Anonymous, Lulzsec et al
Tags:
- World News
- Hacking
Last response: in News & Leisure
Rusting In Peace
June 14, 2011 1:23:53 PM
I'm seeing some pretty heated posts on any news articles that involves Anonymous or Lulzsec recently but as far as I can see there is no thread discussing it in a coherent manner.
There seems to be a collection of people who are fundamentally against these groups on the basis that they think that they are motivated by money and or reputation. The word hacking seems to conjure negativity, often being linked to criminal activity rather than gaining access to a system you are not authorized to access. There is a massive difference between the traditional idea of hacking, ethical hacking and the more curious "hacktivism".
Lulzsec informing the NHS of a security risk is ethical hacking. Anonymous launching a DDOS against Visa is hackivism. Someone stealing PSN data is traditional hacking.
To say all three of these incidents are the same is just ignorant. Ethical hacking is beneficial to everyone, hackivism is subject to people's beliefs so is debatable depending on your stance. However no one should be saying that an incident like PSN is a good thing.
I've seen people backing Anonymous purely because they believe their constitutional rights are being violated. This is all good and well but remember the internet is agnostic to location and so are these groups.
I've also seen someone make an incredibly valid point regarding these groups attracting younger members. It seems to me that all of this seems tempting to any young person wishing to be part of something. There is a pretty high price on being caught for being part of a DDOS so it's not a decision that is to be taken lightly.
Ironically, people often accuse Anonymous of being a collection of script kiddies, state that launching a DDOS is easy or that it's all a bit childish. My retort would be: "And?", "What does difficulty have to do with this?", "And any other form of protest isn't? Chaining yourself to a tree is more mature than a DDOS?". Regardless of whether you agree with what Anonymous may target you must agree that it is a new form of protest. The curious bit about that is that it currently not controlled well by authorities. In stark contrast, if you want to hold a protest in the UK, you must inform the police about the time and location so it can be managed. You may as well be organising a party.
I believe in freedom of speech. I believe there is no security in secrecy. So I applaud Anonymous and Lulzsec's efforts.
Questions, opinions and rants all welcome!
There seems to be a collection of people who are fundamentally against these groups on the basis that they think that they are motivated by money and or reputation. The word hacking seems to conjure negativity, often being linked to criminal activity rather than gaining access to a system you are not authorized to access. There is a massive difference between the traditional idea of hacking, ethical hacking and the more curious "hacktivism".
Lulzsec informing the NHS of a security risk is ethical hacking. Anonymous launching a DDOS against Visa is hackivism. Someone stealing PSN data is traditional hacking.
To say all three of these incidents are the same is just ignorant. Ethical hacking is beneficial to everyone, hackivism is subject to people's beliefs so is debatable depending on your stance. However no one should be saying that an incident like PSN is a good thing.
I've seen people backing Anonymous purely because they believe their constitutional rights are being violated. This is all good and well but remember the internet is agnostic to location and so are these groups.
I've also seen someone make an incredibly valid point regarding these groups attracting younger members. It seems to me that all of this seems tempting to any young person wishing to be part of something. There is a pretty high price on being caught for being part of a DDOS so it's not a decision that is to be taken lightly.
Ironically, people often accuse Anonymous of being a collection of script kiddies, state that launching a DDOS is easy or that it's all a bit childish. My retort would be: "And?", "What does difficulty have to do with this?", "And any other form of protest isn't? Chaining yourself to a tree is more mature than a DDOS?". Regardless of whether you agree with what Anonymous may target you must agree that it is a new form of protest. The curious bit about that is that it currently not controlled well by authorities. In stark contrast, if you want to hold a protest in the UK, you must inform the police about the time and location so it can be managed. You may as well be organising a party.
I believe in freedom of speech. I believe there is no security in secrecy. So I applaud Anonymous and Lulzsec's efforts.
Questions, opinions and rants all welcome!
More about : anonymous lulzsec
Seriously ... while I like the logic behind your tripartite model of differential hackethics I think the legal system's interpretation is quite different ... and that is our primary frame of reference.
Moral arguements are about what is "right".
"Right" and "Lawful" are often two different things ...
Moral arguements are about what is "right".
"Right" and "Lawful" are often two different things ...
Rusting In Peace
June 14, 2011 3:48:27 PM
You say "our"? Can you clarify who you mean?
