Slashdot Mirror


Another LulzSec Member Arrested

hypnosec writes "Raynaldo Rivera, aged 20, suspected member of LulzSec, has been arrested for his alleged role in the breach of Sony Pictures Entertainment last year. The first suspect, Cody Kretsinger, has already pleaded guilty and was indicted last September according to the FBI. Rivera, who also goes by names 'neuron,' 'royal,' and 'wildicv', surrendered to authorities and he has been charged with conspiracy and unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. The LulzSec member may be facing 15 years in prison if convicted." On the member who pleaded guilty: "Kretsinger, who pleaded guilty to the same two charges now facing Rivera, is slated to be sentenced on October 25. A federal prosecutor said he would likely receive substantially less than the 15-year maximum prison term carried by those offenses."

211 comments

  1. Not so many lulz now by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully with these arrests and others a few months back, the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

    I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

    1. Re:Not so many lulz now by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      Or next.

    2. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I come at it from the opposite direction: I'm no fan of LulzSec, but Sony deserves to have its toenails removed for being so bloody sloppy about security.

    3. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they found the data and returned it to its rightful owner. I mean, with it being stolen and all.

    4. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things are not what they seem.

    5. Re:Not so many lulz now by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to be a fan of Sony, to see what these guys are doing is wrong and criminal.

      Sony says we we want to run our business this way. The hackers go we don't like it. So except for just informing the public on their opinion (freedom of speech) they bring down the site, because for some reason we think that Our Ideas are right and any disagreeing idea is somehow motivated by some corrupt cause.

      If you are Pro-Choice then those Pro-Life people are trying to keep Women rights down.
      If you are Pro-Life then those Pro-Choice people are trying to make a world where woman don't need to have any consequences for their actions.
      If you are Republicans those Democrats are trying to keep the People addicted to government services so you can better control them.
      If you are Democrat those Republicans are trying to brainwash people to keep buying crap from these companies so they no longer need to innovate.

      We rarely ever get arguments anymore stating I understand your view, but I think my advantages may outweigh the disadvantages that you brought up. But we have moved to a world where a disagreement means your oponent has some Evil motive behind them. If you think your Ideological Opponent is evil then you feel justified hurting them in one way or an other.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Not so many lulz now by VortexCortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All data should be free.

      Everybody's data (including thoughts) should be available to everyone, realtime, no exceptions.

      Only then can we derive true morality.

      I disagree. Your theory is sound, but in practice Twitter and Facebook didn't result in more morals.

    7. Re:Not so many lulz now by mvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I definitely believe criminal activity should be punished but sending in prison a 20-year old for 15 whole fucking years and treating him as if he is a war criminal or serial killer, for simply hacking into a computer of a multi-billion-dollar company (which as it seems didn't care to invest some of it's awfully lot of money in protecting it's customer's data) , is a little too much. Especially when at the same time there are other criminals out there who roam free thanks to their financial status.

    8. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sick and tired of this "it's just bits, you can't steal it" bullshit. Hey, Dumbass, it turns out that my information, my fucking data can be stolen. It turns out that you can steal my data and use that to make real-life impacts. Fuck off - people like you make it impossible to make a case for file-sharing. All you want is free entertainment - and if you look deep down, that's all your "activism" is - you just don't want to pay for music/movies/games. Grow up.

    9. Re:Not so many lulz now by mvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not to be misunderstood here: this kid should be punished but 15 years is just madness

    10. Re:Not so many lulz now by travbrad · · Score: 0

      I guess you won't mind sending me all of your passwords then?

    11. Re:Not so many lulz now by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      ...he keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

      What they have to realize is to trust no one.. Most of these guys get caught because somebody snitched, and of course because they can't keep their own mouth shut and have to brag about their exploits. But informers are a greater threat than government tech and spying.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly certain that the AC was making a dark joke. Something about thoughtcrime or whatever such Sci-fi word it is.

    13. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am no fan of hackers either, but we need to realize that if these guys are hacking in, then these systems are vulnerable. Personally I want to know when a system that contains my data is vulnerable.

    14. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what is your opinion of Sony putting a rootkit on your machine?

    15. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook and Twitter are far from "all" data though, nothing stopping anyone from just lying, or hiding behind veils of anonymity. Not only that not everyone has a Facebook or Twitter account.

      It would need to be *everybody* to give up *everything* simultaneously for it to work. Like a giant hive mind, a real hive mind. Maybe once we can transfer consciousness to a computer then it'll work (but only if everybody does so).

    16. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 2

      OK, I'll help you out with that: EVERY system that contains your data, including the systems you personally control, is vulnerable.

    17. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      All you want is free entertainment

      No, some of us are legitimately concerned about the concentration of information into powerful hands - be they corporate or government. I'm not sure it's the best approach, but 'stealing' that information and putting it into the wild gets peoples attention regarding how data is collected, used and stored.

    18. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'd rather his prison space was kept free for a murderer or rapist. There has to be a better way to rehabilitate/punish non-violent criminals than 15 years in the (probably already overcrowded) clink.

    19. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All data should be free.

      Everybody's data (including thoughts) should be available to everyone, realtime, no exceptions.

      Only then can we derive true morality.

      Oh yeah?

      For access to your tangibles may I have all your bank account numbers, social security number, telephone number, and address? To supplement that information I'm gonna need all of your passwords, the name of your first grade teacher, your favorite pet's name, your mother and father's middle/maiden name, etc...

      With regards to your thoughts how about you tell us what you really think of your boss, wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/animal soulmate, parents and grandparents, in-laws, etc..... If you're your own boss then what do you think about your clients? And I'm gonna need contact information for all of those people so we can spread these freely available opinions?

      Now, if this post causes your nuts to swell up so large that you (anybody) feel like you need to prove a point by posting the requested information, i'm going to go ahead and call you out for being a fucking liar..... and that's OK!

      Now seeing as how you posted as a coward i'm going to assume that this is/was a BS post. However, there ARE people out there that actually believe this shit and they should stfu and get real. We've seen time and time again how the uninhibited sharing of information hurts people in their relationships, jobs, and life. Information in itself is not dangerous, but how people utilize that information is; and until everybody around the world can stop being cruel, insensitive, maniacal, self-serving assholes, some information will need to be protected.

      To quote the wise Mr. Mackey - "People are bad mmmkay?"

    20. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd happily send all of my passwords to everybody in the world when everybody in the world shares their passwords and everything else with each other. Until that moment happens we will all remain selfish.

    21. Re:Not so many lulz now by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data.

      I thank the guy for hacking Sony. Nobody from Sony went to jail when Sony vandalized my and thousands of others' PCs with their XCP trojan rootkit, why should this guy go to jail?

      Where's the justice?

    22. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's to say they got the right guys, And not some framed kids?

    23. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Who got arrested for "unauthorized impairment of a protected computer" for releasing their damned rootkit into the wild? I'm not (necessarily) defending this guy's actions, but this is just another example of one "justice" system for non-rich humans, and another for corporations.

      At least these incidents have convinced me to never buy another Sony product again. I'm still allowed to say stuff like that, right? Wouldn't want to get arrested for impairing corporate profits or anything.

    24. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're comparing a company who act as the custodians of our virtual identities to someone leaving their door unlocked, or even a rape victim?

      Way to hyperbole your strawman

    25. Re:Not so many lulz now by jb11 · · Score: 1

      Because one pleaded guilty and the other "surrendered to authorities." I don't know about you, but if I was framed I would be fighting the charges.

    26. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If your neighbours were keeping other people's valuables and it was a widely known fact, you'd expect them to have the decency to have a decent security.
      And if they were robbed by crackheads because they didn't even bother putting a sticker pretending to have a good alarm system, you'd expect some of the people who had your neighbours holding to their property would held your neighbour accountable. Even if they were the victims, they should have taken measures to protect the data of all these people.

    27. Re:Not so many lulz now by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't like the process... But... I knew about it and didn't buy a root-kitted product.
      However what we call a root kit, others call a tool to help support the problems.

      I don't think the benefit of better support justifies the increased security risk on your PC.
      But is it really worth some holy crusade of breaking into their computers just so you can laugh at them and say Good you Deserve it?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    28. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's just to deter other people who might want to do the same kind of things. And when it doesn't work (it never does), lawmakers will just up the ante. By the turn of the century, cybercriminals will all face the death penalty.
      At least, if they get caught in the wrong state of the US.

    29. Re:Not so many lulz now by Sancho · · Score: 2

      That's easy to say when you aren't being threatened with 15 years in prison. I'd imagine that innocent people plead guilty when they can't afford a good lawyer, or when they think that they are likely to be found guilty anyway and the plea deal is considerably better than the maximum sentence.

