Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Government Websites Hacked With Pro-Islamic State Messages (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg:
The websites of Ohio Governor John Kasich and other state government agencies were hacked on Sunday with a posting professing love for the jihadist group Islamic State. Ten state websites and two servers were affected, and they've been taken off line for an investigation with law enforcement into how the hackers were able to deface them, said Tom Hoyt, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Administrative Services... The same pro-Islamic State message, accompanied by music, were also shown on Sunday on the website of Brookhaven, a town on New York's Long Island about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Manhattan, the New York Post reported... Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2018, posted on Facebook that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website had been hacked and said, "Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland."
Sharia law will now be implemented. Death to the infidels!
Seriously, if you're worried about anything infiltrating the heartland, try Meth-heads and opiates from whatever pharmacy they have there.
They are so pathetic now, they had armies, weapons, even an income.... now they are all but ghosts; now the only way to get some attention is to hack websites...
Their message is lost, their mission is a failure... all they have now is some semblence of hope those virgins that they were promised... arent male!
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
"...Josh Mandel, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2018, posted on Facebook that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website had been hacked and said, "Wake up freedom-loving Americans. Radical Islam infiltrating the heartland.""
Wake up freedom loving Americans, Douchebag trying to infiltrate the Senate in 2018.
This is just BS from start to finish. The phrase 'known to security services' is used a lot, but that does not mean these individuals are under 24/7 monitoring. 'Known to security services' just means their name has come up at some point during some check up, ie. that these people are not in the country illegally/without the permission of the officials. This group of 'known to officials' includes everyone vetted and cleared by the officials, as well as everyone with friends and family of a person that's ever been a person of interest. Say someone's brother or a friend travels over to Syria, these people are then likely interviewed/checked by the security officials and are now under the category of 'known to officials'.
Officials in Brittain and elsewhere have openly said one of the problems is there is not enough human resources to track/monitor every potential threat 24/7. Whether this is actually the case or whether the UK authorities simply want to use this as a leverage to gain more powers á la the Patriot act I do not know, Speaking about the London bridge attacker, assistant comissioner Mark Rowley said he "was known to the security services, but there was no evidence of "attack planning" by him." (source).
You're trying to insinuate that European and American intelligence agencies know well in advance who's going to attack and where and just can't do anything because of "human rights" (using air quotes as if the concept would be somehow difficult or vague to understand). If there's probable cause that someone's planning an attack, of course they're arrested and prosecuted. What's really going on is that the security services are doing their best to try and prevent/arrest people who're actually planning crimes but no system is 100 % perfect. If there is no evidence that someone is actively planning an attack there's simply no way in most countries for the authorities to have the money/legal power to keep these individuals under surveillance 24/7 'just in case'. So in the example mentioned earlier, if someone's interviewed because their friend/family member went to Syria and nothing of interest comes up during this check, they're not going to be put under 24 hour surveillance. If this individual years later self-radicalizes (in a fashion very similar to western born school shooters) and commits an attack, he/she was 'known to officials' but this obviously does not translate to 'the officials were watching them continuously and had exact details about the planned attack, however chose to do nothing because of the subject's 'human rights'" and anybody who thinks so is an idiot.
There seems to be a misconception in the west that the security services are somehow all knowing and all powerful (they're not, they just like to project that image) and could prevent all attacks if we just got rid of such pesky things such as the rule of law and gave the authorities the power to kick in doors and disappear people based on just their internet search history without any probable cause or a trial but I really would hope people on /. are smart enough and know enough history to understand why this is unwise.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
That "heartland" remark is from a US Republican politician, according to both TFS and the first linked article. I do understand that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between IS militants and GOP militants, but there is a difference. Or at least I think there is. There is a difference, right?
Interestingly the concert bomber was a known threat, and here comes the problem with painting all Muslims with the same brush: he was a known threat because the Muslim community had reported him as a threat !
His own Imam had banned him from his mosque over his violent rhetoric and reported him to the authorities over his bragging that he was planning a violent attack.
His family had made similar reports, wanting him watched - because they'd rather see him in jail for conspiracy to commit terror than dead from doing it.
Why was he not being watched ? Because the Tories have cut the police force's budget by over 25% in recent years leaving Britain (and London in particular) with a massive shortage of cops. Thousands had to be let go due to this insane policy.
Ironically - while the government keeps trying to use terror to get further reductions in citizen privacy and surveilance power (things that do not help to prevent terror attacks) they gutted the one thing that DOES have the power to stop terror attacks: good old fashioned police work.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Except that the majority of people who have this religion are (generally believed to be) of a common race so those with that race is usually assumed to be of that religion and often discriminated against.
Some of the worst acts of anti-Islamic discrimination and violence recently have been targetting Sikhs for example, even though Sikhs are not Islamic - but they look like stereotypical Muslims are expected to look.
It's actually quite hard to discriminate against a religion - you can't really tell what somebody believes by looking at them. Their thoughts aren't printed on their faces. So such discrimination is usually done via proxies - in the case of Islamophobia that proxy is almost always race. No Muslim screening system yet invented would have have screen Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali if he had chosen to keep his conversion secret. No screening system known to man yet would have consistently held Cat Stephens for extra checks. Because these folks don't look Muslim. Because they aren't Arabs.
The proxy is terrible, not all Arabs are Muslims, not all Muslims are Arab (in fact a very, very large number of them aren't - many are Indian for example) and there is no actual correlation between being a Muslim and being a threat.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Christianity, which is generally not associated with violence.
Only if you're selective. Religion is just one of many excuses for violence thought up by us clever little monkeys and it doesn't really matter which one - look at the Buddhists in Burma murdering Muslims - and is usually not the root cause. I bet the proportion of Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists who beat their spouses is about the same. This is Christianity v Islam only in the eyes of fanatics.
nobody is born a Muslim; people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time. Well, that enhanced screening is racist and anyone who supports that is a racist.
They can change but they don't; the vast majority of people have the same religion as their parents.
Your meaning is unclear but I assume you think the last sentence is an erroneous conclusion. The trouble is nearly all Muslims are people of colour, including the 800,000 African-American Muslims so any attempt to single them out looks the same as racism, unless everyone carries religious ID. Can't see any problems with that.
Let's say you don't like H-1B tech workers from India, ... Well, that's not racist at all. In fact, it's encouraged.
There are two main reasons for not liking H-1B tech workers from India:
1. Because they are from India. This is racism.
2. They depress wages for American workers and take away their jobs. This may be a valid objection but the workers are the wrong target, unless you can maybe whip up sufficient hatred to get enough of them beaten up or killed to discourage more from coming but it's a messy and haphazard business and unlikely to succeed.
If instead you meant people don't like the idea of H-1B tech workers from India, the right targets are the employers and legislators.
Yes, of course: to IS militants, Islam equals jihad. To GOP militants, it's the exact reverse.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel