LulzSec Franchise Opens in Brazil, Takes Down Government Sites

116

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Holly Golightly

It is you who is getting lost in the scrolling! HA!!! You voted for the loser while everyone else voted for change. Lets face it, your views on government is expired. Go croak in the corner and let the progressive people bring for the change. Oh, by the way, I am not going to google anything for you. You do your damn work... Oh wait, they did not teach you this in grade school???

avatar

KenLV

As usual, since you can’t defend your position or defeat the facts of others (even when they post the references for your ignorant ass), attack the person.  Silly silly girl.  Rage much?

avatar

Holly Golightly

What you have experienced was an epic fail. Yes, you failed to convert a communist back into capitalism. Don't worry, it is not your fault you are a failure, you were born that way.

avatar

KenLV

“…you failed to convert a communist back into capitalism.”

 

Silly child, as I said to you before, I would never try to “convert” a true believer such as yourself.  However, it’s my moral obligation to counter this kind of bullshit propaganda with actual facts.  Granted, you’ve made it more fun than usual because you are slightly dumber than the average clueless schmuck that one runs into on a daily basis.  I mean seriously, what kind of genius includes in her profile her real name, city, school and “interests”?? (really, shopping at Bloomingdales?  That’s what you put out there before trying to lecture to us about the wonders of communism?  Shopping at fucking Bloomingdales?  Typical far left hypocrite.)  With each and every post you write, you show more and more of your ignorance about the world, REAL racism, communism, capitalism, REAL bigotry, US history, world history, and pretty much everything else you’ve touched on even peripherally.  Each time you call someone a “racist” (or whatever your “term of the day” is) it just shows how weak your position is – and that you KNOW how weak it is.

 

I’m not posting to win YOU over to my side you moron.  I’m posting to ALLOW YOU to show how utterly clueless you are and how only the completely ignorant would be a true believer.  You’re doing all the hard work for me.  You’re just too stupid to realize it – even after I’ve told you. LAWL

 

avatar

Holly Golightly

Double post... Starting to think it is my browser.

avatar

Nimrod

If you dont like capitalism then GET THE FUCK OFF THIS WEB SITE and off the internet all together. Some one at one point had to have had an idea to start MaxPC, a capitalistic endever. If you dont " rise to power" in this country is because your just to stupid to do so.

Meanwhile, i continue to bring in the big bucks with the company ive started and slaved over for the past 6 years. You go on ahead and keep up your slave mentality and idiot thinking.

avatar

MaximumMike

I almost didn't reply, but this one was too funny. First of all, how do you know I don't read books? Secondly, if I'm stuck on old times, wouldn't I be reading a book instead of hanging out on a tech site? Thirdly, children should own up to their age and stop trying to pretend to be adults.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Sigh, your dungeon is not good enough for you... Time to dump you to a retirement home I guess. Capitalism is self destructive. Just look at your own economy, and look at the economy of India and China... Just do a search on literacy levels of your beloved capitalist nations. Then we can talk business. But for now, you need to just croak, and come back a smarter man.

avatar

Nimrod

Literacy? Instead of broadcasting your stupidity to the world why dont YOU do a search for a book called The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. Then you can see for your self that YOU are perpetuating the stupidity and agenda of your globalist task master. Stupid twit.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Nimrod... More like DimWod! Are you a dumbass or something? I think you should read your favorite book again... Because apparently you are not getting the picture here. Think outside the box you idiot!

avatar

Nimrod

Wow. You took a euphemism for an idiot and turned it, into a pun for the same thing. Again i say, what was that about literacy? Telling me to think out side the box, fuck you. The only thing your doing is toeing the propaganda party line for  communism. Retarded bitch.

 

I suggest you go look up the difference between real capitalism and crony capitalism to spare your self the added flack of being stupid.