    30. Re:Not so many lulz now by Gripp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, if your bank left your money sitting out front and people took it, you wouldn't blame the bank? That's effectively what sony did. Even better, they were WARNED they had left your money out. http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/02/is-your-private-information-safe-with-sony/

      In my mind they are most definitely responsible. More so than the kids who took it (and apparently did nothing with it).

    31. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, cruel and unusual punishment.

    32. Re:Not so many lulz now by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Hopefully with these arrests and others a few months back, the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

      Funny how different opinions can be. I just hope they'll be more careful in future.

    33. Re:Not so many lulz now by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      Well that's the thing. If he is proved guilty in a fair trail he should be punished but isn't 15 years too long?

      He didn't kill anyone, he didn't physically hurt anyone, nor did he do anything terribly bad with that data. All he did was embarrass a company that should have been taking better care of the data. Sony was going to leak all that data anyway if they hadn't already.

    34. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it turns out that my information, my fucking data can be stolen

      no it can be copied and deleted, not stolen.

    35. Re:Not so many lulz now by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I come at it from the opposite direction: I'm no fan of LulzSec, but Sony deserves to have its toenails removed for being so bloody sloppy about security.

      Dead right, I don't know how you got modded down.

      This was a SQL injection attack. Sony didn't follow that little rule about validating user input and should have known better. I'm not saying they deserved it because they didn't, but I'm saying it was bound to happen sooner or later.

    36. Re:Not so many lulz now by Hatta · · Score: 1

      the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

      I'm no fan of Sony

      If you are Sony, you can do just as you damn well please on the internet. Still no arrests made for the rootkit fiasco, and that was every bit as illegal as this.

      There is no rule of law in America.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    37. Re:Not so many lulz now by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to be a fan of Sony, to see what these guys are doing is wrong and criminal.

      But that's not why they're going to jail. Sony has done plenty of wrong and criminal things in their time, and no one there has gone to jail for it. Selective enforcement of the law is not justice.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    38. Re:Not so many lulz now by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      That is the best argument I've read all week.

    39. Re:Not so many lulz now by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      I agree, cruel and unusual punishment.

      It's just too great a quantity of punishment for the crime being punished.
      It's not about the punishment being cruel or unusual, only that there is too much of it.

    40. Re:Not so many lulz now by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Because one pleaded guilty and the other "surrendered to authorities." I don't know about you, but if I was framed I would be fighting the charges.

      Actually lots of people plead guilty to things they didn't do. There are lots of reasons people do this not just pressure from the police.

    41. Re:Not so many lulz now by jb11 · · Score: 1

      How do you know it is "easy to say" for me, or that I have not experienced being threatened with prison time? While, admittedly, your comments are valid and I can understand how innocent people can be found (wrongly) guilty, that doesn't change the fact that I would fight the charges.

    42. Re:Not so many lulz now by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Understanding someone's view is one thing, treating objectively wrong claims about reality as if they are valid, is something completely different.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    43. Re:Not so many lulz now by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      I would prefer if my data on insecure servers was taken by someone who widely announces the problem, rather than by someone else who would do it in secrecy and cause me some serious trouble.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    44. Re:Not so many lulz now by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd be all for this guy going to jail if someone from Sony would have gone to jail for XCP, which vandalized thousands of their paying customers' computers. As it is, I say payback is a motherfucker and Sony got what was coming to them when this guy brok in to their systems. Actually, they deserve more. They deserve to be run out of business completely.

      Yes, I was a victim of Sony's hacking. Put Sony's president in prison and I'll be all for putting this guy in prison.

    45. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about Sony's CD rootkit attack? Who at Sony is doing 15 years in a stinking prison? The CEO? don't make me laugh.

      Yeah my information was among the data stolen. But even with that information stolen, there's no way that kid should get 15 years, and the CEO of Sony still walk free after that fucking rootkit on their fucking audio CD's (which are still out there causing trouble.) IF he lulz kid gets 15 cents, so should the CEO get a a dime or a quarter.

    46. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. Sony did not 'leave your money sitting out front'. They left your money in the teller's drawer, as is normal practice. If someone comes in and reaches over the counter, opens the drawer, and removes the money, that person has committed a crime. Not the bank.

      Stop making excuses for these 'kids'. Sony may have had lax security, but they did not commit a crime. The 'kids', on the other hand, willfully commited a crime. The 'fault' is entirely theirs.

    47. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I probably got modded down by the same people who left AC posts accusing me of :"blaming the victim", Hey, if you're negligent, you bear some responsibility for the result. That doesn't mitigate Lulzsec's malice, but neither does Lulzsec's malice mitigate Sony's negligence.

    48. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, yes I would blame the person who took the money. Taking something that is not yours is always wrong. Period. Doesn't matter how hard or easy it was to steal, stealing is wrong.

    49. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume this is a troll, but I do need to point out the flaw in this logic. When I am bidding on something, I do not want people to know how much money I have because that gives them an edge in bidding against me. Information is power. It has nothing to do with morality. Giving away information gives away power. It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with competition, not morality. Competition is perfectly moral and acceptable.

    50. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That propaganda that people keep parroting, "I don't care, I've got nothing to hide." falls apart when the question, "What do you have that I can manipulate, exploit, or steal, by spying on you?" comes into play. Mix in the cult of politics and corporate media and ya have the ingredients for an internally targeted political war. It's okay to make me show my birth certificate to join the military, but not okay to see the fucking president's? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT SLIP THROUGH? One way, rotten scummy fuckin spying oathbreakers.

    51. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope more people grow to see life your way. I really, really do; but I won't hold my breath.

    52. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This answer is to jellomizer

      but, if the corporation, company or government has the means to promote their business (money), so they can influence masses (consumers), the only way to be heard (if you do not have those means) (money) is to do something like they did, and get the media coverage, and at the same time get their point across

    53. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My sister was brutally beaten for hours and the finally stabbed ten times. She survived with scars, she needs surgery on her nose and of course the terrifying ptsd and fear that haunts her. The perpetrator received ten years in prison for the assault. This guy hurt no one. I got my info taken too. I'm more irritated that Sony didn't protect my data. 15 years is ridiculous. An attempted murder versus some financial info?

    54. Re:Not so many lulz now by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Hopefully with these arrests and others a few months back, the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable

      No, hackers are most definitely not "untraceable"

      From TFA:

      "The hacker after posting all the data onto Pastebin, announced the hack through a tweet.
      "Hey @Sony, you know we're making off with a bunch of your internal stuff right now and you haven't even noticed?" LulzSec tweeted. "Slow and steady, guys."

      Especially when they brag about it.

      I bet he even hacked from his own computer. Or, rather, his parents' computer.

      I've said it before, I'll say it again - NEVER HACK FROM HOME. It will make your dad really mad when the FBI comes knocking.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    55. Re:Not so many lulz now by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      So, if your bank left your money sitting out front and people took it, you wouldn't blame the bank?

      Your analogy is a little over the top - Sony did the equivalent of leaving money sitting in a cash register.

      Regardless, I blame the people who take the money. If a bank or a shop or some other business has a pile of money sitting out the front (say in an armored car), and it's unguarded, I won't take it. It's not my money. This is one of those few instances which really is black and white.

      Have you ever seen news reports of people who find a windfall sitting on a table in a restaurant and they turn it in to the police? They get praised because they did the right thing. It's called being honest.

      Have you ever seen news reports of crowds of people grabbing at paper money blowing in the breeze after being inadvertently loosed? They get panned because they did the wrong thing. It's called being dishonest.

      I don't think I can make it any simpler. Wrong is wrong, whether the act is trivially easy or very difficult.

    56. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree completely, this is also my stance on mass murder (or war)
      wrong is wrong

    57. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is simple and is the same as it was when the internet and the computers that connect to it came into being.

      TPTB are scared SHITLESS of it. The other notable thing about it is their ignorance of it's workings. Thirdly they recognize that it is like a giant money sponge that is meant to be squeezed and nothing else.

    58. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      The guy is 20, most likely he didn't even consider the extent of his crime. A slap in the face and a good talking to is probably enough to set him right, time in prison is likely to turn him into someone who is likely to be a hazard to society when he gets out.
      I'm all for actions that will save us tax-money and create a better world.

    59. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 2

      Malice doesn't excuse stupidity, any more than stupidity excuses malice. If a thief is caught, you don't accept the excuse "the back door was unlocked, if I hadn't ripped him off, somebody else would have" That's lame. Also lame: "Why should I have to lock my back door? People should know better than to steal."