I'd expect the majority of people forming opinions on the matter consider the ethics more than the legality of it all. But perhaps this expectation is a bit misguided.
Purely considering the legality of DDOS is somewhat moot as hacking, ethically, as a form or protest or in any other manner, is illegal.
I'd expect the majority of people forming opinions on the matter consider the ethics more than the legality of it all. But perhaps this expectation is a bit misguided.
Purely considering the legality of DDOS is somewhat moot as hacking, ethically, as a form or protest or in any other manner, is illegal.
Related resources
- Fedora v. CentOS (et al) for Programming - Forum
- MicroCenter prices vs. Newegg, et. al. - Forum
- New Gaming PC for BF3 et al aussie PC build - Forum
- ~$1000 i5 build - questions on GPU, motherboard, et al. - Forum
- Problem with incessant corrupt files...et al. - Forum
ddos is illegal ... so in engaging in it your breaking the law.
Simple ... "our" means the law.
If you want to work outside of the law then one day or night (usually early in the morning ... round 0400hrs) your going to get noisy visitors in uniforms ... lots of yelling ... and do enjoy the ride in the van to the station.
That prospect isn't one i really want to enjoy ...
I'd rather work inside of the law to try to accomplish change.
Plus if you ping the hell out of one particular server your log files on your ISP look as easy to read as a Sesame Street.
ISP's will likely end up being held accountable for not actioning their customer's behaviour ... precedents will end up being set that holds them accountable ... for their failure to respond appropriately.
Simple ... "our" means the law.
If you want to work outside of the law then one day or night (usually early in the morning ... round 0400hrs) your going to get noisy visitors in uniforms ... lots of yelling ... and do enjoy the ride in the van to the station.
That prospect isn't one i really want to enjoy ...
I'd rather work inside of the law to try to accomplish change.
Plus if you ping the hell out of one particular server your log files on your ISP look as easy to read as a Sesame Street.
ISP's will likely end up being held accountable for not actioning their customer's behaviour ... precedents will end up being set that holds them accountable ... for their failure to respond appropriately.
Rusting In Peace
June 14, 2011 4:35:36 PM
I'm not really talking about being part of either of these collection of individuals as, like you, I don't want get arrested for doing so.
Working inside the law unfortunately doesn't always produce change. Individuals and governments regularly break their own laws to get things done.
ISPs should not be held accountable for the content they are transferring as it's completely against net neutrality. The person running the process that's sending / requesting data is responsible. It's exactly the same if I was to send someone a stinky fish in the mail; it's not the delivery services fault, it's my fault.
Working inside the law unfortunately doesn't always produce change. Individuals and governments regularly break their own laws to get things done.
ISPs should not be held accountable for the content they are transferring as it's completely against net neutrality. The person running the process that's sending / requesting data is responsible. It's exactly the same if I was to send someone a stinky fish in the mail; it's not the delivery services fault, it's my fault.
fazers_on_stun
June 14, 2011 8:30:25 PM
http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6858309-lu...
Now why would Lulzsec target independent game devs?? Just to say they could??
In other news, it seems Greece is claiming they arrested 32 of them - good job!
Now why would Lulzsec target independent game devs?? Just to say they could??
In other news, it seems Greece is claiming they arrested 32 of them - good job!
2 billion penguins
June 14, 2011 9:01:14 PM
I think the major problem here, aside from the whole legality issues is that hacking (and a lot of non-internet based things) as a collective for the purpose of a certain cause has a natural tendency to turn into a form of vandalism and the resulting disruptive/destructive effects are greater on the end user then the intentional target, thus pissing people off.
I mean this is why the law exists to begin with, vigilante work (which I would have to say hackivism falls under) is biased and tends to cause chaos. Thus addressing this as an "ethical opinion" I would say that it is ethically incorrect. Yes the law is flawed but its better then just anarchy.
As for "ethical hacking" or even doing it for the challenge, white hat hacking I would say has never been a problem with people (outside of the law breaking bit). But the problem is that you always tend to cause more worry then you really should, so really if people are into that they should just join a security firm.
I mean this is why the law exists to begin with, vigilante work (which I would have to say hackivism falls under) is biased and tends to cause chaos. Thus addressing this as an "ethical opinion" I would say that it is ethically incorrect. Yes the law is flawed but its better then just anarchy.
