Hacktivist History: The Rise and Fall of the Notorious LulzSec



+ Add a Comment


Instead of a notebook, I use index cards for my user IDs and passwords.  They are stored in a index card file box and when I am not looking at the information in my index card file, that box is stored in a safe (which happens to be fire-proof).  I started doing this 4+ years ago after I started using cryptic passwords (and cryptic user names).  It IS slower to get some things done but when we're talking about accessing online banking systems and online payment systems, it's better to be making it harder than easier for the criminals in cyperspace.



i think alot of ppl might have missed the point of these attacks.  maybe it wasnt to show everyone that all these companies have poor security, but to make us all see that you shouldnt trust those companies with your information.



My strategy is to have 3 levels of passwords: one for sketchy, low-popularity sites that look like they have no secureity or one of the admins likes to take your password, one for the higher caliber but i dont really care if i get hacked (like maxpc), and a high security one that I only use on a handful of trusted sites (paypal, google). So chances are that if my info gets leaked to the web, then I won't really care.



I like your assumption that we liked LulzSec even before they started randomly DDoSing. When you write an article, please don't tell US what WE thought. Chances are, we didn't think it. They were dicks before they started DDoSing and they were dicks after. Wrongly assuming article assumes wrong.



So, in suggesting that I not make assumptions for a group of people, your counter-argument is an assumption you've made for a group of people?

I didn't think it was necessary to cite evidence that the general Web community initially congratulated Lulzsec for all its hijinks.  But since you've called me out, here's an example:




SOME people on reddit liked them, yes, but what's your point? If your article is aimed at those people on reddit, post it on reddit. My 'assumption' was that there is a chance that atleast some readers won't agree, which means you've alienated people right from the start. I disagree with you, and I know there are people who feel the same.



Hey Recidivist, don't go assuming things. You don't speak for me, so don't even try!




I know that here on MPC, at the start people were much more accepting of LulzSec until after the DDoSing started. I was always outspoken against them and any other hacking group that actually lifts files from (or otherwise edits) a server for whatever reason, but I know I'm in the minority.

Murphy is quite right, the majority of "geekdom" were, at first, very supportive of LulzSec. There were those of us who weren't but we are the minority. So his generalization is completely fine to state beacuse generally it is/was true.

The fact that you are taking offense to his general statement because it is not an absolute statement baffles me. How do you mange to live day to day life without general statements? (Don't answer that, it's rhetorical)

It seems you are only disagreeing to be disagreeable, or at least I hope that's what your doing, as the only other possiblity I can think of for your remarks is that you think that you represent geeks en masse better than geeks represent themselves en masse, which takes a degree of egotism that is very worrying.



I disagree. Most of the MPC comments seemed negative, with a few positive that got shot down quite heavily. All the comments on sites such as PCG, RPS, SPUF etc. all had negative comments with a few exceptions that also got shot down. The only place that had mostly positive comments was LulzSec's twitter (and Reddit to some extent). I don't mind generalization, but he said it as an absolute. No. I do not beleive that a MAJORITY liked them, especially gamers. I'm not sure what you consider 'geekdom' but to me it seemed that only the largely uninformed supported them. You are not the minority, you are definately part of the majority. Go recheck the MPC comments and then check other sites that covered it - I assure you that the 'We hate LulzSec' comments far out-number the 'We love LulzSec' comments.

I am disagreeing because I saw the comments that were going around and there is no way that a majority of people supported them - for every positive comment you had 30 negative - so that's complete tosh. Who are these geeks that you're referring to? I did not know that only geeks had heard of LulzSec, because I was so used to seeing their name on every news website, in the paper and being discussed by those who I would never consider to be geeks. If the article had said that some people had suppoerted LulzSec, then I would have no problem, but I object to being told that I, and everyone else who didn't support them, supported them.

Thay is my criticism for this peice of writing, if you take offence to it, I couldn't care less, I just hope you take it on board that some people don't want to be told what they thought. Tell us what you thought, tell us what some people thought, just not what we thought.



The great irony (or rather, the hypocrisy that is ironic coming from you) is that you are advocating not to say what "we" thought for us, but at the same time, you are saying what "we" thought for us (that is, that most comments were negative).


Now as for your claim about negative comments, you are, in your own words, judging this by what you have seen personally  and  what you believe. Whether or not you believe does not matter, the majority is a measurable thing, so beliefs have no validity. And if I didn't make this clear before; you, yourself, are not a valid source of information.