    60. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the goldman sachs cfo or whatever got 40months causing billions in damage, just a alternative perspective of our judicial systems values. you fuck with a business you get locked away. if a business fucks with you, let me slap that paddy.

    61. Re:Not so many lulz now by Lashat · · Score: 1

      IANAL nor have I read the actual indictment. However this article http://www.informationweek.com/security/management/second-lulzsec-sony-hacker-suspect-arres/240006432 states that the charges include conspiracy. It also indicates that they caught him "after VPN service provider HideMyAss.com was served with a court order seeking information related to several LulzSec exploits, including attacks against Sony, the U.K.'s Serious Organized Crime Agency, as well as NATO."

      Plus, the 15 years are possible and give the prosecutors something to plea bargin with and/or the FBI leverage to get the suspected person to cooperate.

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    62. Re:Not so many lulz now by 2names · · Score: 1

      Inordinate length of prison sentence does fall under the cruel and unusual punishment provision: "In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983), the Court applied its proportionality analysis to felony prison sentences. In Solem, the defendant had passed a bad check in the amount of $100. Although this crime ordinarily would be punishable by a maximum five-year sentence, the defendant had been sentenced to life imprisonment without Parole because of six prior felony convictions. The Court held that the sentence was significantly disproportionate to the defendant's crime and that it was thus prohibited by the Eighth Amendment." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    63. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick and tired of this "it's just bits, you can't steal it" bullshit. Hey, Dumbass, it turns out that my information, my fucking data can be copied. It turns out that you can copy my data and use that to make real-life impacts. Fuck off - people like you make it impossible to make a case for file-sharing. All you want is free entertainment - and if you look deep down, that's all your "activism" is - you just don't want to pay for music/movies/games. Grow up

      FTFY

    64. Re:Not so many lulz now by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      So for the criminal things they probably needed to pay a fine. Which they did. Who do you jail when a company does something wrong? The CEO who may be too above in that particular decision making, the Middle Manager who was trying to make a directive bring in more money. Perhaps the lowly tech guy who did the work and didn't say No.
      Getting a big fine for a criminal act, usually does more, as it effects what they care about the most money. Companies don't care about people... Any person.. This idea makes money but a CEO goes to jail every 10 years, that may not be enough to get them to change their action, because it makes money, and the Last CEO was just to sloppy.

      Now for a small group of people who say Yes I am going to break the law. They get caught. Ok they cost the company 10 million dollars, They cannot pay them back so they go to jail for 15 years.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    65. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully with these arrests and others a few months back, the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

      I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      *rolls eyes*. This is Hipocrisy Example #1. Spammer botnets do billions of dollars worth of actual, verifiable damage. I have personally lost countless hours to disinfecting friends and family machines that have been screwed over by spammer malware, and many of my geek friends can say the same. It's a HUGE problem. This guy poked Sony in the eye, pointing out a security flaw in their system. His biggest crime was angering a corporation. You're the wannabe hero, getting all righteous and calling for him to be "banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data" when you weren't harmed. I wasn't harmed. Nobody here was ACTUALLY harmed.

      How about some perspective? Without perspective and public outcry about where the FBI should be spending their time, they will continue to do stupid little perp-walks of people that have angered a few special interests while continuing to ignore the criminals that are screwing us over, hard, every single day and getting away with it.

    66. Re:Not so many lulz now by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who do you jail when a company does something wrong?

      That's the problem isn't it. The mistake these kids made wasn't committing crimes. It was commiting crimes without a corporation to hide behind.

      Personally, I'd be in favor of jailing both the CEO who gets the credit for success and should bear responsibility for criminal failures, and the lowly tech who didn't go to the police when asked to do something illegal for his job. That would be far more just than letting the rich and powerful get away with crimes.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    67. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just-world hypothesis, right?

    68. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No exactly, more like Sony took your money, put it in an open box, set it beside the cash register desk and then decided to walk away for a while to do something else not expecting anyone to just reach over the counter and grab in the box that they can plainly see if they take even a fraction of the effort to look around.

      They might have taken the information, but it was also Sony's job to protect it, which they made no real effort to do.

    69. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      Regardless, I blame the people who take the money. If a bank or a shop or some other business has a pile of money sitting out the front (say in an armored car), and it's unguarded, I won't take it. It's not my money. This is one of those few instances which really is black and white.

      Sure. The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it.

      This is this point at which analogies that compare tangible things to intangible things always fall apart. They're not at all the same type of thing, and any argument rooted in the presumption that they are the same thing is inherently logically fallacious.

    70. Re:Not so many lulz now by Elminster+Aumar · · Score: 2

      Sony = negligent. Idiot Punks = willful act. Is there really an argument at this point? We all know both should be reprimanded but the *real* criminals here would undoubtedly be the jerks who did whatever they did to extract that data Sony had.

    71. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Nobody's making excuses for anybody. Lulzsec was malicious, Sony was negligent. Neither is entitled to use the other as an excuse.

    72. Re:Not so many lulz now by Elminster+Aumar · · Score: 2

      If it's not some injection attack, it's going to be something else in the future... Where's the line? Since no standards exist in this field--none that remain static for longer than a year--how can anyone really expect anyone else to pass someone's muster when it comes to issues that are mostly relative in nature. After all, I suspect that nobody here is as good as I am when it comes to securing input forms. Ap pro po, you should all be fired from your jobs.

    73. Re:Not so many lulz now by Elminster+Aumar · · Score: 1

      HACK THE PLANET!

    74. Re:Not so many lulz now by epp_b · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they deserved it

      Fine, I'll say it, then: they deserved it.

      I'm a programmer who uses SQL on a regular basis; sanitizing user input is a trivial task.

      They most assuredly deserved it.

    75. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Well, if you really want to play that stupid word games, lets. 'Merely copying' is potentially much more damaging than physical theft, because it is impossible to rectify. If you physically steal $1000, that is easily remedied by returning $1000 (notwithstanding any other punishments that may be meted out). 'Merely copying' private data, on the other hand, renders the data permanently non-private. So while you may not have 'taken' anything, you have completely and permanently destroyed its value.

    76. Re:Not so many lulz now by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      It's just data. His crime is worthy of punishment, but what's prison going to accomplish? Apart from satisfying your sense of revenge, it'll just introduce him to a bunch of people I think we'd all rather he didn't know. If he's abused while in prison, he'll either have a psychotic break or he'll come out of there a seriously mean, violent son of a bitch. Either way, once released he is not going to be a model citizen.

      I really don't want to pay the price of having one more prison-hardened, embittered ex-con walking around, just because it makes you feel better about something that can't be changed now. We need prisons so that we have a place to send people who commit violence against society. They aren't supposed to be future violent criminal training grounds.

      For this guy, I'd say several years of monitoring of his every movement, and some kind of conditional ban on using certain kinds of electronic devices is what's necessary. Let him feel a bit of anguish that way.

    77. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you to be personally hit just as hard.

      We are not going away because of arrest.

      Arrest make us stronger.

    78. Re:Not so many lulz now by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I'm with you up until the end where you say "If you think your Ideological Opponent is evil then you feel justified hurting them in one way or an other.". I don't feel that is the case at all with most people. I think it will motivate people to completely miss the logic of the opponents argument, but most people won't actually hurt them in one way or the other.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    79. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, money in the teller drawer is hidden, on the other side of a gate, and is locked up at night. This information was accessible, anonymously, at all hours of the day. It's more like Sony left the keys in the drive through ATM, and some guy with no license plate, in a honda civic, wearing all black turned the key and took EVERYONE'S money out of the bank.

      It's not an excuse for lulsec, it's an analogy of how piss poor the security was.

    80. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the process... But... I knew about it and didn't buy a root-kitted product.
      However what we call a root kit, others call a tool to help support the problems.

      I don't think the benefit of better support justifies the increased security risk on your PC.
      But is it really worth some holy crusade of breaking into their computers just so you can laugh at them and say Good you Deserve it?

      1) The rootkit installs without permission
      2) The rootkit doesn't do what you say

      Quit being a shill

    81. Re:Not so many lulz now by Nyder · · Score: 0

      And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      Or next.

      or vagina

      --
      Be seeing you...
    82. Re:Not so many lulz now by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Sony did not 'leave your money sitting out front'. They left your money in the teller's drawer, as is normal practice. If someone comes in and reaches over the counter, opens the drawer, and removes the money, that person has committed a crime. Not the bank.