As for "ethical hacking" or even doing it for the challenge, white hat hacking I would say has never been a problem with people (outside of the law breaking bit). But the problem is that you always tend to cause more worry then you really should, so really if people are into that they should just join a security firm.
Oldmangamer_73
June 14, 2011 9:23:15 PM
dogman_1234
June 14, 2011 10:53:04 PM
dogman_1234
June 14, 2011 11:38:43 PM
Rusting In Peace
June 15, 2011 8:35:06 AM
fazers_on_stun said:
http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6858309-lu...Now why would Lulzsec target independent game devs?? Just to say they could??
In other news, it seems Greece is claiming they arrested 32 of them - good job!
I'm not defending this but how sure can anyone be that this is actually Lulzsec and not someone doing something under an anonymous flag. The same thing can be said for Anonymous. Sony initially said the PSN attack was from Anonymous?
On a similar vein, when authorities say they've arrested people operating in these groups who can be sure they actually are?
I'm Spartacus. No I'm Spartacus! No wait that guy over there is Spartacus!
2 billion penguins
June 15, 2011 9:55:26 AM
Reynod said:
I agree with 2 billion penguins ... call me a flightless bird who is overweight and ungainly on land if you like ... but graceful under water.Do penguins spitroast?
Anyone tried one?
why would you want to eat a poor defenseless penguin? DX!But in any case supposedly its illegal at least under US law... but im guessing if you actually went down to antartica, claimed that you had no food but the right cooking equipment you could try.
mi1ez
June 15, 2011 12:19:36 PM
2 billion penguins said:
why would you want to eat a poor defenseless penguin? DX!But in any case supposedly its illegal at least under US law... but im guessing if you actually went down to antartica, claimed that you had no food but the right cooking equipment you could try.
You have a few threads to read and catchup on to get that post ... sorry I wasn't having a go at you.
I tend to treat all of the new posters here well ... as I need disciples for my new religion.
It was meant to incite gamer into a strong bout of gnashing of teeth.
Sadly I think he is just too good for me now ... I'll have to hang up the boots and go back to weeding.
P.S. I wonder of penguin would taste like? Anything like seal ?
Oldmangamer_73
June 15, 2011 12:57:16 PM
Oldmangamer_73
June 15, 2011 1:15:37 PM
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/viralvacuum/171955/lioness-s...
The lioness is the Govt.
The toddler the ddos fools.
Beware ... the glass (ISP's sheilding your activities) grows thinner.
I tried to put my thoughts and comments into a video to assist those with a developmental delay ...
The lioness is the Govt.
The toddler the ddos fools.
Beware ... the glass (ISP's sheilding your activities) grows thinner.
I tried to put my thoughts and comments into a video to assist those with a developmental delay ...
dogman_1234
June 15, 2011 3:13:28 PM
fazers_on_stun
June 15, 2011 5:52:04 PM
Rusting In Peace said:
I'm not defending this but how sure can anyone be that this is actually Lulzsec and not someone doing something under an anonymous flag. The same thing can be said for Anonymous. Sony initially said the PSN attack was from Anonymous?On a similar vein, when authorities say they've arrested people operating in these groups who can be sure they actually are?
I'm Spartacus. No I'm Spartacus! No wait that guy over there is Spartacus!
True - nobody really knows for certain, but the article did mention that Lulzsec posted on their twitter account that they were responsible. Unless some other person or group hacked twitter or Lulzsec and got the account info. If that is the case, I don't see any denials yet from Lulzsec..
If Anon or Lulzsec and others bring about enough anarchy & pain, I suspect the ultimate victim will be precisely what they are supposedly fighting for - anonymity & freedom of the internet. IIRC, Intel had a processor ID function built into some of its CPUs (P4??) that was turned off by default - could be that governments world-wide would force the CPU manufacturers to include such a feature and make it permanently on, as a digital fingerprint attached to every IP packet. While I'm sure hackers will find a way to spoof that, it will start a cat & mouse game where industry counters with additional digital-ID type measures, etc etc until the point where it has escalated to make the whole Internet almost unusable.
dogman_1234
June 16, 2011 5:36:05 AM
fazers_on_stun
June 16, 2011 3:13:23 PM
I think it was just the CIA's public website, no secret info or anything else useful stored there, and it was a simple ddos attack. I doubt the CIA cares much except for perhaps some public embarassment, or maybe they monitor everything and now have some info on Lulzsec. And I'm pretty sure the Chinese are much more skilled than Lulzsec at hacking anyway..
dogman_1234
June 16, 2011 4:00:10 PM
Kaboose
June 17, 2011 7:08:35 AM
I think freedom of speech is important and so is the well spread distributation of facts.
