By going to jail they have probably significantly enhanced their careers. They will come into contact with all kinds of people who may be interested in hiring their services (Cosmo in Sneakers anyone?), and when they come out they will probably find their notoriety makes it easier to get an interview for a security job. If they had not gone to jail they would probably not have such diverse career options.
Those are movies, this is real life. Sneakers was also based in the 1980s. It's different now.
If you go to jail you wont have a job waiting for you when you get out. Unless you want to be some sort of police informant. This idea that going to jail enhances peoples careers is as silly as rappers and other artists who think going to jail is good for their careers. It's not good for your career to go to prison and be a felon, if you want to get attention you can go to DefCon or write an academic paper or thesis or create a website. Going to jail is not the answer.
If you want to be like Cosmo from sneakers then you're talking about being a pen-tester. You need to become a certified ethical hacker by passing an exam and getting the certificate. You don't have to go to jail and going to jail will make it impossible for you to get the money to pay for the certificate in the first place. Also being on probation will put you in the weakest possible bargaining position.
You seem to be deeply confused. The Arab Spring protestors generally didn't start the violence. The governments trying to suppress the protests did.
Also, you are just totally wrong about something very important! Historically, nonviolent protests have undeniably gotten results. The 1960s Civil Rights movement in the US, for example. And there's this guy Ghandi you may have heard about.
Nonviolent protest met with violent opposition can be extremely effective because it gives society as a whole no comfortable excuses along the lines of "oh, those are just thugs, it's a good thing they got beaten down".
The civil rights movement was both non-violent and violent. And the end result is both the non-violent and violent sides of the moment got killed off or locked away in prisons, and their children and grand children are still paying the price for that.
So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?
FAIL !
Well.. that's kind of what worked in all the successful protests last year... Egypt, Libya etc...
On the flip side of the coin look what the non violent Occupy Wall Street protest achieved; nothing. Unless you count the protestors getting a chance to go camping as an achievement.
I'm not saying I'd participate in a violent protest. I am saying that historically, violent protests achieve results where nonviolent ones do not.
Violent protests didn't achieve results in the USA. You're talking about Egypt. The USA has the best law enforcement funding in the world with the best weaponry.
This is not a scientifically complete answer, bt neither is just looking at neuroscience and seeing that people aren't psychopathic bastards. The real answer is people are just very weak and accept anything authority figures give or tell them.
No, it isn't a scientifically complete answer. Neither is. Good, you've got that right. However, despite not having a scientifically complete answer, you have drawn a very strong conclusion, so strong that it causes you to reject the results of any experiment that disagrees with your conclusion. Do you see how this could be a problem?
It's not that I reject the results but it's more that I'm not swayed by just one experiment. If I see several others like it then I can change my mind.
I do follow that Cult Science can be a problem. Science can be done in a way which through flawed experiments flawed results are produced. I see it all the time where corporations fund certain experiments to prove a certain result which is beneficial for their sales. Vitamin supplement companies are notorious for this.
But when we look at most studies most of them are conducted in a flawed way. I learned in my statistics class that double blind studies are important and that you need control groups. It doesn't change the fact that most studies don't seem to do this so we wind up having to do an analysis based on flawed studies because thats all that exists in some instances. Psychology is notorious for using flawed studies but in many cases it's the only study providing any potential answer at all.
I don't want you to get the impression that I'm dead set on my conclusions and that my mind cannot change when the facts change. I'm saying that this experiment due to it's own flaws and scope doesn't change my mind.
If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense.
You mean like the invasion of Iraq? You do know that George W. Bush rarely ventures outside the US for fear of being arrested for war crimes, right?
If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption?
Surf YouTube for an hour, you'll find lots of videos of police beating up and tazering people who showed no sign of aggressiveness.
I'm not defending Lulz or Anonymous, but please don't insult our intelligence by saying that all we need to do is produce evidence of corruption or crimes by the authorities and the world will put a stop to it.
That is the sort of stuff they should be focused on. Not hacking credit card numbers.
Way upthread you implied that only pussies become snitches. The AC and I disagree with that assessment.
There is a difference between being tortured and broken and testifying on the stand against your brother. The snitch is testifying against his brother while the torture victim is saying anything to make the pain stop.