      Stop making excuses for these 'kids'. Sony may have had lax security, but they did not commit a crime. The 'kids', on the other hand, willfully commited a crime. The 'fault' is entirely theirs.

      If you could reach over and grab money that easy in my bank, then yes, my Bank is responsible for that money and it's security. Now, if I have to cut some 1 inch plastic shield, take care of some security guards to get to that money, then no, the Bank is doing their job of protecting my money.

      And in your example, the money isn't protected.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    83. Re:Not so many lulz now by elucido · · Score: 1

      I come at it from the opposite direction: I'm no fan of LulzSec, but Sony deserves to have its toenails removed for being so bloody sloppy about security.

      Lulzsec didn't accomplish anything. They helped Sony more than hurt Sony and I don't like Sony but the revealing of user information made Sony into the good guy.

    84. Re:Not so many lulz now by elucido · · Score: 1

      So, if your bank left your money sitting out front and people took it, you wouldn't blame the bank? That's effectively what sony did. Even better, they were WARNED they had left your money out. http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/02/is-your-private-information-safe-with-sony/

      In my mind they are most definitely responsible. More so than the kids who took it (and apparently did nothing with it).

      It doesn't matter. Lulzsec still were the victimizers, the bad guys. What they did they could not defend politically.

    85. Re:Not so many lulz now by elucido · · Score: 1

      It's just to deter other people who might want to do the same kind of things. And when it doesn't work (it never does), lawmakers will just up the ante. By the turn of the century, cybercriminals will all face the death penalty.
      At least, if they get caught in the wrong state of the US.

      Deterrence doesn't work. MICE, in this case IDEOLOGY is not going to be deterred by prison. EGO and MONEY might be deterred by prison because they weren't paid for it and most people wont get an ego boost by 15 years in prison but it doesn't change the fact that some people truly believed in the Lulzsec Antisec ideology to the point where even in prison they'll still believe in that ideology.

    86. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Jeesus. You're like the 20th person to accuse me of being an apologist for LulzSec. What part of "I'm no fan" do you not understand???!!!

      Oh yeah, I must be fan of LulzSec if I say anything bad about Sony. I'm down on both of them. Can you wrap your feeble little brain around that simple concept?

    87. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (which as it seems didn't care to invest some of it is awfully lot of money in protecting it is customer's data)

      its

    88. Re:Not so many lulz now by VocationalZero · · Score: 0

      Taking something that is not yours is always wrong.

      So is it wrong to steal a murderous mad-man's weapon just before he can use it on someone? Or how about stealing information that could lead to the legitimate arrest of a deranged psychopath, and then releasing it to the authorities? Or how about stealing sensitive, insecure data and then publicly posting proof of the vulnerability?

      I suppose you think hacking cannot be ethical unless access is authorized. If the US govt actually believed this, then stuxnet would not exist.

    89. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confusing the law with morality. No one is saying Sony necessarily broke the law, they're saying they had a moral obligation to keep their customers data more secure than they did.

    90. Re:Not so many lulz now by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Regardless, I blame the people who take the money. If a bank or a shop or some other business has a pile of money sitting out the front (say in an armored car), and it's unguarded, I won't take it. It's not my money. This is one of those few instances which really is black and white.

      Sure. The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it.

      This is this point at which analogies that compare tangible things to intangible things always fall apart. They're not at all the same type of thing, and any argument rooted in the presumption that they are the same thing is inherently logically fallacious.

      Then why do Slashdotters always insist on making this comparison when it comes to piracy, sorry, theft of songs, sorry, copyright infringement? You make a good point - they're not the same thing, so talking about copying digital bits and not being the same as theft is an inane concept. It's "digital theft", or "cyber-stealing", or some other fancy new phrase. All the arguments about "but you're not depriving anyone of physical property!!!" break down, because, as you point out, these analogies don't work because they're not the same thing.

    91. Re:Not so many lulz now by smash · · Score: 1

      The difference is, that girls in short skirts, or people not locking their doors are only risking their own stuff.

      Sony was holding the personal details of many of their customers. To leave that so open to the outside world shoudl be deemed criminally negligent.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    92. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully with these arrests and others a few months back, the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

      I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

      CONFIRM! OR BE ARRESTED FOR ASSOCIATION WITH LUZSEC

      Because CLEARLY anyone who disagrees with you must be part of lulzsac.

      I spit on your opinion, and your strawman claim to defend it.

    93. Re:Not so many lulz now by smash · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They're both guilty, Lulzsec doing the crime doesn't absolve sony of responsibility however.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    94. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      It's not a stupid word game.

      I don't presume to say which criminal act is worse than the other.

      All I said is that they are not at all the same thing. This fact is inarguable.

    95. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I probably got modded down by the same people who left AC posts accusing me of :"blaming the victim", Hey, if you're negligent, you bear some responsibility for the result. That doesn't mitigate Lulzsec's malice, but neither does Lulzsec's malice mitigate Sony's negligence.

      And meanwhile, the users who ought to be able to trust Sony not to fuck around with their data just got fucked by both Sony and Lulzsec. I use strong passwords, I change them often, and although mine was compromised I wasn't too worried because I don't re-use passwords. That doesn't make me any less pissed at Lulz for publishing the data, or at Sony for not protecting it properly.

    96. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They're both guilty, Lulzsec doing the crime doesn't absolve sony of responsibility however.

      Alleged negligence over your security isn't a crime, at worst it's a civil matter.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    97. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense. if I walked into a shop with an open till and helped myself while the cashier's back was turned, I would be committing the crime. The shop might want to look at their security procedures, but they are NOT guilty of anything, and you can't use their sloppiness as a mitigating factor in your crime.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    98. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Or how about stealing sensitive, insecure data and then publicly posting proof of the vulnerability?

      The point is that is the customers who will potentially suffer here, not Sony. It is not the customers' faults, so why reveal sensitive information publicly?

      Or do you think that perhaps Lulzsec wanted to punish them just for being customers of Sony in the first place?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    99. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Regardless, I blame the people who take the money. If a bank or a shop or some other business has a pile of money sitting out the front (say in an armored car), and it's unguarded, I won't take it. It's not my money. This is one of those few instances which really is black and white.

      Sure. The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it.

      This is this point at which analogies that compare tangible things to intangible things always fall apart. They're not at all the same type of thing, and any argument rooted in the presumption that they are the same thing is inherently logically fallacious.

      No, this is the point at which defenders of Lulzsec, copyright violation or whatever drag out the "copying is not theft" line as though there is only one crime in the world (physical theft) and therefore anything else is somehow OK, conveniently forgetting that copying is not murder, rape or arson either, with equal irrelevance.

      If you think there is no harm in someone copying your bank details, medical history or whatever and publishing it to the world, you're living in a different world than me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    100. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We know they're not the same thing. The point is that because it's not physical theft, people try to handwave it away as "just copying" as though there is no possible harm involved, and it is all just as trivial as a child tracing a picture of their favourite cartoon character from a comic.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    101. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Malice doesn't excuse stupidity, any more than stupidity excuses malice. If a thief is caught, you don't accept the excuse "the back door was unlocked, if I hadn't ripped him off, somebody else would have" That's lame. Also lame: "Why should I have to lock my back door? People should know better than to steal."

      It may surprise you to know that in many places and times in the world you don't or didn't have to lock your back door. People SHOULD know better than to steal, the fact that they find an open door is simply not an excuse.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    102. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeesus. You're like the 20th person to accuse me of being an apologist for LulzSec. What part of "I'm no fan" do you not understand???!!!

      Oh yeah, I must be fan of LulzSec if I say anything bad about Sony. I'm down on both of them. Can you wrap your feeble little brain around that simple concept?

      Input error: False Dichotomy Not Found

      Please present only two possible positions and re-submit your comment.

    103. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is nonsense. if I walked into a shop with an open till and helped myself while the cashier's back was turned, I would be committing the crime. The shop might want to look at their security procedures, but they are NOT guilty of anything, and you can't use their sloppiness as a mitigating factor in your crime.

      False Dichotomy. The shop is liable for the losses for not taking adequate measures to protect the assets. No, they did not commit a crime, but for example they would not be able to get their insurance to cover the loss. This does not, as you are saying, mean the thief is not guilty.

    104. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      If you think there is no harm in someone copying your bank details, medical history or whatever and publishing it to the world, you're living in a different world than me.

      I didn't say it was harmless. I said that it is not the same thing. Please get your fucking arguments straight, and then post them.

    105. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data.

      Slashdot logic: they copied them, not stealed. Copying is not stealing and is good.

