claim that America needs the PROTECT IP Act, the act that would place a layer of censorship on the internet in the U.S."

47 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. al qaeda by Titan1080 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    please select the RIAA HQ as your next target.

    1. Re:al qaeda by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why would they target an organization that is helping them towards their goal of making America so unlivable that the people will accept Sharia Law as a lateral move?

    2. Re:al qaeda by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Woosh to you, sir. The RIAA and other enemies of freedom look at LulzSec as worse than al quaida. As Mr. Leghorn says, "it's a joke, son." Peace on you, and lulz.

    3. Re:al qaeda by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why shoot your ally in the battle against liberty?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:al qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LulzSec, like Alkaida, is a CIA creation. Both are excuses manufactured by the *ministry of truth*. Politics of fear at best.

    5. Re:al qaeda by symbolset · · Score: 2

      If they want America destroyed they need only leave us alone. We're doing fine at that without them.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  2. I Think It's Time To Hack by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And expose the sordid details of RIAA exec's child prostitution activities on their Thailand "business trips".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:I Think It's Time To Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love the reasoning of why the Protect IP act is being pushed...make using stuff that's already been made against the law to use unless one is using it in accordance with an industry, and THEN people will stop using it because it will be against TWO laws. That'll work. Forget about the collateral damage to law abiding American citizens.

  3. Of Course by wsxyz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It makes perfect sense to me, seeing as how it is a known fact that all members of Anonymous and Lulzsec are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Law.

    1. Re:Of Course by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First you get it into US law, then you convince the rest of the world to "harmonize" their laws. Almost a SOP for megacorps.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Of Course by symbolset · · Score: 2

      Do you hear the black helicopters outside? No, of course you don't. They're stealth helicopters. They're coming for YOU!

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  4. False Flag Reasoning. by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obviously anyone here understands that the Protect Act has NOTHING to do with the stupidity that the RIAA is spewing. But let me restate it for those that don't understand. They are using recent events as a False Flag-like excuse. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/False_flag I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by Titan1080 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Anonymous and Lulzsec and others aren't just fabricated excuses to allow the president to enable his internet kill switch.

    2. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Political or religious ideologies will sometimes use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth, the ideology is simply unpopular with society.

      --
      Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    3. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was actually wondering why they didn't use Fukushima as an excuse to ask for some kind of law, but perhaps they got a little more wary now that a few judges noticed that their excuses aren't even close to resembling sanity.

      But this is at least somehow, in some way, .... oh hell, it's on the internet, what else needs to match?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by music65536 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. False Flag is perhaps the most dangerous tactic of all. The government has unlimited pardons to do anything - while hiding it. Given a sufficiently hideous delivery, freedom fighters can be painted as Tin Foil Hats.

    5. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      As I noted, that's not "false flag." That's simply being opportunistic.

    6. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A false flag is something like 9/11...

      Thanks for showing us just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

      What we have here is a classic "wag the dog" where you use something completely unconnected to what you are trying to do to ram something through. Saudi terrorists attack New York? Blow up Iraq. What does one have to do with the other? Not a fucking thing except the first event was helpful in getting an agenda pushed.That is the difference my friend.

      No - Wag the Dog is when you generate an event to distract from another event. Have you actually seen the movie?

      I can see why people like to toss around phrases like "false flag" and "wag the dog". They're emotionally charged statements that invoke a lot of passion without much requirement to actually understand the concept, much less think about the application thereof. One can invoke "false flag" and get a lot of riders to jump on your bandwagon even though this situation has absolutely nothing to do with a "false flag" tactic. Kind of like what the RIAA is doing in invoking lulzsec, et al. Wait a second. I see what you did there...

    7. Re:False Flag Reasoning. by shentino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The AA stocks being shorted just before 9/11 doesn't deserve an explanation nearly as much as the fact that the SEC and FBI did not investigate it.

  5. It was inevitable.. by Ross+R.+Smith · · Score: 2

    The RIAA required a scapegoat and the Lulzsec/Anon attacks were just what they needed to push this crap.

    1. Re:It was inevitable.. by Gripp · · Score: 2

      i think you missed something. hacking groups like this have been active for as long as it's been possible. so the question you should be asking is why is the media all of a sudden paying attention.

      i would be prone to say that it is because these hackers have been very vocal and begging for this attention. but that is actually not really new either. so something else seems to be going on. i suppose its the mixture of them being politically motivated and massively successful in their hacking efforts (sony, the CIA, FBI, various gov's, HBGary, etc) or, it is simply because it focuses on an already hot topic - how can the gov control the internet, and how can the users stop them.

      back to the direct point of the article; these attempts at our liberty are the very thing fueling this movement. i'm not sure the RIAA realizes what effects this may have. besides that, to me these hacks show that we CAN'T actually protect individuals from hackers via goverment policy - considering how we can't even manage protect individual sites - which would mean the crimes would still happen and the only thing left would be the side effect of " liberties lost. "
      which doesn't sound like a *solution* to me.

