Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hackers Dump Millions of Records From Banks, Politicians

Posted by timothy on from the no-such-thing-as-the-afl-cia dept.

hypnosec writes "TeamGhostShell, a team linked with the infamous group Anonymous, is claiming that they have hacked some major U.S. institutions, including major banking institutions and accounts of politicians, and has posted those details online. The dumps, comprised of millions of accounts, have been let loose on the web by the hacking collective. The motivation behind the hack, the group claims, is to protest against banks, politicians and the hackers who have been captured by law enforcement agencies."

6 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Great plan by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes let's ruin millions of innocent lives to protest the arrest of criminals!

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Great plan by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "And will you still be supporting their actions when you find your own personal bank details on that list? "

      Damned straight I would. That would give me direct evidence that my bank was not properly protecting my money, and give me very good motivation to start (or join) a lawsuit.

      If the banks' security is shit, it's good to know about it. Better it be public than found by some criminal organization that will just steal it all and disappear.

    2. Re:Great plan by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "No true communist state has ever existed" is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.

      No True Scotsman is where the experimental grouping is based on the results of the experiment. As a more obvious example, consider giving all of the participants in a drug trial the same medication, then splitting them up afterward based on whether the drug worked or not. In the had-a-good-effect group, 100% of the trial patients had a good effect! Amazing!

      The classification of political states, however, is a different issue. No true political anything has ever existed. Dictatorships aren't true dictatorships, because the dictators don't directly control absolutely everything for everyone. Communism isn't true communism, because the people making decisions have always been held in higher regard than the people making toilets. Capitalism isn't true capitalism, because there is always regulation and corruption getting in the way of an informed public. Monarchies aren't really monarchies, because there are always parallel power structures that don't fall into the nicely-defined hierarchy.

      The fallacy here (for which I do not recall a proper name, and can't be bothered to look it up) is a confusion (intentional or not) between ideals and realistic implementations of systems. It's easy enough to say "in a Communist system, everyone is valued equally," but much more difficult to actually convince a nation of people to consider everyone perfectly equal. The ideal, however, does make for an interesting philosophical discussion, just as the real implementation makes for an interesting sociological discussion. With the insights from both, perhaps a political system can be devised that accomplishes the goals of the ideal system, while accommodating the pitfalls of the real implementation.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Great plan by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The SCOTUS ruled that clauses slipped into contracts prohibiting class action lawsuits are valid. In other words - there are some rights that you can't give away in a contract, but the right to join a class action lawsuit isn't one of those.

      Now, some companies have already started changing their one-sided take-it-or-leave-for-our-competitors-oops-they-all-have-the-same-clause contracts to include a waiver of the right to participate in a class action lawsuit. The argument is that all companies will do this soon, as there's little reason not to, and that will thus block most citizens from joining class action lawsuits.

      The problem here is that SCOTUS was wrong. The right to redress in court is one right that we shouldn't be able to sign away, and given how our court system is structured to so heavily favor the rich, class action rights should be considered a basic citizen right to redress.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    4. Re:Great plan by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we had no free markets in the 1800's. That's a myth. A free market doesn't mean a market without rules. It means a market without manipulation. Read Adam Smith or F.A. Hayek. (And before the Kensyians jump in with their nonsense... Just give it a shot.)

      It's enlightening...

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  2. Cool, that'll show 'em by kiwimate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Score against banks - a bit of a headache, some minor bad P.R., a temporary drop in share price maybe. Don't worry, it'll come back up when the next scandal pushes this one off of people's memories.

    Score against the people they're standing up for (the public) - millions of lives ruined as their credit goes to pot, countless hours and days of effort spent to try and recover, thousands of dollars of extra interest payments now their credit score has been dropped down, potential bankruptcies and divorces and split households from the stress...

    What a bunch of jackasses. Maybe these people should think who they're really hurting once in a while.