The information from someone who has been tortured is notoriously unreliable because we know they'll say anything the authorities want them to say even if it's bullshit. What Sabu did went far beyond just saying stuff, he actually entrapped people according to the documents so he's an absolute snitch, traitor, etc.
The last guy who resembled Sabu was Albert Gonzalez. Nobody can trust a snitch, not the feds and not the community. What happened the moment the feds were finished exploiting Sabu as a resource? They threw him overboard like trash.
No, what he meant is that everyone in prison or under threat of same rats. Read some true crime. Talk to admins or guards from a prison. Don't bother with prisoners because they lie. Too much reputation to protect. Most of these jailhouse turds would sell their own mother for an extra slice of bread at lunchtime.
I don't see your point. Yes there are traitors in prison but there are even more traitors outside of prison. Hackers could never trust each other.
Makes me wonder if LulzSec was the creation of the FBI.
If LulzSec was a creation of the FBI why are all the members being arrested by the FBI?
Sabu whomever he is, his life is ruined as a reward for helping the FBI. Those others involved their lives are ruined because they got arrested by the FBI. I don't see how this equates to the FBI creating LulzSec unless you know something we don't.
Depends how the DDOS is made. If a million people simultaneously send an email to the shop/factory describing their displeasure, then it's legal. If ten people use a network of a million infected PCs to bring down the shop/factory's web server, it's illegal.
If a thousand people protest outside a shop/factory, it's legal. If two people block the entrance to the shop/factory by putting their own padlock on the door/gate, it's illegal.
A lot of things are legal which can make your voice heard as much or more than a DDOS attack.
So tell us, what is the smart way to protest online ?
Unfortunately any online action does involve 'pissing off' authorities, because they have made everything that hurts them illegal.
Why is a DDOS illegal, how is different that a RL protest outside a shop/factory ?
Don't talk about it. Do it. If you talk about it then it ruins the surprise. I'm just saying you don't have to break the law to make a statement. If you want to get more people involved in your movement then some operations should be the kind which don't require people to break the law.
So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?
No. Not every warrior is violent and I don't advocate violence. If you turn violent then the opposition will use it as the excuse to use lethal force and they specialize in violence. What is so difficult to understand? Use non violence and don't focus exclusively on illegal activities. If you do break the law then be well aware and make the people involved well aware what the consequences will be. Don't entrap people by telling them that using DDOS is just a protest or that their anonymity online is protected. Tell them the goddamn truth.
FAIL !
Tell them the truth. Stop sending people off who don't know what they are doing. Young kids who's lives are ruined before they get started. You should be pissed off about that.
I see no reason why we maintain the inefficient and stupid 9-5 workday when we have way too few jobs for the amount of workers we have. I understand some people have to sleep in the night, but others could sleep in the day and it would result in less congestion on the roads as well.
What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.
Another flaw in your argument, you ignore the fact that if you put an animal into a skinner box you can change it's psychology. You can condition a rat to feel a certain way when a certain tone is played. You can condition dogs to feel a certain way after a certain stimulus. This is fact and if this is true then it explains the purpose of religion and law.
You can say capitalism is evolution too but it doesn't change the fact that different forms of capitalism influence the evolution of the human species via mate selection as well as the evolution of many other species. The impact of the crusades with regard to the church, the impact of the law with regard to behavior.
It's conditioning. Put people into a different environment and they wont feel the same way about the same things. So what I'm saying is anything can be made to feel right. Dogs can be made to feel right when they hear something. Humans can be made to feel good or bad by classical conditioning. This is why moral feelings are conditioned responses and don't always lead to good results for the host.
What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.
Or it could be the opposite. Religion conditions the brain to rewire itself which changes psychology. If all the people who thought differently or who had a different psychology were killed off by the church or didn't reproduce then this would explain it. How likely are prisoners to reproduce?
Not to the extent that he did it. You can torture a confession out of anyone but Sabu was actually working FOR the feds not just broken by them. You're right if tortured anyone can be broken given enough time but thats not the same situation.
> Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them.
It's rather frightening how you seem to consider the government dragging his children into this a reasonable consequence of hacking.
The consequences could be worse. He and his children are still alive.
Whether you consider it frightening or not, reality is what it is, the governments are ruthless in these situations. Anyone who thinks they will hack the DOJ or CIA and not provoke this sort of reaction is just naive.
My dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls) gives about a dozen definitions for moral and 3 for ethical, and there's very little to distinguish one from the other (ethics seems to be a bit more technical).