But both of those being said, I belive that comprimising corporations security and stealing personal information for whatever use is wrong, criminal , and unjust.
With such little evidence to support its hard to beilve there is some "robinhood" type group of hackers fighting for the better future of our world.
However with whats thrown in our face its easy to notice the oposite, groups of hackers stealing information for monetary or criminal gains, or to try and strike fear into a digital based world.
Maybe abit harsh but i think they should seriously step of enforcement of internet security as well as punishment for hacking related crimes.
These people who sit "safetly" behind there computer silently fking with other peopels hard earned lives, if found guilty criminal hacking for above stated reasons, i belive should be trialed for treason against their country(if the victim of the attack in within their own country) as well as crimes against humanity along with the slew of charges that comes with idenity theft and intentional security comprimises for criminal intentions.
If we(USA) could spend a 10th of the resources that we use fighting terrorisim or the massive amount of funds we spend on our LOLwarondrugs maybe we could isolate and convict some of these offenders and hacker cells and make "examples" out of them.
Now i'm not saying the victims of these cyber attacks are moraly ok either. I just dont think the current trend of internet hacking is the answer we need.
But both of those being said, I belive that comprimising corporations security and stealing personal information for whatever use is wrong, criminal , and unjust.
With such little evidence to support its hard to beilve there is some "robinhood" type group of hackers fighting for the better future of our world.
However with whats thrown in our face its easy to notice the oposite, groups of hackers stealing information for monetary or criminal gains, or to try and strike fear into a digital based world.
Maybe abit harsh but i think they should seriously step of enforcement of internet security as well as punishment for hacking related crimes.
These people who sit "safetly" behind there computer silently fking with other peopels hard earned lives, if found guilty criminal hacking for above stated reasons, i belive should be trialed for treason against their country(if the victim of the attack in within their own country) as well as crimes against humanity along with the slew of charges that comes with idenity theft and intentional security comprimises for criminal intentions.
If we(USA) could spend a 10th of the resources that we use fighting terrorisim or the massive amount of funds we spend on our LOLwarondrugs maybe we could isolate and convict some of these offenders and hacker cells and make "examples" out of them.
Now i'm not saying the victims of these cyber attacks are moraly ok either. I just dont think the current trend of internet hacking is the answer we need.
Oldmangamer_73
June 17, 2011 1:09:02 PM
Maybe they need to get jobs instead of sponging off their parents and using their internet connection to stuff the rest of us around.
/checks smoothwall.
None of my kids are pinging anyone to death here ... if they did I would know.
I think ISP's could easily put in place software to prevent some of the mundane ddos scripts from running ... how hard is that eh?
/checks smoothwall.
None of my kids are pinging anyone to death here ... if they did I would know.
I think ISP's could easily put in place software to prevent some of the mundane ddos scripts from running ... how hard is that eh?
Rusting In Peace
June 20, 2011 12:52:51 PM
Reynod said:
Maybe they need to get jobs instead of sponging off their parents and using their internet connection to stuff the rest of us around./checks smoothwall.
None of my kids are pinging anyone to death here ... if they did I would know.
I think ISP's could easily put in place software to prevent some of the mundane ddos scripts from running ... how hard is that eh?
It's a fairly big and dismissive assumption that anyone involved in said groups are just jobless bums living with their parents with an internet connection.
There is plenty of DDOS detection software and hardware available. The difficulty of an ISP implementing these systems shouldn't be in question. The real point of discussion is around whether ISPs should be forced to monitor and restrict DDOS traffic.
My opinion on this is pretty straightforward; ISPs should not be forced to monitor or restrict DDOS traffic as in doing so they'd be violating net neutrality.
I think I might have changed my opinion on Lulzsec though. They are significantly less Robin Hood than I had thought. It's one thing to announce a company has a security hole; it's another to release user data to the world. I appreciate that the release of data is the venom in the action but surely this is a bit far.
How about trying to find the corporate hackers who took down this one below?