    106. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It is a stupid word game when you claim the analogy fails because of the difference.

      Scenario 1: Customer leaves money with a bank, bank does not completely protect it, opportunist comes along and harms the bank and/or the customer (by stealing the money)

      Scenario 2: Customer leaves private info with Sony, Sony does not completely protect it, opportunist comes along and harms Sony and/or the customer (by copying the data)

      How is that not a valid analogy? The only way you can claim that the analogy is invalid is if you say that either stealing money or copying data does not cause harm.

    107. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You said they didn't take anything, they merely copied it.

      Why emphasize the 'take' part? It indicates that taking is clearly import. Furthermore, not only does 'copied' not get emphasized, it gets a 'merely' tacked on.

      Any normal person would read that as 'taking' is a serious action, while 'merely copying' is a much lesser offense. The only reason copying would be a much lesser offense is that it causes much less harm.

      So yes, you did say exactly that it was harmless.

    108. Re:Not so many lulz now by Gripp · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the teller's drawer would indicate that the store was locked and the owners felt it to be secure. Maybe if you add "in the tellers drawer, but the door was left open every night" then maybe we are closer.

      regardless, my point wasn't so much to debate to what degree sony is culpable, just that they are. And considering that (afaik) the thieves didn't actually use the data they stole, and effectively caused no real harm to anyone (except that people had to bother closing accounts and the likes) and based on that 15 years seems extreme. Had they actually used the data to capture $millions and ruin many lives in the process... shit yeah. 15 easy.

    109. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 1

      It would be cool to live in a place where you don't have to lock your door. But if you know you live in a place where that's a bad idea, not locking your door is negligent.

    110. Re:Not so many lulz now by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So what? Something can be worthy of contempt without being illegal.

    111. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      Which part of "intangible things are not the same as tangible things" is a word game?

    112. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      No. What I said was what I said.

      What you think I may have said doesn't seem to line up very well with what I did say, but that's really not so much a problem with rooted in my choice of words but rather of your lack of comprehension.

      We're done here, strawman.

    113. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The part where you can't seem to grasp the concept that what is being compared is not action but damage. Everybody knows that copying and physically removing something are not the same thing, and nobody argues otherwise. The word game you are playing is saying that people are equating the two. What people are actually equating is the damage caused by the actions. You can directly compare the damage caused by taking with the damage caused by copying, because both can be translated into the same things - dollars, lost business, etc. It may be difficult to get accurate figures, and sometimes the figures are assigned arbitrarily, but figures can be assigned nonetheless.

      When someone reaches into the till and grabs a handful of money, the problem is not that they have the money in their hand, it is that the bank has been harmed. When someone hacks a website and copies private data, the problem is not that they have duplicated some bits, it is that the operator of the website has been harmed.

    114. Re:Not so many lulz now by bws111 · · Score: 1

      OK, so if I interpretted you incorrectly, please explain how. Why did you highlight the 'take' phrase, and why did you include the word 'merely' in the copy phrase, if not for the reasons I said? Of course, you won't do that, or you would have already explained it instead of the unintelligible post you made.

    115. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      Poor stawman. Can't accept that someone simply wanted to point out that two different things (one of which is tangible, and the other of which is is intangible) are in fact different.

      Lonely strawman, always looking for an agenda when there just isn't one to be found, accusing folks of having one anyway, and then expecting them to defend it.

      Sorry, strawman. You're not going to find a hidden agenda here. If you want to argue the one, singular, insular point that I made, then go for it.

      And strawman, if you can't remember what that point is is, then scroll up until you find it. Stop looking for hidden messages and meanings, and just read the fucking words.

      (And if you're really so starved for attention that you want to continue your completely meaningless accusatory tirade against an opinion that you imagine that I have, please just buy yourself a dog instead.)

    116. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did it with Sony, what about this lap in a hotspot? Fifteen years is standard, less time keeps abilities fine and chance to update and do it again; fifteen years is enough to totally obliterate technical ability. I mean, they did more than navigate a few pages or guess a page address, or try a few queries, right? That s gaming. I am so totally unable that I cannot hack my own accounts when the password suddenly CHANGES, if you know what I mean. It is more than infuriating, and his kind is inclined to think I am a company so no harm... I AM waiting for my own set of hackers to go through a similar process and hoping they did not involve any relative of mine.

    117. Re:Not so many lulz now by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know what my fucking argument is, thanks very much, you are the one who seems to be struggling with the English language.

      You said: "The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it"

      This means in English that copying something is inherently trivial in comparison to physically stealing it. Whether that is true or not, that is what your sentence means in normal English.

      "They didn't take anything, they copied it" is a statement of fact which no one is disagreeing with, because it is true by definition that copying something does not equate to physical theft. Your "merely" turns it into a value judgement.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    118. Re:Not so many lulz now by adolf · · Score: 1

      This word, "merely." It does not mean what you think it means.

    119. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets look at reality here. Lulsec didn't use those numbers. They did this as a political statment to show how insecure a system was. Not saying it was right, but the correct question to be asked is: "How many credit cards and other private information was lost through this vulnerability BEFORE lulsec exposed it". The security hole existed before, and if it was a simple SQL injection hack you can bet that REAL hackers knew about it and were already in there stealing information to actually be used or sold on to others who would use it for ripping people off an identity theft. Professional hackers do not publish their hacks.

      Lulsec did you a favour. Sony fixed the hole. Had they done nothing, how many people would have been ACTUALLY ripped off without anyone knowing through that existing exploit?

    120. Re:Not so many lulz now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be virtually untraceable the issue is that there kids are still static in where they live. So long as they bounce around pysically like Lamo did they can literally do whatever they want to for LONG periods of time. Let's face it lulzsec was about as public as you could get and it still took MONTHS & MONTHS to bring their case to trial.

  2. big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Where one falls, three more will rise to take his/her place. Locking up LulzSec will be an exercise in futility much like the American "War On Drugs"

    1. Re:big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keep believing that. Report back here in five years to see if you are right.

    2. Re:big negative by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is a different.
      We have Anonymous and LulzSec as partially organized organizations. There is a particular group of criminals that can do the attack on.

      The "War On Drugs" is trying to stop the supply of a product that is in demand. The US can crack down on the big Drug Lords, but won't stop the flow of drugs because there will always be the smaller ones shipping the same product.

      Big attacks like Anonymous and LulzSec have a loose organization structure going enough to get a targeted attack... That means the government once they put their mind to it, can start kicking off these hackers. These people are petty criminals, not Hero's. Once people realize that they could get caught hacking, such large attacks should reduce down, because there is more risk in this type of vandalism.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:big negative by robmv · · Score: 1

      "When one rapist falls, three more will rise to take his/her place", So lets declare surrender and stop wasting money capturing them. What dump mentality these days

    4. Re:big negative by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Where one falls, three more will rise to take his/her place. Locking up LulzSec will be an exercise in futility much like the American "War On Drugs"

      No, that was never true. LulzSec was too closed an operation to say such things, especially after they pissed off lots of Anonymites. In the end everyone hated the douche bags, and no one wants to carry their Flaming Asshole Torch.

    5. Re:big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be terrorism and how killing a few insurgents in an attack only angers the civilians who are often collateral damage, and thus for each insurgent killed 3 more rise up.

      This is not about file sharing or fun or teenage rebellion. This is about freedom and privacy. Remember when Sony went after Geohot and in doing so, tried to establish a precedent that what they sell you remains their property and you aren't free to use it privately any way you want? Remember when the RIAA and MPAA pushed for SOPA because their profits were more important than our right to online privacy? Remember when they tried to acquire the power to censor ANY website if they simply accused it of being infringing on some copyright, thus threatening freedom of speech? Remember when they tried to make linking to stuff illegal? Remember when the DOJ seized all these domains without a trial "because piracy" and many were found innocent? Remember the "pay up or else letters" that were ultimately ruled to be extortion? Remember the dirty stuff that the Wikileaks documents uncovered about the US government and many corporations?

      These are the things people are fighting against today. It affects everybody, so everyone and anyone has the potential to join the fight. And then you have to take into account that teenagers today were born with the Internet, file-sharing technology seems natural to them and they will never understand why artists have to keep making millions when anyone can record a song and sell it online or why there has to be a publisher standing between the customer and the artist and who is leeching most of the money. They also won't understand different release dates around the world, DRM, lack of availability for music and movies, prices above $1 for a song, etc. They will never understand any of that, just like today's 40 year olds would never understand having to pay a fee every time they ask a stranger for directions in the street. A lot of people disagree with file-sharing - I get that. But the point is, you will never convince the younger generations to see it differently.