Anyone can be moral. Simply do exactly what society expects you to do and no more.
So in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia morality consisted of snitching on your neighbors. In modern "liberal democracies" it consists of living on the dole.
Actual morality (and ethics) in its highest form consists of striving to become a great person; to be someone who would have been considered honorable by Plutarch.
Morals aren't based on science. Morals are based on what feels right, or based on religion, or based on what is or isn't legal.
Ethics (consequentialist ethics) are based on what can be determined to produce the best consequences. You win a war by applying ethical strategies. Game theory is ethics, business involves ethics, winning a competition and pursuing self interest involves ethics.
You can be a moral person and be completely unethical if your morality is deontological. The 10 commandments are an example of deontological morality. You can make everyone in society Christian and force them into a universal morality. There is no universal ethics. Ethics are completely subjective while morality CAN be subjective OR it can be deontological. Meaning there are forms of morality which are irrational, which don't produce good consequences or desirable results, but which are what is written in the old book, or that which are traditions, or that which is the law.
Consequence based ethics is only concerned with the science of making the most rational decision in any given situation. When lives are at stake and you have to figure out how to save the maximum amount of lives morality doesn't help, only ethics can help here. When you have to kill one to save a few only ethics can help. When you have to hurt one to protect yourself and others ethics are in operation here.
Morality doesn't have anything to do with actually being a good person. Morality is all about looking like a good person in the eyes of the law and to the church. You can be a shitty person but if you go to church every Sunday and you don't break the law you'll be considered a moral person.You could be a complete sociopath and be considered a moral person but you cannot be an ethical sociopath because ethics aren't as simple as a list of commandments or a list of laws, the ethicalness of a situation is determined entirely by the set of circumstances and it's impossible to predict in advance what situations you'll face so a true ethical leader is someone who can make the necessary calculations to determine how their decision will affect themselves and everyone.
Many laws in place are moral but not very ethical which is why many people disagree. Ethics are subjective so you can disagree on stuff like copyright infringement, or on the treatment of detainees. For the rights holders who only can put their children through college because of the current copyright law they will do everything they can to convince a young kid who doesn't own any copyrights that copyright infringement is stealing and is somehow unethical. In reality it might be ethical for that kid in that situation. What about photoshop? It might be ethical for that kid to pirate photoshop to accomplish some important goal for themselves, but it wont be ethical for photoshop because the kid isn't paying them.
In reality ethics are just about making the best possible decisions. Risk vs benefit of doing something. And in the case of these sorts of hackers they ruined their lives but did they save any lives? What did they sacrifice themselves for really? I think their approach wasn't what I would consider moral or ethical in the case of Lulzsec as I don't agree with their cause or with their methods of achieving their cause as their methods are horribly ine
Not just dumping random documents of stuff which only functions as PR but actual evidence.
If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense. But what LulzSec was doing was not exposing war crimes, or protecting life, or protecting human rights, they were going around stealing credit card information and other really stupid crimes. They were going with this anti-sec f the police mentality.
There are police who believe in human rights and who have family and children. Anonymous isn't providing any evidence of any illegal activity which the police could use to do anything. If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption? Basically Anonymous is breaking laws just to break them and hacking just to hack in many cases.
And now it seems every protest they do requires some sort of illegal activity. Maybe they'd get more people to support them if not every protest requires DDOS attacks or taking down websites or breaking laws. Some people have a lot to lose, have families, and cannot afford to break the law. Some people are the police, or are in positions of authority.
We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.
But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!
Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.
Maybe if they weren't such dumbasses they would be more concerned about actually getting evidence of criminal activity.
Anonymous could get the police agencies on their side. All they have to do is provide evidence that people in those big corporations are criminals.
The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.
Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?
The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.
Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?
Forced labor? Explain?
Still Anonymous hasn't exposed shit. When they released documented they didn't expose any crimes or human rights abuses. Also they were stupid about it, they didn't send the documents to the UN, instead they put it on the internet.
Fine, exposing it to the world makes sense in theory but if they are going to expose actual abuses well the State Dept cables didn't expose any abuses. I didn't see anything in there about genocide, torture, or criminal activity from government officials. I didn't see anything in the bank release which the IRS could actually use to start an investigation.