  6. Is this true of ProtectIP by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    I've heard ProtectIP bans any site that links to copyrighted material.
    Is it true that ProtectIP could shut down every single forum on the Internet if they wished?
    Afterall, someone only needs to post a link to copyrighted material

    1. Re:Is this true of ProtectIP by arbiter1 · · Score: 2

      This act could be used to shutdown google, bing, yahoo, (insert any search engine here) since you type in a word it will come back with copyrighted material. heck even sites like cnn etc

    2. Re:Is this true of ProtectIP by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      LOL, since everything published is now under copyright, linking to anything violates the ProtectIP act! Google and Bing are the prime examples, they're violating slashdot's copyright by linking to it!

    3. Re:Is this true of ProtectIP by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But rest assured it won't. That would expose how flawed the law is. I didn't read it, but I am fairly sure there is some safeguard against someone just carpet bombing high profile sites with lawsuits, something like "has to be done by the rights owner". And of course they will not risk their precious tool.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Stupid works by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So the logic here is the same as it has been for every rights-compromising measure put forth so far this century; "[name of enemy] is going to cause massive amounts of economic/physical/spiritual damage unless [measure] is undertaken immediately. [measure] will of course restrict your rights, but it's all in the name of protecting something greater than you." Of course, that something invariably reduces to somebody else's profit, which is likely already happening at your expense, so why change the status quo now.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Stupid works by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      As long as there's a huge number of bumpkins that fall for it, why bother to stop?

  8. Greed = PROTECT IP = TOR by bsDaemon · · Score: 2

    The other day, after reading yet another news story about the censorship moves in Australia and more PROTECT IP stuff, I decided that it was time to try out configuring Privoxy to forward everything via SOCKS5 to Tor. I was expecting a much bigger performance hit than I actual did, though, which was a pleasant surprise. Sure, its annoying having to enter CAPTCHA tags for Google all the time, but that's really not that big of a hassle. For the less technical people, Vidalia + the Tor Button for Firefox are pretty much fool proof. Between advertisers, stories about repression of online descent in the middle east and asia, Facebook and Google tracking people all the damned time, etc, I think (or, at least, I would like to think) that it might only be a matter of time before more and more 'normal' people, even those who really, truely, have nothing to hide, start doing something similar.

    When Comcast starts filtering port 9050 like they do with 25, then we'll know we've pretty much lost the Internet once and for all. But hey, at least the Department of State supports Internet freedom in China, right? pffft.

  9. What do you mean "expose"? by IBitOBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their child prostitution is right out there leading their marketing pushes. Check out the "teen seen" music sources and Disney Channel fare. 13 year old girls in bustiers?

    MAFIAA is _proud_ of their rampant selling of child sex and sexuality to the public. That it is more "child porn" than direct prostitution is the only possible argument.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:What do you mean "expose"? by empty+mind · · Score: 2

      Have you seen South Park episode on Jonas Brothers? It's like you are talking about it. The episode was "The Ring", 13x1. Pretty funny.

      --
      "I'm selling these fine leather jackets"
  10. Of COURSE the MAFIAA hates LulzSec by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    Sony is a member of the RIAA, after all. I applaud LulzSec's actions (most of 'em, anyway) and urge them to keep up the good work.

    I was the "victim" of a group much like LulzSec before the turn of the century, and it was hilarious (to me, anyway) indeed. My site, the Springfield Fragfest, made fun of everybody (for the lulz before "lulz" was coined). I was kind of the Don Rickles of the Quake world -- I made fun of everybody, and everybody I made fun of became fans (well, almost everybody, some folks have no sense of humor). I'd have folks' pet shamblers pissing on the couch, Thresh taking speed, etc.

    There was a group much like LulzSec (for all I know it might have had some of the same members) that was in the nerd news, so I posted a bit about them accompanied by a photo of a group of Down's Syndrome kids as illustration.

    They broke into my host's servers and removed the <img> tag and photo... and left the text intact! I was honored as well as amused.

    But, you know, the people (and I use that term loosely) LulzSec are targeting have no sense of humor whatever. Again, guys, keep up the good work, and thanks for the lulz. I hope reports of LulSec's death are greatly exaggerated.

    1. Re:Of COURSE the MAFIAA hates LulzSec by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, because removing an image tag is roughly the same as posting peoples' login information, proprietary source code or a list of email addresses to a porn site and telling people to ridicule anybody they know on the list. Gosh dang kids these days just have no sense of humor.