      As for going after members of Anonymous and Lulzsec, it just angers people further. They might not agree with Lulzsec's methods, but Lulzsec does try to defend these people's interests. So these people, they will take anything done against Lulzsec as an attempt to violate their rights, freedom and privacy further.

      So in light of all this, I agree, I think it's very likely that for every Lulzsec member taken down, 3 will take his place.

    6. Re:big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound pretty sure. They've all been getting collected and sent to prison for what, a year now? Things have been relatively quiet since the first one was caught and went turn-coat on the rest.

    7. Re:big negative by gsslay · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know where you get your figures. I would think that having been shown the very real risks of a lengthy stretch on prison, you'll find those willing to 'replacing' those who 'fall' are in the decline.

      There will always be criminals, does that making locking up criminals futile? Should we just give up on doing that?

      The "War On Drugs" is an example of what happens when you try to legislate against market demand. There is a demand for drugs, there will always be those willing to sell to that market. On the other hand, there is no market demand for self-righteous, self-appointed internet vigilantes.

    8. Re:big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big attacks like Jamie Dimon and John Corzine have a loose organization structure going enough to get a targeted attack... That means the government once they put their mind to it, can start kicking off these banksters. These people are petty criminals, not Hero's.
      Once banksters realize that they could get caught stealing, such large monetary system crashes should reduce down, because there is more risk in this type of theft.

      Even with me re-writing this to properly address the situation, the reality has to be hitting you that things are this way because the candidates who hold office want things this way. So what foreign and corporate connections do they have beyond that little D and R behind their names, and how can it be proven? Are they doing the bidding of AIPAC, PNAC, CFR, Monsanto, the UN? Do they lie about war, spying, torture, bills, geo-engineering, fluoride, GMO's, energy, food and water? Then they aren't your friend, they get shit like ICLEI started in your local city council and continue to say their budget is fucked, claim bankruptcy and austerity, when they won't audit CAFR, meanwhile destroying everything in their path by their actions, business, happiness and life. They raise their hands take the oath then go on to shit on the US Constitution they just swore an oath to. You can't get ahead, because these fucking vampires are stealing, this has jack shit to do with "stealing entertainment." These bastards are stealing your retirement.

    9. Re:big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep believing that. Report back here in five years to see if you are right.

      That reminds me, I was supposed to report back that The Pirate Bay is still up 5 years later. I know that I am a little bit late on this one but I forgot about all those who beleived that it was gone for good.

    10. Re:big negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once people realize that they could get caught hacking, such large attacks should reduce down, because there is more risk in this type of vandalism.

      If this was true then people wouldn't vandalize in real life. Either that or it is impossible to get caught in real life.

    11. Re:big negative by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      This post was brought to you by the FBI.

  3. Good work Sabu? by L3sT4T · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that's another arrest they made thanks to Sabu's cooperation, if so, that coop was the best thing the FBI could have done in this whole mess of so-called "hacktivism"

    --
    Wer war der Thor, wer Weiser, Bettler oder Kaiser? Ob Arm, ob Reich, im Tode gleich
    1. Re:Good work Sabu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sabu is selling out his former comrades for the lulz.

      See, information is free, including information on who his accomplices are.

    2. Re:Good work Sabu? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Sabu is selling out his former comrades for the lulz.

      I doubt lulz come into it. I'm sure he is scared into submission and will do whatever he is told to.

      It's the FBI's turn to have lulz now.

    3. Re:Good work Sabu? by elucido · · Score: 1

      Sabu is selling out his former comrades for the lulz.

      I doubt lulz come into it. I'm sure he is scared into submission and will do whatever he is told to.

      It's the FBI's turn to have lulz now.

      And that is what is what he should have thought about before starting Lulzsec and getting all these others involved in it. As far as I'm concerned Lulzsec looked like a honeypot from the very founding of it. The ideology was always directly opposed to law enforcement, Antisec was just ridiculously stupid to the point of just asking to be arrested.

  4. An exercise in futility!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm.. hate to break it to you but there ARE ways to be untraceable.. just like any criminal who gets bored they also get sloppy and hence getting caught.

    1. Re:An exercise in futility!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's right. I'm behind seven proxies. Come at me bro.

    2. Re:An exercise in futility!! by Paracelcus · · Score: 2

      "They" didn't "get sloppy", this kid, like so many others shoot off their mouths, brag and call attention to themselves!
      "Anonymous"
      "LulzSec"

      Anybody who is STUPID ENOUGH to self identify as a "member" IS, without any organizational structure whatsoever automatically a "member"!

      And because anybody who wants that kind of attention will undoubtedly have somthing that the blank faced automatons in the "justice" dept could label as "criminal" your self destructive desire for attention will be fulfilled!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    3. Re:An exercise in futility!! by elucido · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. hate to break it to you but there ARE ways to be untraceable.. just like any criminal who gets bored they also get sloppy and hence getting caught.

      There are ways but they don't work all the time. Proxies could be run by the authorities or acting as a honeypot. VPN services could be run by FBI agents. Groups like Lulzsec could be FBI fronts run by FBI informants, etc.

      If you do stupid things like align yourself with Antisec movement and declare war on the police agencies you should expect to get arrested. Who is stupid enough to target the CIA website?

    4. Re:An exercise in futility!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are ways but they don't work all the time. Proxies could be run by the authorities or acting as a honeypot. VPN services could be run by FBI agents. Groups like Lulzsec could be FBI fronts run by FBI informants, etc.

      Theoretically possible, yes, but unlikely. What's the chance that you'll pick a VPN/proxy and it'll be run by the FBI? I hope it's not high, because they're wasting my tax dollars if it is. In fact, I hope it's 0.

    5. Re:An exercise in futility!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got a proxy box? How many IP's you streaming?

  5. What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did these fucking kids really think that just because the cops weren't kicking in their door the next morning they wouldn't be caught? That is an impressive display of ignorance on how law enforcement actually works. It's as if the 90s never happened.

  6. no sense of proportion, no justice by udachny · · Score: 2

    Raynaldo Rivera, aged 20, suspected member of Lulzsec has been arrested ....

    charged with conspiracy and unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. The Lulzsec member may be facing 15 years in prison if convicted....

    accused of hacking Sony Pictureâ(TM)s Web site in June 2011 through use of SQL injection attack and downloading thousands of records containing names, birth dates, addresses, e-mails, phone numbers, and passwords. The hacker after posting all the data onto Pastebin, announced the hack through a tweet.....

    "Hey @Sony, you know we're making off with a bunch of your internal stuff right now and you haven't even noticed?"

    The hacking collective claimed that they had managed to grab information of more than a million people whereas Sony countered the claims saying that only 37k records were actually stolen.

    there is no sense of proportion here, it's not justice. Maybe it is the people, whose records were stolen, that should be outraged, not Sony, Sony as a company should be humble about it and do whatever to mitigate the problem their lack of interest in security may have caused.

    But because large corporations like Sony are in bed with large governments, there will be no justice. Sure, send these guys to prison for 15 years because a company is outraged. How about company's clients?

    My point is - this is none of government's business, it is up to the market to solve theft crimes. If these guys caused damage to private individuals, private individuals should take them to court (and maybe they should take Sony to court), but this has nothing to do with government, why is government throwing these people to jail?

    1. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So to sum up your position: victims of crime should bear the full responsibility and costs associated with finding, trying, and punishing the criminals. Gee, I can't imagine why the rest of society does not agree with you.

    2. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >why is government throwing these people to jail?
      Because of over-reaching and vague 'hacking' laws.

    3. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL what?

      If someone breaks into your apartment and carries off your TV, your recourse is to find out who did it yourself, and sue them for the price of a new TV?

      They committed criminal acts. The civil lawsuits will come later, though you cant get blood from a stone, and these kids future earning potential is probably near that of a potato.

    4. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that LulzSec does nothing wrong? If an irresponsible bank teller leaves my social security number on her desk, It's OK for someone to snap a picture of it? We have these laws for a reason. Granted, i'd never go back to the bank, but i'd like my information protected any way that is feasable.

    5. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by udachny · · Score: 1

      and to sum up your position, not only the victims of theft should be not compensated by the perps, but they should then bear responsibility to pay for imprisoning these thieves both, with their taxes and by having bigger government that is given this function, and thus having less freedoms eventually, because all growth of government leads to fewer individual freedoms.

      My position is that the people who have something stolen from them should be in a position to recover what is stolen, this is a private, civil matter, perps should be forced to return the goods, or to work to pay back for what was stolen plus damages (maybe a couple of times the value of the stolen goods) and there shouldn't gov't throwing people to jail for theft, taxes shouldn't be collected and spent on this.