Anonymous is just an umbrella organization, too large, no focus, and infiltrated by teenage script kiddie criminal types like these LulzSec people. If you think they have exposed criminal activity or human rights abuses and you can show me then show that. If you can show me something they've exposed which the FBI, IRS, UN or any global police institution can use then show me there. Show me the evidence that their hacking activities has produced of crimes.
And it doesn't require pissing off the feds. You can protest in a smart way or in a dumb way and many of Anonymous choose the dumb way with dumb consequences. If they are going to be political freedom fighters, warriors, then they will have to act like warriors and think like warriors.
Young people need to be educated so they know when they get involved with these groups it's like getting involved with a mafia or terrorist organization. Their life is changed forever, many of them might not survive it, those who do could have their life destroyed in all kinds of ways, basically it's young people sacrificing their future.
LulzSec in my opinion were sacrificing their future for dumb reasons. Was it worth going to jail over? Now they are useless to society and can't do shit.
Remember that kids. Its not only servers which log connections. Routers can do it as well. Don't do it from McDonalds because they use CCTV. Steal a connection but try not to leave DNA and only use any given connection once. Don't use a car which can be traced to you either. Don't associate with other hackers because they are probably spies. Don't promote your activities on twitter etc because that makes it too fucking easy for the police to come and get you.
Also in the summary its supposed to be "plain sight", not "plain site". They are two different words.
They just aren't/weren't that smart. But thats not all but most of them are probably pussies who when arrested aren't prepared to go to jail so they become snitches.
They're children going up against people who have been trained to play this game by masters at it. They were nothing until they became a significant irritant and when that happened they ended up under a sledgehammer. It is a most dangerous game where you cannot make a mistake at as your life is at stake. I don't know how badly they will fall but they're tagged now and most likely will be assigned to someone to watch for some time to come.
And the worst part is these people don't seem at all prepared to get caught and go to jail. Sabu had a child? But he thought it was cool to hack the CIA and DOJ? Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them. Common sense, if you mess with the government they do go after your family and they will treat you like a terrorist.
Slashdot Mirror
By going to jail they have probably significantly enhanced their careers. They will come into contact with all kinds of people who may be interested in hiring their services (Cosmo in Sneakers anyone?), and when they come out they will probably find their notoriety makes it easier to get an interview for a security job. If they had not gone to jail they would probably not have such diverse career options.
Those are movies, this is real life. Sneakers was also based in the 1980s. It's different now.
If you go to jail you wont have a job waiting for you when you get out. Unless you want to be some sort of police informant. This idea that going to jail enhances peoples careers is as silly as rappers and other artists who think going to jail is good for their careers. It's not good for your career to go to prison and be a felon, if you want to get attention you can go to DefCon or write an academic paper or thesis or create a website. Going to jail is not the answer.
If you want to be like Cosmo from sneakers then you're talking about being a pen-tester. You need to become a certified ethical hacker by passing an exam and getting the certificate. You don't have to go to jail and going to jail will make it impossible for you to get the money to pay for the certificate in the first place. Also being on probation will put you in the weakest possible bargaining position.
You seem to be deeply confused. The Arab Spring protestors generally didn't start the violence. The governments trying to suppress the protests did.
Also, you are just totally wrong about something very important! Historically, nonviolent protests have undeniably gotten results. The 1960s Civil Rights movement in the US, for example. And there's this guy Ghandi you may have heard about.
Nonviolent protest met with violent opposition can be extremely effective because it gives society as a whole no comfortable excuses along the lines of "oh, those are just thugs, it's a good thing they got beaten down".
The civil rights movement was both non-violent and violent. And the end result is both the non-violent and violent sides of the moment got killed off or locked away in prisons, and their children and grand children are still paying the price for that.
So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?
FAIL !
Well.. that's kind of what worked in all the successful protests last year... Egypt, Libya etc...
On the flip side of the coin look what the non violent Occupy Wall Street protest achieved; nothing. Unless you count the protestors getting a chance to go camping as an achievement.
I'm not saying I'd participate in a violent protest. I am saying that historically, violent protests achieve results where nonviolent ones do not.
Violent protests didn't achieve results in the USA. You're talking about Egypt. The USA has the best law enforcement funding in the world with the best weaponry.
This is not a scientifically complete answer, bt neither is just looking at neuroscience and seeing that people aren't psychopathic bastards. The real answer is people are just very weak and accept anything authority figures give or tell them.