    2. Re:Of COURSE the MAFIAA hates LulzSec by Foxhoundz · · Score: 2

      LulzSec is a criminal organization. They're certainly not in it for the "lulz" and they're certainly not doing it for some lofty philosophy. Seeing as they couldn't even access some of the databases of the sites they "hacked", it leads me to believe that they're just throwing every trick in the book on the most obscure sites they could find, hoping someone forgot to escape an SQL query here or there.

  11. Total Non Sequitor... by SirAstral · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The hacking, compromising, or intrusion of a computer system has nothing to do with the copying/distribution of copy protected works. The unlawful access of a computer system is already against the law and there is nothing this act would do to improve security because security is up to each individual organization and how they implement it.

    This is classic politics at work folks, keep your eye on the ball!

  12. And what will this do? by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will treat everyday law abiding citizens as charged criminals under investigation while the people it targets will patch over it in less than a day...

    At this point I have trouble weighing out which group is dumber

    1. Re:And what will this do? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that the protect act violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th sections of the bill of rights.

      I'd say that americans should be getting pretty close to the bullet box option by now.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  13. The RIAA has it backwards by mathkicks · · Score: 2

    It seems to me that the RIAA/MPAA/etc is the reason for LulzSec and Anonymous

  14. Re:Maybe it's time to tax the Internet. by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where do I sign up for my check, I've produced content! ...Oh I see just for the megacorps then is it?

  15. So let me get this straight... by supersloshy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What Anonymous/LulzSec do (a good percentage of the time) is illegal anyways, yes? Why the crap do we need new laws when what they do is already criminal?

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by supersloshy · · Score: 2

      I never said anything about not practicing good security. If someone steals from you because of bad security, the criminal is still liable for damages (if he can be traced in the first place). Should businesses be liable to protect their customers' data? Of course they should, I'm for that entirely. However, the Protect IP Act looks like it has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever and it wouldn't help at all.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  16. Re:Maybe it's time to tax the Internet. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

    I'd rather them just leave things alone and realize that it's pointless to pass these laws because they are likely easily abused and do no good.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  17. modest much, neil? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ability of our country to lead -- and the ability of U.S. companies to create employment -- will depend upon our continued success.

    Neil Turkewitz, Executive Vice President, International, RIAA

    this is how the 'letter' on the riaa website ends.

    'the ability of our country to lead': well, since engineering and manufacturing of actual goods has gone overseas, I suppose only you, your ilk and fast food workers are what we have left in the US. if the way we 'lead' the world is via your methods, I think we are better off not leading.

    'US companies creating employment': lawyers and folks like that. yup. but do we want more of THAT kind of US employment?

    and I even question the 'continued success' part. your buying base outright hates you and side-steps you at every turn. you war on them and wonder why they hate you and don't continue paying for your existence?

    neil, you are so fucking full of yourself. probably considered a trait of success at the place you work at, though...

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  18. Futile efforts are futile by lexsird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They need to be quicker on their feet to out adapt the world of technology. Counter measures roll out faster than laws countering measures. All it does is create some vicious enemies with long memories. The RIAA needs to STFU and come up with a modern working business model for the digital age. It doesn't take much brain activity to come up with something that could solve this problem, so what the hell is their problem?

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  19. Pay attention, son by traindirector · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this guy's first name Foghorn?

    You gotta--I say you gotta hear that whoosh over your head, boy. Whoosh, that is.

  20. Why Protect IP matters by symbolset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Protect IP matters because Detriot is an industrial wasteland. Intellectual Property is becoming more and more of the product we have to export. Because of this we escalate its importance to the point where at some future point we must defend our intellectual property using men with guns on foreign soil, defending our right to charge what we will for the broadcast rights to Justin Bieber's latest album on the peoples of India and China - who don't want to hear that crap anyway.

    The whole thing is sick. Eventually the world is going to call us to the carpet on that and make us make useful stuff for the value we get. And then what have we got?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Why Protect IP matters by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      IP is no comparison to manufacturing industries. Whole industries including equipment and expertise had to be shifted before exports became imports. With IP to extort reduced tax rates and other concession, you just shift the country of ownership of the IP, takes a quick pen stroke and it's done and your tax base is screwed. IP is by far the most dangerous and unreliable national income base and is bound for inevitable failure.

      Way to truly rebuild the economy is via fair trade. A international WTO system of equalising competitive industry based up making products compete upon a fair basis bound by the costs of environmental safety, labour laws and equitable taxation basis.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Why Protect IP matters by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Informative

      With IP to extort reduced tax rates and other concession, you just shift the country of ownership of the IP, takes a quick pen stroke and it's done and your tax base is screwed.

      exactly... look at how Microsoft hides their IP in Ireland to minimise their tax bill... but uses US patent law to enforce it...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.