 

 

avatar

Holly Golightly

Awe... The Dimwad is using dirty language... Don't blame me for the fact you were raised in the streets. I didn't do it. It is the one true thing you seem to blindly support these days... Capitalism. Ha, don't hate me... Hate the game!

avatar

MaximumMike

Yes, capitalism is turning China and India around, while socialism is destroying the US and Europe. How observant of you.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Wow, you are seriously one annoying troll, that is for damn sure! CHINA IS COMMUNIST you jackass! India is Socialist. 3rd way ring a bell? You should read that book Nimrod the Dimwad is recommending. It will do very well for you. How minimal of you think the way you do. Minimal Mike, seriously, I did nothing to you to start trolling on me. You should be a gentleman and know when to stop.

avatar

MaximumMike

Wow, you really are showing your lack of understanding of pretty much anything here. China and India have communist/socialist social structures, but capitalist economic structures. So capitalism is turning those countries around economically. If you didn't know that, you should probably change the types of books you're reading and try some with actual facts in them. However, socially they are some of the worst places in the world to live, unless of course you are part of the elite rich, upper class. Some of the world's worst civil rights violations happen in China, and many of the world's most impoverished people live in India. These are the very factors of class division you purport to be fighting against. These extremes don't exist in the US despite your ignorance of them. Yet you hold these countries up as models of how we should live? But you want to brush all the social injustice of these countries under the rug because they are doing well economically. You are the epitomy of what you purport to hate.

 

As far as being a gentleman is concerned, I have been very kind considering that you have without warrant called me a troll, insulted my intelligence, and commanded me to either a dungeon or internment. So, why don't you first try acting like a lady. Until then I think I'll go with unseemly hag.

avatar

Holly Golightly

The goal of communism is to create a utopian society. You should read up on their goals. While racism continues to happen here in America, you should ask the homeless what their ethnicity is. Even prisons are dominated by that very same demographic. Fact is, people should not be suffering in the streets. Any government that is okay with letting their people starve without food or water... Or even a home at that, should banished along with the royal monarchy and the religuous elites.

It is a shame that only 1 group of people can prosper in a capitalistic society. I have yet to see one minority, jew or female really break the glass ceiling. All of the richest corporations are owned by one demographic of people. In a communist society, the demographic is all of the people. I mean REAL communist. Not dictators.

avatar

MaximumMike

 

Yes, communism has some very nice idealistic goals on paper. However, no country that has ever tried it has ever been successful. And do you know why, because men are corrupt and greedy. There is nothing in the system of communism that can deal with those factors. So, the outcome will always be the same. Sorry to disappoint you, but unless you have some miraculous solution that will make all men act morally and justly, communism can never work. Capitalism is the one system that creates an incentive for the greedy to act in the interest of others.

Furthermore, it is impossible to reach you ideal of a country with no poverty. I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards it, but you're idealism isn't based in reality at all. You have to remember that the systems you hate were created by people. Changing the system doesn't change the heart of the people. So, until you figure out a way to change men's hearts, it silly to think that they will start treating other men any differently than they alway have. Again, capitalism at least gives them an incentive to play nice.

 

In reference to your misguided and misinformed opinion that only white men in America have done well, you're so far off base that I don't even know where to begin. Why don't you look at the economic figures for Arabic and Asian/Indian peoples in this country. I think that you will find that they are doing quite well. Also, if having a black man for President does not qualify as breaking the glass ceiling, then I think you have a standard no one can ever achieve. Furthermore, show me a country with a better standard of living per capita anywhere in the world. You certainly won't find one where black men are doing any better. And it most certainly won't be China and India. Sorry, Try again.

 

avatar

Holly Golightly

Umm, Obama does not own a business. He is the president. Glass ceiling is a term used in the business world, not the political world. There are plenty of countries where black people lead. Granted they do not own Microsoft or Google equivilants... But over here it is like they have no hope. I find it sad that Harvard's statistics still remain one demographic... Supposedly the best education in this universe has to offer. The only Asian country that seems to do well under capitalism is Japan... And they have been in 20 year recessions, and they are back in it again! I find it funny how capitalism has a strong link to racism. Perhaps why Japan has that special surgury that makes the eyes appear more round. To look like the correct capitalistic way. Just like how hispanics dye their hair blond, and blacks bleaching their skin. There is no pride in capitalism. Why would you not want equality for all of man? It is destroying all of us. Even worst, it is destroying the world with the endless drilling of oil, deforestation to bring forth the American dream of living in the perfect suburb, or that high price condo everyone is dreaming about these days. All culture is disappearing, because everyone want to be that one cool, capitalistic American who watch others suffer. It is a shame that man is greedy to the point that they just want to buy and sell the entire planet. We all should share this planet. Why can't we be more like Holland, Asia, Cuba, and former USSR and less like the kings and queens of the dark ages? We need to move forwards, not backwards.

avatar

MaximumMike

Wow, you're so confused its hopeless. You have zero understanding of racism, economics, cultural identity, or history and have linked the four together in the most ridiculous manner. This isn't even worth refuting. If someone reads and believes this, they deserve to be stuck with the same ridiculous notions as you have.