No, it isn't a scientifically complete answer. Neither is. Good, you've got that right. However, despite not having a scientifically complete answer, you have drawn a very strong conclusion, so strong that it causes you to reject the results of any experiment that disagrees with your conclusion. Do you see how this could be a problem?
It's not that I reject the results but it's more that I'm not swayed by just one experiment. If I see several others like it then I can change my mind.
I do follow that Cult Science can be a problem. Science can be done in a way which through flawed experiments flawed results are produced. I see it all the time where corporations fund certain experiments to prove a certain result which is beneficial for their sales. Vitamin supplement companies are notorious for this.
But when we look at most studies most of them are conducted in a flawed way. I learned in my statistics class that double blind studies are important and that you need control groups. It doesn't change the fact that most studies don't seem to do this so we wind up having to do an analysis based on flawed studies because thats all that exists in some instances. Psychology is notorious for using flawed studies but in many cases it's the only study providing any potential answer at all.
I don't want you to get the impression that I'm dead set on my conclusions and that my mind cannot change when the facts change. I'm saying that this experiment due to it's own flaws and scope doesn't change my mind.
If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense.
You mean like the invasion of Iraq? You do know that George W. Bush rarely ventures outside the US for fear of being arrested for war crimes, right?
If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption?
Surf YouTube for an hour, you'll find lots of videos of police beating up and tazering people who showed no sign of aggressiveness.
I'm not defending Lulz or Anonymous, but please don't insult our intelligence by saying that all we need to do is produce evidence of corruption or crimes by the authorities and the world will put a stop to it.
That is the sort of stuff they should be focused on. Not hacking credit card numbers.
Way upthread you implied that only pussies become snitches. The AC and I disagree with that assessment.
There is a difference between being tortured and broken and testifying on the stand against your brother. The snitch is testifying against his brother while the torture victim is saying anything to make the pain stop.
The information from someone who has been tortured is notoriously unreliable because we know they'll say anything the authorities want them to say even if it's bullshit. What Sabu did went far beyond just saying stuff, he actually entrapped people according to the documents so he's an absolute snitch, traitor, etc.
The last guy who resembled Sabu was Albert Gonzalez. Nobody can trust a snitch, not the feds and not the community. What happened the moment the feds were finished exploiting Sabu as a resource? They threw him overboard like trash.
No, what he meant is that everyone in prison or under threat of same rats. Read some true crime. Talk to admins or guards from a prison. Don't bother with prisoners because they lie. Too much reputation to protect. Most of these jailhouse turds would sell their own mother for an extra slice of bread at lunchtime.
I don't see your point. Yes there are traitors in prison but there are even more traitors outside of prison. Hackers could never trust each other.
Makes me wonder if LulzSec was the creation of the FBI.
If LulzSec was a creation of the FBI why are all the members being arrested by the FBI?
Sabu whomever he is, his life is ruined as a reward for helping the FBI. Those others involved their lives are ruined because they got arrested by the FBI. I don't see how this equates to the FBI creating LulzSec unless you know something we don't.
If DDOS attacks as a form of protest is leading to prison then maybe it's not a smart way to protest.
Depends how the DDOS is made. If a million people simultaneously send an email to the shop/factory describing their displeasure, then it's legal. If ten people use a network of a million infected PCs to bring down the shop/factory's web server, it's illegal.
If a thousand people protest outside a shop/factory, it's legal. If two people block the entrance to the shop/factory by putting their own padlock on the door/gate, it's illegal.
A lot of things are legal which can make your voice heard as much or more than a DDOS attack.
So tell us, what is the smart way to protest online ?
Unfortunately any online action does involve 'pissing off' authorities, because they have made everything that hurts them illegal.
Why is a DDOS illegal, how is different that a RL protest outside a shop/factory ?
Don't talk about it. Do it. If you talk about it then it ruins the surprise. I'm just saying you don't have to break the law to make a statement. If you want to get more people involved in your movement then some operations should be the kind which don't require people to break the law.
So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?
No. Not every warrior is violent and I don't advocate violence. If you turn violent then the opposition will use it as the excuse to use lethal force and they specialize in violence. What is so difficult to understand? Use non violence and don't focus exclusively on illegal activities. If you do break the law then be well aware and make the people involved well aware what the consequences will be. Don't entrap people by telling them that using DDOS is just a protest or that their anonymity online is protected. Tell them the goddamn truth.