Use polls and the likes to back yourself up

This poll for example:



Was done after the DDoS attacks and shows that negative opinion only beat out positive opinion by 4%. And this is after they started really screwing over the end user.



So you posted a link that agrees with me? Hmmm...


I'm not speaking for the same group as the author of the article, I'm speaking for the group that disagree with the article and don't want to be told what they thought. Some of you may agree with the article, some may not agree but don't mind being told what they thought - but I'm not talking for them and I said this in my last post, try reading it again.

I am not asking you to believe me, I suggested that you go and look for yourself.


Honestly, please try reading in greater detail.




"So you posted a link that agrees with me? Hmmm..." 

The link shows you are wrong on the count that there is a massive opinion against them, even now, and suggests that before they attacked geeks and only went after companies they most likely had even more support. So no, it doesn't support you, but if you think it does it would be better to explain your reasoning and not just say that it does "because", would it not? Hmmm... 


"I'm not speaking for the same group as the author of the article,” 

Then what do you have a problem with? If you aren't talking about what he's talking about, then there is no point to talking, this statement by you completely voids everything you have said since you aren't even addressing the article in your own words. I'm just going to pretend you didn't say this and continue on...

"I'm speaking for the group that disagree with the article and don't want to be told what they thought"

He never once told you what to think. He stated a (documented) fact: Geeks at large thought of LulzSec as heroes to start and now don't think of them as heroes (though admittedly, over ~40% still do, which is disturbing). 

"Some of you may agree with the article, some may not agree"

What is exactly does it mean to agree with this article? What are you not agreeing about? This is article is not a opinion piece, it is a (historical) factual one. You can't logically have a split "opinion" of it without there being some misinformation somewhere.

"but don't mind being told what they thought"

Once again, you are doing the same thing (that is telling us what we thought). You can't say "we" always thought of lulzsec as bad without telling us what we thought.

"but I'm not talking for them and I said this in my last post, try reading it again."

You are saying that Murphy is wrong in saying a majority think one way. You can't say he was wrong without also saying the majority think the other way. So yes, you are speaking for them. You have no argument if you are not.

"I am not asking you to believe me, I suggested that you go and look for yourself."

That is a contradiction; if you want me to look for myself then you are asking me to believe you when you say I haven't looked for myself.

"Honestly, please try reading in greater detail."

I say the same to you. It is clear you have made no attempt to even respond to my points, you merely have repeated yourself, increasing the vagueness of your wording (or changing it to mean something different all together), without ever actually putting forth a fact to back your claims or counter what has been brought to bear against you. This is prime example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.





Some of the confusion may be that I don't really remember many MAXPC articles about LulzSec prior to when they started targetting gaming sites for no real reason (reading this article, this is kind of backed up by the lack of links to the early stories). There was some coverage of Anonymous' attacks on Sony... which caused split opinions that started turning negative as actual Sony users were affected. This is when Anonymous backed out and people started attacking under the LulzSec banner instead. From that point on, I remember very few supporters... and that's about the first time that LulzSec started getting a lot of coverage.



Really? Don't read it then if you're not part of the target audience


Bullwinkle J Moose

Offline Security is just as Important

Do you REALLY know who your friends are?

Buy a Safe for your valuables and let your friends know that you keep your grandfathers inheritance in there, or your cash or silver or (Make something up) whatever your "friends" will believe

Show off the safe when you first get it but don't tell them where you hide it in your house

Ask the "friend" that you don't trust to keep an eye on the "friend" that you DO trust while you're out of town. Tell him you don't trust the Friend that you really do trust but don't tell them that you also have a motion sensing Silent Alarm in the house and a motion triggered video recorder in the room with the safe or that the safe is full of bricks

If they don't know where the safe is hidden in the house, they will spend enough time searching for it for you and/or the police to arrive

That trick always works!


Another variation would be for the friend you DO trust to tell the "Friend" you don't trust where the safe is hidden and to describe what he saw in the safe when you opened it in his presence




They did some good, and some bad. On the good side, they've shown that corporations that have your personal info don't give a damn about keeping it secure. Since most governments these days, especially the US, side with corporations over people, they have nothing to lose. There is no punishment for having bad security.

On the other hand, this just gives excuses for the government to pass more Acts that will invade your privacy and take away Constitutional Rights. The Government has already been doing that since 9-11, and they continue to pass more laws making all of us criminals with no rights.

So there is good and bad, but in the end, it hasn't changed anything. A revolt is on the way, it's already happening in many countries around the world, and the riots and protests will come to America. You can only trample on the people for so long before they fight back.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.