 

Others were nice when they gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were in college parroting your liberal professors, but I think its worse than that. You cannot possibly be a day over 14 and are most likely 12. You have illiterate liberal parents who are repeating things they don't understand. You are repeating them, having no maturity, no understanding of the world, no understanding of history, and no understanding of the actual topics you are harping on about. You cling to your ideas religiously because you feel Mommy and Daddy couldn't possibly be wrong. The only other explanations for you that make sense are that you are seriously mentally defective and in need of State care in an institution, or that you are purposely acting like an idiot because you get a kick out of it, and thus are a troll.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Oh look... You have offended me because you called me a 12 year old troll. Big flipp'n deal! Boo hoo, you insult my parents. You want to get personal? How is this for person, you are a backwards racist inbred hill billy who likes enjoys not having an equal education for all. Where water fountains and restrooms are seperated by a special color and so on and so forth. You lack a progressive mind. The rest of the world is moving forward. Just look at the EU, and Asia. Socialism and Communism all over the place. While you are stuck in the Georgy Bush era of tax breaks for the large wealthy oil companies who exploit our land, our people, our environment, and send all of the money in Dubai to wear fur coats and guzzle all of the gas while outsourcing your jobs to illegals. What you truly lack is an education. Someone should sue the school you went to, because apparently, they left 1 child behind... You.

avatar

MaximumMike

Ok, I admit it TerribleToaster was right. You really are a troll. Goodbye.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Sigh, double post...

avatar

zaphodbeeblebrox 42

"It is funny how you do not read books"

wait. like animal farm? and 1984?

wow just wow

for the most part i hold back replying to your comments, but you left yourself wide open on this one

avatar

Holly Golightly

Sigh, if life was as simple as being a Jedi... But things are not as black and white as we like to think. When I say "read books" I mean history books. Not fiction. George Orwell is a good author, but I did not talk about him at all. Marxist books, Leninist books, or even Stalin's "United States of Europe" will give you a returned sense that man can do better for all. 

avatar

MaximumMike

Yes, of course. Like massacring 40 million of your own people? Or did you miss that in your pseudo-history class while you were celebrating the acheivements of Stalin?

avatar

Holly Golightly

Yeah, and you forgot that slavery existed. Why, that is the very pearl of capitalism. Not everybody is a white male you know. Women, children, and colored men suffered long enough with your beloved capitalism. Bet you can't say the same for communism. No more discrimination! End the racism, you backward southern hill billy!

avatar

Nimrod

God you are soooooooooooooooooooooo fucking retarded.

avatar

MaximumMike

What in the world has slavery got to do with capitalism? Infact, if you knew anything you would know that slavery holds capitalism back. Abraham Lincoln was the most racist President we ever had ( i bet you didn't read that in your history book), but he opposed slavery. Why, because he knew that it was holding America back economically. And actually that very thing is holding the US back now. Corrupt politicians have allowed large corporations to import products manufactured under conditions of slavery or very close to it, instead of either forcing those corporations to employ American labor or pressuring those countries to pay their workers wages competetive with American workers. This under values American labor and impoverishes the middle class. Slavery is actually very bad for capitalism.

Also, every society in the world has had slavery at one point in time or another, even the communist ones (maybe you should read a little more of China's history). It is its own kind of system and not indemic to any economic structure or race. You really are quite clueless.

avatar

lindethier

I'm sick of this crap.

avatar

KenLV

If they really gave a fuck about “helping” secure OUR (the public's) data, as they claim, they would be working WITH people to secure these sites – without dropping peoples private information/property on the lawn (to continue with the house breaking analogy).  Anything else is grandstanding bullshit to make up for who knows what.

avatar

Recidivist

They never claimed to want to help secure people's data. Where the hell did you get that idea from?