FAIL !
Tell them the truth. Stop sending people off who don't know what they are doing. Young kids who's lives are ruined before they get started. You should be pissed off about that.
We could be doing a 24 hour schedule but we still operate businesses and offices from 9-5. Why? I see no advantage.
I see no reason why we maintain the inefficient and stupid 9-5 workday when we have way too few jobs for the amount of workers we have. I understand some people have to sleep in the night, but others could sleep in the day and it would result in less congestion on the roads as well.
What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.
Another flaw in your argument, you ignore the fact that if you put an animal into a skinner box you can change it's psychology. You can condition a rat to feel a certain way when a certain tone is played. You can condition dogs to feel a certain way after a certain stimulus. This is fact and if this is true then it explains the purpose of religion and law.
You can say capitalism is evolution too but it doesn't change the fact that different forms of capitalism influence the evolution of the human species via mate selection as well as the evolution of many other species. The impact of the crusades with regard to the church, the impact of the law with regard to behavior.
It's conditioning. Put people into a different environment and they wont feel the same way about the same things. So what I'm saying is anything can be made to feel right. Dogs can be made to feel right when they hear something. Humans can be made to feel good or bad by classical conditioning. This is why moral feelings are conditioned responses and don't always lead to good results for the host.
What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.
Or it could be the opposite. Religion conditions the brain to rewire itself which changes psychology. If all the people who thought differently or who had a different psychology were killed off by the church or didn't reproduce then this would explain it. How likely are prisoners to reproduce?
EVERYBODY RATS.
It's rule #1.
Not to the extent that he did it. You can torture a confession out of anyone but Sabu was actually working FOR the feds not just broken by them. You're right if tortured anyone can be broken given enough time but thats not the same situation.
> Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them.
It's rather frightening how you seem to consider the government dragging his children into this a reasonable consequence of hacking.
The consequences could be worse. He and his children are still alive.
Whether you consider it frightening or not, reality is what it is, the governments are ruthless in these situations. Anyone who thinks they will hack the DOJ or CIA and not provoke this sort of reaction is just naive.
Wow. What dictionary do you use?
My dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls) gives about a dozen definitions for moral and 3 for ethical, and there's very little to distinguish one from the other (ethics seems to be a bit more technical).
So in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia morality consisted of snitching on your neighbors. In modern "liberal democracies" it consists of living on the dole.
Actual morality (and ethics) in its highest form consists of striving to become a great person; to be someone who would have been considered honorable by Plutarch.
Morals aren't based on science. Morals are based on what feels right, or based on religion, or based on what is or isn't legal.
Ethics (consequentialist ethics) are based on what can be determined to produce the best consequences. You win a war by applying ethical strategies. Game theory is ethics, business involves ethics, winning a competition and pursuing self interest involves ethics.
You can be a moral person and be completely unethical if your morality is deontological. The 10 commandments are an example of deontological morality. You can make everyone in society Christian and force them into a universal morality. There is no universal ethics. Ethics are completely subjective while morality CAN be subjective OR it can be deontological. Meaning there are forms of morality which are irrational, which don't produce good consequences or desirable results, but which are what is written in the old book, or that which are traditions, or that which is the law.
Consequence based ethics is only concerned with the science of making the most rational decision in any given situation. When lives are at stake and you have to figure out how to save the maximum amount of lives morality doesn't help, only ethics can help here. When you have to kill one to save a few only ethics can help. When you have to hurt one to protect yourself and others ethics are in operation here.
Morality doesn't have anything to do with actually being a good person. Morality is all about looking like a good person in the eyes of the law and to the church. You can be a shitty person but if you go to church every Sunday and you don't break the law you'll be considered a moral person.You could be a complete sociopath and be considered a moral person but you cannot be an ethical sociopath because ethics aren't as simple as a list of commandments or a list of laws, the ethicalness of a situation is determined entirely by the set of circumstances and it's impossible to predict in advance what situations you'll face so a true ethical leader is someone who can make the necessary calculations to determine how their decision will affect themselves and everyone.