4,800 DistributeIT sites “unrecoverable”
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/market/47996-480...
Hackers who attacked these guys smashed their systems to the point where the company will be lucky to remain solvent.
Either it is a deliberate corporate attack from a competing company or it is terrorism.
Net neutrality should not prevent the law from dealing with the people who perpetrated this ... as an example.
4,800 DistributeIT sites “unrecoverable”
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/market/47996-480...
Hackers who attacked these guys smashed their systems to the point where the company will be lucky to remain solvent.
Either it is a deliberate corporate attack from a competing company or it is terrorism.
Net neutrality should not prevent the law from dealing with the people who perpetrated this ... as an example.
For DDos hackism. It is like stopping animal cruelty by protesting in front of a bush meat market where endangered animal is sold and stopping customers buying their bush meat. In real life, it is freedom of speech. But in cyber space, it is a crime. I think this is because in real life, there is no physical harm, but the internet is virtual and the virtual is also its physical, therefore you can say it is causing physical damage. But really, I don't think the moral ideal of the legal system which was decided hundred years ago in reality space take in the account of possible interactive virtual/physical duality, thus the law maker today using the same moral idea is not capable of legislating law appropriate for cyber space.
Oldmangamer_73
June 21, 2011 3:59:06 PM
Breaking! lulz has been arrested in the UK.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/21/uk-teen-arres...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/21/uk-teen-arres...
Rusting In Peace
June 21, 2011 4:11:59 PM
dogman_1234
June 21, 2011 11:26:26 PM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Breaking! lulz has been arrested in the UK.http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/21/uk-teen-arres...
They did it for teh lulz...
Rusting In Peace
June 24, 2011 12:57:56 PM
Pyree said:
For DDos hackism. It is like stopping animal cruelty by protesting in front of a bush meat market where endangered animal is sold and stopping customers buying their bush meat. In real life, it is freedom of speech. But in cyber space, it is a crime. I think this is because in real life, there is no physical harm, but the internet is virtual and the virtual is also its physical, therefore you can say it is causing physical damage. But really, I don't think the moral ideal of the legal system which was decided hundred years ago in reality space take in the account of possible interactive virtual/physical duality, thus the law maker today using the same moral idea is not capable of legislating law appropriate for cyber space.But a DDOS isn't actually damaging the system; there is no corruption to the system. It's more like a blockade stopping you from connecting at that point in time.
If they company loses money because of the outage it's exactly the same if the meat market wasn't available.
So I respectfully disagree!
However you are absolutely right about attempting to apply old laws onto new scenarios. The problem is often those attempting to set precedents for these new laws often have no idea of the implications of what they rule.
For example, I've seen so many retarded IT decisions being passed by the UK government it's quite obvious that the people making the decisions don't know enough about the topic they are making changes to. It's incredibly disturbing.
wanamingo
June 24, 2011 1:05:00 PM
I agree with rusting, even though they aren't physically harming people they are still interrupting business. Our company has been DDoS'd before and it sucks, the company is pretty much cutoff from the outside world.
For example imagine if you went to go walk into work but a biker gang just blocked your way in, and every time you try to get around them they get in your way. Same principle no one is getting hurt, just being huge assholes to the point where someone steps in and says" You are such a dick we are going to arrest you"
For example imagine if you went to go walk into work but a biker gang just blocked your way in, and every time you try to get around them they get in your way. Same principle no one is getting hurt, just being huge assholes to the point where someone steps in and says" You are such a dick we are going to arrest you"
Related resources
- Core i7 860, 5850, et al for sale as system or part Forum
- Blackout: Dead motherboard et al. or PSU? Forum
- Spin this, Doug, et al... Forum
- Saving desktop - layout et al Forum
- Can Vonage et al. be used FROM foreign countries? Forum
- DNSServer.pl, DNSZone.pl, et. al. Forum
- Cursed weapons et al Forum
- Proxy Kissed et al Forum
- Compaq Presario 6024US - processor upgrade question (et al) Forum
- AC v. HP's v. et al Forum
- FS: 750mAh iDEN Battery and Battery Door, et. al Forum
- Proteus Staff et al Forum
- Review of Fairlight Castle, et al Forum
- Ben Pope, et al. Forum
- PING: Richard Hopkins et. al., Re: Enabling ICH5R SATA RAI.. Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!