avatar

KenLV

Whenever they - or someone claiming to be “them” or speaking for “them” (whoever “them” is) - they try to justify their actions (you know, when they aren’t admitting that they are just a fucking bunch of vandals) by claiming (hah) that they are just trying to make people aware of the security issues with these systems - ostensibly to make YOU think and secure your data as well as possible.  But, as I said, none of that is the reality of the situation.  In reality they are spoiled children looking to vandalize.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Instead of spray paint and a brick, they use computers.  They are intent on doing nothing more than fucking up your day.  They now generally fully admit this and appeal for support from the lowest common denominator, no, scratch that, they aren’t interested in people even that high on the evolutionary scale, they are appealing for support from lowest of the low, the rest of the douche bags out there who “love the idea of wrecking someone else's online experience anonymously”.  But hey, if that’s the class of person someone considers themselves to be, by all means, rant away about how great these fuckers are.  Mute.

avatar

mgoodman

I think its most likely because if they hadn't done something drastic like that then no one would take them seriously. What would happen if you contacted Sony and said "Your PSN system is insecure. I'll help you fix it."? I imagine that they would have a good laugh about it.

avatar

KenLV

Possibly, but if they said “Your system isn’t secure.  To prove it, here is a ton of shit we found.” And passed it on to them and/or a reputable security firm for verification, THAT would be a different story.  Instead they act as they are, like spoiled children looking to vandalize.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Instead of spray paint and a brick, they use computers.

avatar

Neufeldt2002

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of what is happening. That said, I wonder what will happen to the hackers in other countries? Some of these countries have some pretty harsh laws with no real court, and they don't take their government sites going off line lightly.

avatar

I Jedi

Perhaps someone, in their infinite wisdom, can explain to me why everyone is against LulSec. Why, because they support hacking, taking down, and then distributing confidential information? Call me an outcast to everyone else's ideal here about where these guys should be (in jail), but I actually support what they are doing. I support them because they're actually showing just how inferior and ill-equipped security is online at protecting our private info. If sites, such as the CIA, can get easily hacked by a group of kids, what's to stop the Chinese, or some other organized government from hacking our government's servers, big banks and businesses? No, I appreciate LulSec for bringing to light the need to emphasis on more security. That doesn't mean I support new laws being made to discourage hacking, but that I support more effort into preventing kids from gaining willful access to our private data online.

All of you can tell me the same old story about, "What if it was you that got your information stolen?" Obviously, I wouldn't like it, not one bit; however, I would be less inclined to do business in the future from the company/organization that lost my private info to begin with. Sure, citizens of the UK, who had their documents stolen about them, didn't have much of a choice in the matter, but there have been plenty more, cough, cough Sony cough, who have had major security leaks that should never have arisen. Not if they had truly been doing their job to protect their customer's information to begin with. I won't sit here and argue with any of you about how Sony was trying. The fact is that they lost the info, and apparently it wasn't hard to get for whoever did it.

Hell, take a look at their god damned name: LulSec... Laugh out loud security..... or laughing at security... That's just what it is to them, a big joke. They laugh it up at how simple it is to do what they do. I'm not saying that I would trust them with my wallet, but I certainly appreciate the service their doing by emphasizing on the need to create better security measures.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

Clarification:

“If sites, such as the CIA, can get easily hacked by a group of kids," 

Never happened. DDoS =/= hacking in the context you are using here. 

Address of main points:

1. "Perhaps someone, in their infinite wisdom, can explain to me why everyone is against LulSec. Why, because they support hacking, taking down, and then distributing confidential information?"

Yes. People tend to be against illegal activities, especially those that have the intent to harm others.

2. "Call me an outcast to everyone else's ideal here about where these guys should be (in jail), but I actually support what they are doing."

You're an outcast. Go you.

3. "I support them because they're actually showing just how inferior and ill-equipped security is online at protecting our private info."

No they aren't, that's what white hats do. Look back through MPC, look at all the articles talking about a lack of security. It's been know for a long time. And as of yet, no one has still done anything to beef of security.

4. "That doesn't mean I support new laws being made to discourage hacking, but that I support more effort into preventing kids from gaining willful access to our private data online." You are contradicting yourself with that statement. I suggest you rephrase.

5. "All of you can tell me the same old story about, "What if it was you that got your information stolen?" Obviously, I wouldn't like it, not one bit; however,"

A hypocritical statement does not make for a good argument defense. Particularly in this instance.