Many laws in place are moral but not very ethical which is why many people disagree. Ethics are subjective so you can disagree on stuff like copyright infringement, or on the treatment of detainees. For the rights holders who only can put their children through college because of the current copyright law they will do everything they can to convince a young kid who doesn't own any copyrights that copyright infringement is stealing and is somehow unethical. In reality it might be ethical for that kid in that situation. What about photoshop? It might be ethical for that kid to pirate photoshop to accomplish some important goal for themselves, but it wont be ethical for photoshop because the kid isn't paying them.
In reality ethics are just about making the best possible decisions. Risk vs benefit of doing something. And in the case of these sorts of hackers they ruined their lives but did they save any lives? What did they sacrifice themselves for really? I think their approach wasn't what I would consider moral or ethical in the case of Lulzsec as I don't agree with their cause or with their methods of achieving their cause as their methods are horribly ine
Not just dumping random documents of stuff which only functions as PR but actual evidence.
If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense. But what LulzSec was doing was not exposing war crimes, or protecting life, or protecting human rights, they were going around stealing credit card information and other really stupid crimes. They were going with this anti-sec f the police mentality.
There are police who believe in human rights and who have family and children. Anonymous isn't providing any evidence of any illegal activity which the police could use to do anything. If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption? Basically Anonymous is breaking laws just to break them and hacking just to hack in many cases.
And now it seems every protest they do requires some sort of illegal activity. Maybe they'd get more people to support them if not every protest requires DDOS attacks or taking down websites or breaking laws. Some people have a lot to lose, have families, and cannot afford to break the law. Some people are the police, or are in positions of authority.
We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.
But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!
Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.
Maybe if they weren't such dumbasses they would be more concerned about actually getting evidence of criminal activity.
Anonymous could get the police agencies on their side. All they have to do is provide evidence that people in those big corporations are criminals.
The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.
Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?
The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.
Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?
Forced labor? Explain?
Still Anonymous hasn't exposed shit. When they released documented they didn't expose any crimes or human rights abuses. Also they were stupid about it, they didn't send the documents to the UN, instead they put it on the internet.
Fine, exposing it to the world makes sense in theory but if they are going to expose actual abuses well the State Dept cables didn't expose any abuses. I didn't see anything in there about genocide, torture, or criminal activity from government officials. I didn't see anything in the bank release which the IRS could actually use to start an investigation.
Anonymous is just an umbrella organization, too large, no focus, and infiltrated by teenage script kiddie criminal types like these LulzSec people. If you think they have exposed criminal activity or human rights abuses and you can show me then show that. If you can show me something they've exposed which the FBI, IRS, UN or any global police institution can use then show me there. Show me the evidence that their hacking activities has produced of crimes.
And it doesn't require pissing off the feds. You can protest in a smart way or in a dumb way and many of Anonymous choose the dumb way with dumb consequences. If they are going to be political freedom fighters, warriors, then they will have to act like warriors and think like warriors.
Young people need to be educated so they know when they get involved with these groups it's like getting involved with a mafia or terrorist organization. Their life is changed forever, many of them might not survive it, those who do could have their life destroyed in all kinds of ways, basically it's young people sacrificing their future.
LulzSec in my opinion were sacrificing their future for dumb reasons. Was it worth going to jail over? Now they are useless to society and can't do shit.
Remember that kids. Its not only servers which log connections. Routers can do it as well. Don't do it from McDonalds because they use CCTV. Steal a connection but try not to leave DNA and only use any given connection once. Don't use a car which can be traced to you either. Don't associate with other hackers because they are probably spies. Don't promote your activities on twitter etc because that makes it too fucking easy for the police to come and get you.
Also in the summary its supposed to be "plain sight", not "plain site". They are two different words.
They just aren't/weren't that smart. But thats not all but most of them are probably pussies who when arrested aren't prepared to go to jail so they become snitches.
Comply or Die. Dont dare to change the system or the system will erase you.
Yes just like in the Soviet Union or in the USA during the 60s.
They're children going up against people who have been trained to play this game by masters at it. They were nothing until they became a significant irritant and when that happened they ended up under a sledgehammer. It is a most dangerous game where you cannot make a mistake at as your life is at stake. I don't know how badly they will fall but they're tagged now and most likely will be assigned to someone to watch for some time to come.
And the worst part is these people don't seem at all prepared to get caught and go to jail. Sabu had a child? But he thought it was cool to hack the CIA and DOJ? Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them. Common sense, if you mess with the government they do go after your family and they will treat you like a terrorist.