When that publicity gets it free henchmen, donations, and apologists?
No, I have no evidence that they are. However, I have no evidence they aren't, but we all have evidence they could be. And anyone wishing to can become a "member" of Anonymous can do anything they want with it. So even if some of them are altruistic, some of them may not be. The Sony breakin could easily be them.
Cracking someone's security, copying lots of their stuff, then bragging you copied part of it and attributing it to civil disobedience? Misdirects the victims away from what you really stole, or gives them an opportunity not to admit it if they can tell. Lots of ways to profit in there, for lots of dishonest or antisocial people.
But if the cyberterrorism is all coming from the police, giving them power to stop cyberterrorism will just stop the police from committing cyberterrorism.
I doubt Obama had any knowledge of the tactical side of the operation. I doubt Holder knew about it either, but slightly less strongly.
ATF generally has the authority to run its business the way it wants to, and may have overstepped the law without checking first, here. 2500 guns is a blip in that traffic, and if they used it to trace the flow so they could reduce it, then that's what they did. The irony of a cop being killed by a gun his own agency sold to his killer is just that. Irony. That killer would have had a gun no matter where it came from, and would have killed that cop no matter where the gun came from. While access to a gun can make a careless child into a killer, it doesn't make a bit of difference to a gun-running career criminal.
This is no political issue, and will be a bigger news item once it's ascertained what ATF knew and when they knew it.
Any good piece of security software checks your password for guessability when you set it. The word "July" would be rejected, even if it's inadvertently embedded in ASCII gibberish.
In order for the prosecution to make that argument, it would have to counter the argument that the police were the ones who hacked into the server to get the evidence. I.e., they'd have to produce a chain of evidence showing who did it and how. Which, at the least, means someone from Anonymous would have to present themselves as a witness, along with evidence of how they gained access, to prove they are the ones who obtained it and that the material wasn't fabricated.
This stuff can taint a jury and won't be admissible unless Anonymous keeps careful records and wants to change its name.
IANAL either, but I watched Boston Legal, which is why I know more than you about this stuff.
Both groups do it for both those reasons (albeit Anonymous' system for turning the profit is far less well-developed); you just happen to agree politically with one of them.
Murdoch's employees, owing to Murdoch's leadership, believed they lived in a world where laws against hacking and bribing didn't exist, and therefore hacked everyone they were curious about and bribed everyone they were not curious about, in the common goal of gathering salacious information about people they were curious about. And they also believed they lived in a world where blackmail was not illegal, so once they had this curious information, they felt no reason not to use it, even if it meant the manipulation of multiple democracies.
I'd like to see these hypotheses tested in a court of law. Preferably before Emperor Palpatine dies.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? He did it UPSIDE DOWN?!
What a maroon.
And according to the scale on that map, it's only about 600 meters by 1 mile.
it's worse than that
My only complaint would be if it's not 1000 meters and 2 miles.
As long as it's right, it doesn't matter if it's inconsistent.
Just keep presuming there are no bad people in the world just because you don't know any bad people.
You'll be their favorite victim.
When that publicity gets it free henchmen, donations, and apologists?
No, I have no evidence that they are. However, I have no evidence they aren't, but we all have evidence they could be. And anyone wishing to can become a "member" of Anonymous can do anything they want with it. So even if some of them are altruistic, some of them may not be. The Sony breakin could easily be them.
Cracking someone's security, copying lots of their stuff, then bragging you copied part of it and attributing it to civil disobedience? Misdirects the victims away from what you really stole, or gives them an opportunity not to admit it if they can tell. Lots of ways to profit in there, for lots of dishonest or antisocial people.
It's the internet. Everything can be traced.
Do you imagine that Anomymous acquires only the information it releases to the public? Or that it only acquires information?
How about "Fox News was astroturfing their homepage to pretend nothing is happening in Britain today..."
Until background sneaker makes the mistake of recruiting an FBI agent to be his front-line troll.
You're presuming that the FBI's l33t-squad doesn't know the difference between a proxy and an active participant.
But if the cyberterrorism is all coming from the police, giving them power to stop cyberterrorism will just stop the police from committing cyberterrorism.
Score one for abatement of the police state.
Every time I'm being rational.
"What originals? Anonymous made it all up." - Murdoch's lawyer
We already have one of those.
It's called the Internet.
You didn't include enough zeroes to make a difference.
Hardly. Michelle Malkin is all over it! (Lulz)
So is CBS News: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner#Controversy
I doubt Obama had any knowledge of the tactical side of the operation. I doubt Holder knew about it either, but slightly less strongly.
ATF generally has the authority to run its business the way it wants to, and may have overstepped the law without checking first, here. 2500 guns is a blip in that traffic, and if they used it to trace the flow so they could reduce it, then that's what they did. The irony of a cop being killed by a gun his own agency sold to his killer is just that. Irony. That killer would have had a gun no matter where it came from, and would have killed that cop no matter where the gun came from. While access to a gun can make a careless child into a killer, it doesn't make a bit of difference to a gun-running career criminal.
This is no political issue, and will be a bigger news item once it's ascertained what ATF knew and when they knew it.
Any good piece of security software checks your password for guessability when you set it. The word "July" would be rejected, even if it's inadvertently embedded in ASCII gibberish.
or logic that is flawed
1. Murdoch is the government? Really?
2. What did he ever do to Anonymous? You're saying he punched them. When?
Guilt-free? No. Anonymous can go to jail for this.
The guy who tried to pie Murdoch in the hearings, this morning, should be given an OBE.
ATF implemented Project Gunrunner in 2006
googling for "fast and the furious" would lead to a mess of irrelevant results. and no relevant ones, probably.
In order for the prosecution to make that argument, it would have to counter the argument that the police were the ones who hacked into the server to get the evidence. I.e., they'd have to produce a chain of evidence showing who did it and how. Which, at the least, means someone from Anonymous would have to present themselves as a witness, along with evidence of how they gained access, to prove they are the ones who obtained it and that the material wasn't fabricated.
This stuff can taint a jury and won't be admissible unless Anonymous keeps careful records and wants to change its name.
IANAL either, but I watched Boston Legal, which is why I know more than you about this stuff.
Both groups do it for both those reasons (albeit Anonymous' system for turning the profit is far less well-developed); you just happen to agree politically with one of them.
Murdoch's employees, owing to Murdoch's leadership, believed they lived in a world where laws against hacking and bribing didn't exist, and therefore hacked everyone they were curious about and bribed everyone they were not curious about, in the common goal of gathering salacious information about people they were curious about. And they also believed they lived in a world where blackmail was not illegal, so once they had this curious information, they felt no reason not to use it, even if it meant the manipulation of multiple democracies.
I'd like to see these hypotheses tested in a court of law. Preferably before Emperor Palpatine dies.
It's populist claptrap, but legal stupidity.
If you really want Murdoch brought down, poisoning the jury pool by releasing the evidence is the wrong way to do it.
That's not unemployment. That's the French work-week.