6. "I would be less inclined to do business in the future from the company/organization that lost my private info to begin with."

Wishful thinking (a type of emotional appeal). Most people don't have a choice in such matters and in all likeliness  even if they did lose personal info, people would still go with them. Like they are doing right now.

7. "Not if they had truly been doing their job to protect their customer's information to begin with. I won't sit here and argue with any of you about how Sony was trying. The fact is that they lost the info, and apparently it wasn't hard to get for whoever did it."

Not once has anyone ever tried to defend Sony; this statement is ad hominem as you are implying so. Don't poison the well.

You can't associate LulzSec's morality with whether or not Sony was at fault. It's like saying a rapist didn't do anything wrong because the women was dressing promiscuously and was thus at fault.

 8. "Hell, take a look at their god damned name: LulSec... Laugh out loud security..... or laughing at security... That's just what it is to them, a big joke. They laugh it up at how simple it is to do what they do. "

And? How does the fact that they take this as a joke defend them at all? If it doesn't, then don't bring it up, it's irrelevant to the point.

9. "I'm not saying that I would trust them with my wallet,"

Then you are against just as much as everyone else.

10." but I certainly appreciate the service their doing by emphasizing on the need to create better security measures."

That would be what white hats do. You don't need to harm people to show security flaws. It's just not necessary.

 

Overall argument analysis:

Argument is mostly a large "If-by-whisky" statement, try to use more neutral terms in writing. It also contains a Naturalistic fallacy in that it is assuming that because something good can rise out of it, it is then a good thing. In this sense it is also a appeal to the consequences (that a premise is acceptable because it can have desirable consequences).

 

avatar

MaximumMike

Bravo Toaster!

avatar

Recidivist

While I agree with you (Toaster), over Jedi who doesn't know what he's on about;

" "If sites, such as the CIA, can get easily hacked by a group of kids," 

Never happened. DDoS =/= hacking in the context you are using here. "

 

Yes, they didn't hack the CIA, they merely DDoSed them. They did, however, hack the FBI and steal data using a bloody SQL injection. For the FBI, that's just pathetic.

avatar

I Jedi

In what regards am I not right about? I admit that there have been points that I have made, which aren't entirely accurate, and I now see that for myself thanks to Toaster; however, I would like to know from your perspective why you think I am wrong?

avatar

I Jedi

I never stated, or even set out to state that what I was saying was neutral in nature. I knew full well what I was writing was biased to a point of view that I saw; Anyone could see that. When I play Counter-Stike: Source, or visit these articles, I often times hear of other's downplaying LulzSec and for what, I might ask? When you speak of white hats and point out lack of security shown in the past, we often times don't react to such things because nothing has happened. It is only recently, within the last few months, that online hackers have taken advantage of such poor security on networks, that the need for emphasization to protect these networks has become more so pronounced than it has in years. Humans are reactionary creatures in nature. If something isn't affecting us, we do not react to it. It is only when, and often times when the need becomes critical, that we finally make the necessary decisions and acts to fix the problems that we are faced with. With LulzSec, what they are doing may seem evil, but it finally is bringing to light an issue the industry needs to address firmly and swiftly.

While you make good points on some of my arguments, there are some that I simply cannot agree with. For example, when you state that hacking is not the same as DDoSing, I disagree. Anything done by one person or a group, which directly affects the traffic of a network is essentially hacking. Hacking doesn't have to imply information being stolen, or a breach of security only. Otherwise, what do you call a group of people, who willfully disrupt a network? When you talk about my contracting myself when I argued about not wanting new laws, but tougher network security, I'll give you that, to a degree. I don't think, though, that new laws are the answer, I think businesses and governments putting more effort into protecting their user's information is the more effective route.

When you call me a hypocrit when I state, "All of you can tell me the same old story about, "What if it was you that got your information stolen?" Obviously, I wouldn't like it, not one bit," I can certainly see why; however, my statement was to imply that while I may not like my information stolen, it is a consequence because of the failure of companies to better protect my online information. And in relation to when you said that people don't have other options, of course they do! You have Amazon, Newegg, Cruchfield, TigerDirect, just to name a few sources other's can buy from. If you bough a PS3, and are locked into the network, obviously I can see where you might make a case, but that's unfair to say because the consumer went into that option fully knowing they only had the one provider to buy and get things from.