    6. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL what?

      If someone breaks into your apartment and carries off your TV, your recourse is to find out who did it yourself, and sue them for the price of a new TV?

      They committed criminal acts. The civil lawsuits will come later, though you cant get blood from a stone, and these kids future earning potential is probably near that of a potato.

      Come on, now - be reasonable. There's always male prostitution.

    7. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Yes. We live in a civilized society. Being in a civilized society means we all get benefits from it, and we all have responsibilities in it. What those benefits and responsibilites are is certainly subject to debate, but there is pretty much no modern society that places the onus of crime on the victim. If you don't want to live in such a society, remove yourself from it. There is plenty of wilderness in the US, go live in it.

    8. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      My position is that the people who have something stolen from them should be in a position to recover what is stolen, this is a private, civil matter, perps should be forced to return the goods, or to work to pay back for what was stolen plus damages (maybe a couple of times the value of the stolen goods) and there shouldn't gov't throwing people to jail for theft, taxes shouldn't be collected and spent on this.

      So you are saying Bernie Madoff should not have been jailed and instead he should have worked to pay back a couple of times the value of the $$$ he stole and no longer had?

    9. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point where you can go and beat up twenty grandmas and end up with less time.

      or alternatively steal 500 million dollars from grandmas.

      it was still a pretty lulzy run, tbh.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by udachny · · Score: 1

      Sure, what's the purpose of him being in jail exactly? What is he going to do there? Why are you, as a tax payer, forced to subsidize his living accommodations? His possessions should be confiscated and sold off, but it's not a gov't problem, it's a private problem. People who lost money with him didn't do due diligence and bought into his scam, so what's your particular problem with him, did you lose money because of him?

    11. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by udachny · · Score: 1

      I don't see it as being civilized at all - sending people to prison for 15 years because they copied something off an unsecured server and placed it on some web page.

      Is that civilized? I don't think so. It's barbaric. It would make much more sense for the clients of Sony to sue them and get damages if the courts find that damages were caused, but 15 years in prison because Sony is in bed with politicians?

    12. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by bws111 · · Score: 1

      15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence they could receive. They have not even been convicted yet, much less sentenced, so you have no idea how much time they will actually get. And I am pretty sure the MAXIMUM sentence for beating up twenty grandmas or stealing 500 million dollars is at least 15 years.

    13. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by bws111 · · Score: 2

      They haven't been tried, convicted, or sentenced yet, so your hysterical '15 years!' crap is way premature.

      'Sony is in bed with politicians' - now we are really off in tin-foil hat land. Other than creating a law prohibiting unauthorized use of computers, how exactly are politiicians involved in this? And what makes you think Sony had any hand in crafting that law, or that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support that law?

    14. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, justice is being served

      See, all the hacker did to private individuals is copy some of their data, but as we libertarians say: copyrights and patents are bogus. There's no damage done in copying!

      The only damage the hacker did is to Sony. Sony's reputation is damaged, which hurt their business. Ergo, Sony is the one that's outraged

      So Sony should be the one paying for the persecution of the hacker. Well, they already did: they paid and bought government. That is why government is arresting and putting the guy on trial.

      Remember that like half of the US population don't even pay income taxes. It's corporations like Sony who pay the bulk of the taxes. Sony's taxes is the one paying for the jails, not us. So it's perfectly reasonable that government works on Sony's behalf.

    15. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what makes you think Sony had any hand in crafting that law, or that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support that law?

      It's easy to explain why he thinks that. Refer to what I wrote here:

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3080385&cid=41166413

      See, according to us libertarians, most taxes come from the rich (Sony and other corporations), not the poor (the majority of Americans). So obviously Sony has a hand in writing the laws - they paid for them. Whether the rest of the population agrees with the law is merely coincidence

    16. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of him being in jail is to remove him from the society whose rules he does not follow.

    17. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you run a big company. Then you get a year-end bonus. Not for the grandmas so much, that they'd just get off scott free on, since laws don't apply to the rich.

    18. Re:no sense of proportion, no justice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      People who lost money with him knew he was a criminal. They just thought he was 'their criminal' and would eventually be busted for insider trading while they whistled all the way to the bank.

      They can all get jobs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Beavis summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How do you please to these charges...." --Beavis and Butthead

  8. sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that it's good they caught the criminals and stuff but man I feel so sorry for these kids, it's going to ruin their lives.. :(

    1. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They chose to ruin their lives by being criminals. Why feel sorry for them?

    2. Re:sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there should be a sense of proportion. 15 years is way too much for what they did.
      If you don't understand that, then please leave this planet.

  9. Pleased by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Pleaded at the quality of the proofreading as usual. Keep up the good work, editors.

  10. impairment of a "protected computer"..? by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 1, Interesting

    really...come on really, was it that "protected" ?

    1. Re:impairment of a "protected computer"..? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. "Protected" means protected by the law, not technical measures.

    2. Re:impairment of a "protected computer"..? by SJ2000 · · Score: 1

      Depends on jurisdiction though, there are some western jurisdictions where lack of a published policy and access control mechanisms can imply open access which is enough to argue in court.

  11. Suprise! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    I was surprised to see they are still making arrests. I had expected all those involved were already in federal "pound me in the ass" prisons. Obviously I overestimated our law enforcement.

    1. Re:Suprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it as them taking their time to build a solid case, so as to not waste time and money.

    2. Re:Suprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool, so you support punishment of minor crimes by traumatic sexual assault. What's it like back there in the fifteenth century?

  12. Free The Lulzsec & GNAA Heroes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Jeremy Hammond! Free Weev!

  13. Small percentage face "justice" & not everywhe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your looking at reality from a warped perspective. The Internet isn't just in rich nations. It's everywhere and the majority of the world isn't prosecuting these people. All one has to do is look at spam. It's easy to do, easy to do from anywhere, and while some people within the US have been targeted there are those in Russia, China, and elsewhere that continue to profit from it. In fact it's protected by the Russian government. I really don't see how your going to take down one of the biggest powers in the world. We haven't exactly succeded in Iraq/Afganistan and your suggesting we are going to succede at tackling Internet crime? Or for that matter even make a dent in it? No. It's not happening. We will catch a few easy targets in the UK/US/and a few other cooperating countries.

    However in the larger scheme of things the "crimes" will go on because where there are thousands of different laws and no enforcement in some places it'll be easy to skirt by someone somewhere. Not to mention we have GOVERNMENT funded hacking. What do you think "cyber war" is all about?

    We shouldn't be going after people committing crimes on the Internet. We should be improving the systems which we connect to the Internet so they aren't vulnerable in the first place. We aught to eliminate law enforcement from having access to computers and technology and spend that money on mandating the source code be released for all critical components. Then fund review and analsys of free software.

  14. Wait a second... by akilduff · · Score: 0

    SQL injections? You mean those things I learned from YouTube when I was 12?

    1. Re:Wait a second... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      SQL injections? You mean those things I learned from YouTube when I was 12?

      No, SQL injection IS WHAT YOU ARE, little Bobby Tables!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube was around when you were 12? Are you sure you're old enough to be here?

    3. Re:Wait a second... by akilduff · · Score: 0

      Since when does Slashdot have an age requirement?

  15. I love my country by buck-yar · · Score: 0

    America, where killing someone gets you less years than sending text to a computer (sql injection).

    1. Re:I love my country by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the US, generally the maximum penalty for killing someone is death, which I think most agree is more severe than 15 years.

      As a matter of course, most people convicted of killing someone else don't get the death penalty, and neither is this man is likely to face 15 years in prison. Those are both the maximum penalty.

    2. Re:I love my country by bws111 · · Score: 0

      Oh lookie, another idiot parroting some stupid meme without any thought at all.

      15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence that can be handed down for violating unathorized use of computer laws. The ACTUAL sentence (if convicted) can range anywhere from probabtion up to 15 years.

      The MAXIMUM sentence for intentionally killing someone (depending on jurisdiction) is either life in prison, life in prison without possibility of parole, or death.

      Your idiotic meme is just plain bullshit.

    3. Re:I love my country by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depending on the type of killing, more than 15 years can be the minimum. For example the federal sentencing for 1st degree (premeditated) murder is a minimum of life without parole, maximum of the death penalty. States tend to be similar. For second degree murder it varies, but life sentences are usually allowed. For example you may hear the expression "25 to life". What that means is a life sentence, but with the allowance for parole at 25 years.

      The only cases where killing someone starts to have less severe sentences is manslaughter and negligent homicide. These are cases where you caused someone's death, but didn't mean to. Since intent matters in the law, punishments are less severe in cases like that.

    4. Re:I love my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now compare this to Breivik before he was convicted for killing 77 people. His maximum possible sentence was of 21 years (which can be extended indefinitely if he's still considered to be a danger) and he got it. By comparison, if Rivera didn't use the personal information stolen and the only practical result was the embarrassment of Sony, we can conclude that he's getting tried for what's basically a victimless crime with a maximum sentence comparable to that of a mass-murderer... albeit one in a country whose judicial system I greatly admire.

    5. Re:I love my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's referring to manslaughter which is frequently a lot less than 15 years. In MA you can get as little as 6 months 1st offense, assuming you make parole, have a good lawyer, are well connected, and are of course white.

  16. Clearly the work of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clearly the work of Anonymous!
    You coward.

    Click box to protect my secret identity.

  17. sony rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit

    never forget, never forgive

    1. Re:sony rootkit by bws111 · · Score: 1

      That is a great way to go through life, and of course always works out well for everyone. One hell of a lot of blodd has been shed over time because of people with that idiotic philosophy.

  18. Learn your lesson, kid! by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    Next time, embezzle a few billion bucks from pension accounts, you pay a few millions back as "punishment" and go out as a rich and free man.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Learn your lesson, kid! by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      Next time, embezzle a few billion bucks from pension accounts, you pay a few millions back as "punishment" and go out as a rich and free man.

      While it made me laugh, you should add that they should first get a white collar job or at least take the exams to become a licensed stockbroker.

      That's where the free pass comes from: Whether you're associated with a mainstream "business" or not.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  19. No sympathy for these pricks. None. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What really gets to be is how a bunch of script kiddies on an power trip misappropriate the idea of "sticking it to the man", purely to stroke their own egos. Real revolutionaries are those who either do it openly, without masks, like the millions of people who spoke out against SOPA (actually stopping it) or people who remain truly anonymous and don't seek any kind of personal glory (e.g. informants for the press). And I say "truly" because this bullshit meme of how "everyone's anyonymous" is a bad joke. These wankers may be dezentralized, but they have a fucking logo for crying out loud!

  20. I hate to say I told you so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a Fed tool will get you in trouble every time. For crying out loud at least get a written contract.

  21. The real danger by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    They give pro (facist / police state / surveillance / corporate) forces the perfect justification to slowly destroy the most important source of freedom and information since the printing press: the Internet.

    I just hope some of the wiser ones will still be around to help fight the forces of evil (and that ain't a video game console company, FFS).

    1. Re:The real danger by elucido · · Score: 1

      They give pro (facist / police state / surveillance / corporate) forces the perfect justification to slowly destroy the most important source of freedom and information since the printing press: the Internet.

      I just hope some of the wiser ones will still be around to help fight the forces of evil (and that ain't a video game console company, FFS).

      Lulzsec went about things in the wrong/dumb way. Lulzsec should have never existed as it has diminished the reputation of Anonymous. If you believe in protecting internet freedom then I can understand that you will have something ideological in common with Anonymous, most of us do. But the current form of Anonymous does not do a very good job, as it's run as a headless vigilante organization without any direction. Many of it's ops actually damage it's credibility, such as doing DDOS attacks on sites (censorship), or revealing user information. Those sorts of activities don't enhance internet freedom they diminish it.

  22. Would It Be The Same Penalty by Angrywhiteshoes · · Score: 2

    Would he be facing the same 15 years if he hacked into Bob's Computer Shack's servers? Or do they consider it more severe because sony has more money and more clients? Is there some equation they use that determines "you stole this much data, so you do this many years in prison" ?

    Most of the sentences these days that have to do with computer related crimes seem outrageous.

    I'd understand if it got people killed. But what Sony has is banking information. Most banks have mechanisms to mitigate damage ( I used to play a tank in WoW - Dwarf warrior, so gangster) in the case where your money/information is stolen. They will reissue your card, give you new account numbers, whatever it takes. Sony shouldn't have private information like SSNs, so I'm not too sure what everyone is worried about. Unless you're afraid Lulzsec is selling your home address to that kid you kept calling a fgt on COD and he's actually gonna kill you like he was screaming he would.

    What should happen is something like this:

    Dear Sony Customer,
    We left our gaping hole exposed and we lost your data.
    Here are the details that you should be worried about and
    that you'll need to provide to your bank. Please check your shit.
    Sorry we fucked up, keep buying our crap.
    Hugs and Kisses,
    Sony Entertainment

    But it won't, because they want to play the victim. Shit, if Lulzsec got it, some other hacking group probably had it before them and have been buying viagra on your cards for months.

    Anyway, there's my daily rant. Windows Sucks, Linux Rules, OPEN SOURCE FOR LIFE!!!

  23. Re:Sony is above the law because by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Fuck you, racist. Ethnicity did not help Bernie Madoff, and it didn't hurt John Corzine. The justice system is biased in favor of wealth and power, not ethnicity.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  24. Lulzsec diminished Anonymous by elucido · · Score: 1

    Hopefully with these arrests and others a few months back, the keyboard warriors out there will start to realise that they're not untraceable and can't just do as they damn well please on the internet.

    I'm no fan of Sony but I hope this guy is banged up for a long time for stealing all that private data. And before any wannabe heros mod me down you might want to consider that YOUR data could be part of it.

    I agree they went too far and I hate Sony too. I don't think revealing user data served the purposes of Anonymous in any way and if anything made Anonymous look like the bad guys and helped the opposition gain political cover to attack Anonymous and everything Anonymous was trying to do politically.

  25. I agree he shouldn't get that kinda time by elucido · · Score: 1

    I definitely believe criminal activity should be punished but sending in prison a 20-year old for 15 whole fucking years and treating him as if he is a war criminal or serial killer, for simply hacking into a computer of a multi-billion-dollar company (which as it seems didn't care to invest some of it's awfully lot of money in protecting it's customer's data) , is a little too much. Especially when at the same time there are other criminals out there who roam free thanks to their financial status.

    But it doesn't matter. His life is destroyed now and honestly you can thank Sabu for playing informant and helping to destroy it.
    He can also thank himself for being an idiot.

  26. Of course it's Sabu's work by elucido · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that's another arrest they made thanks to Sabu's cooperation, if so, that coop was the best thing the FBI could have done in this whole mess of so-called "hacktivism"

    The thing here is it's not like Sabu is the good guy. Sabu is the worst of the worst here because he ruined the lives of the people who trusted him with their lives. Hackers are motivated by money, ideology, coercion or contraband and ego. This is the MICE motivation and in general all human beings are motivated the same way.

    So in this case it's not money because these hackers weren't being paid. It was either IDEOLOGY or EGO. What that means is most of these young adults were brainwashed, or psychologically manipulated, probably by Sabu and people like him who also happened to be informants for the FBI. That is what sucks about tihs, we will never really know how many of these kids would never have got involved if Sabu hadn't influenced them. Sabu had no problem sacrificing his ideology for his ego as he threw Lulzsec under the bus for the FBI. Let's just accept that Sabu is a scumbag even by cyber criminal standards.

    For the record I don't endorse Lulzsec, I think they were a bunch of idiots and my posts reflect that. Being an idiot shouldn't mean 15 years in prison, that is a political sentencing and I disagree with that. I also disagree with what Sabu did on a personal level, as he was a bad person, a rotten human being, but this has nothing to do with what he did on a professional level which may have actually put an end to Lulzsec.

    1. Re:Of course it's Sabu's work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (if they are schizophrenics [*hearing* voices], they want to corroborate the perceived source and blame it for not having enough brain computing power to handle schizophrenia)

  27. Refocus effort! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of top secret patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Energy companies keeping environment-changing technologies a secret. Military keeping world-changing advanced propulsion technologies a secret. Maybe just a refocusing of effort is needed?

  28. YOU SEE? I comment here, lap goes CRAZY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been hibernating for quite a while. But I comment here and... Windows had a bad shut down and reinitialized. SOMEHOW my session was not respected in hibernations!!! But it is ust a matter of closing down the lid and hibernate. What happened, eh? See why fifteen years is not enough for theimmatures with technology? Though of course NON OF YOU HERE thinks of SERIOUS sabotage, infiltration, spying, disabling... no computing at all because they can break a hibernation session but not build a full processor chip and OS. I saw the guy in question, he looks Iraqi taking revenge, despite the Latinamerican US facade. Does not look criminal, looks political.