 

 

avatar

Recidivist

"For example, when you state that hacking is not the same as DDoSing, I disagree."

Then you are, simply, an idiot. DDoSing is not hacking. There is no room for disagreement. A hacker, by definition, is someone who breaches security. You do no such thing to launch a DDoS attack, you breach no security, it requires no knowledge or effort what-so-ever, it's just being a nuisance.

 

Either accept your ignorance and shut up, or do some research and post after you have educated yourself.

avatar

I Jedi

That's your argument? A few lines out of everything I said, and so you discredit me for everything I've said? Even I know the word hacker is meant for security breaches and stealing data, as I stated earlier. I simply tried to put the idealism of a hacker and a person who DDoS's in the same boat because by nature both are being disruptive to service.

avatar

Recidivist

Toaster has covered most points, I just wanted to expand upon one. It's 4:30am and I still have better things to do than tell you exactly how you are wrong. Your posts are completely flawed and just ass-backwards. I don't think you understand network security. It's not something you do in a day and is impenatrable to anything.

 

" I simply tried to put the idealism of a hacker and a person who DDoS's in the same boat because by nature both are being disruptive to service."

Just...no. I wrote an explanation, deleted it, wrote a new one, but I just can't be assed to commit to this. Go do your research and learn it for yourself. These aren't hard concepts to grasp.

avatar

I Jedi

Then simply answer me this. What exactly do you call someone, who disrupts a network? I mean, what is the actual term, not what you called it.. a nuisance.

avatar

Recidivist

It depends how they disrupt a network. If they DDoS a service, they're just a script-kiddie nub. If they hack a service and the service provider takes the service down to fix the breach, they are a hacker. If they break into the headquarters and hit the server multiple times with a baseball bat, they are a vandal. If they are an employee who tripped over and accidently pulled a cable out, they are a clumsy so-and-so. There is no 'official' term that encompases them all.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

"I never stated, or even set out to state that what I was saying was neutral in nature. I knew full well what I was writing was biased to a point of view that I saw; anyone could see that." 

You said that you support them because they expose security flaws, but you don't support them because of their harming of individuals. That's called a middle ground. 

" When I play Counter-Stike: Source, or visit these articles, I often times hear of other's downplaying LulzSec and for what, I might ask?" 

Explain what you mean by downplay.

“When you speak of white hats and point out lack of security shown in the past, we often times don't react to such things because nothing has happened."

...No. You are wrong. Where in the world did you get this from? Haven't you ever noticed all the security updates you computer gets?

" It is only recently, within the last few months, that online hackers have taken advantage of such poor security on networks, that the need for emphasization to protect these networks has become more so pronounced than it has in years."

No, it is no more pronounced than before. Everyone knew how bad securities and we still do. What is more pronounced is that now politicians feel they need to make stricter laws and take more legal action against offenders. Which is overall, a bad thing for the people.

"Humans are reactionary creatures in nature. If something isn't affecting us, we do not react to it. "

Humans are reactionary, people; however, are not. We are preemptive, it is part of the foundation of engineering to stop problems before they happen. The other problem with this idea is that this kind of hacking has gone on long before this (and has even been much worse than this), it just never grabbed as much of the limelight.

"With LulzSec, what they are doing may seem evil, but it finally is bringing to light an issue the industry needs to address firmly and swiftly."

What they are doing is evil. It doesn't seem. It IS. You wouldn't argue that Osama Bin Laden only seemed evil because he exposed holes in airline security with 9/11. Positive consequences do not justify crimes.

"when you state that hacking is not the same as DDoSing, I disagree"

I was referring to your context at that moment. The way you wrote your sentence, it made it seem as if the CIA had data stolen and were an open risk of leaking critical info to China. This is not the case.

 

"I think businesses and governments putting more effort into protecting their user's information is the more effective route."

You come up with a better route and then you'll have something to go on. Until then, we go with the best we got.

 

"I can certainly see why; however, my statement was to imply that while I may not like my information stolen, it is a consequence because of the failure of companies to better protect my online information. "

It's not a price you need to pay, nor one that you should.

"And in relation to when you said that people don't have other options, of course they do! You have Amazon, Newegg, Cruchfield, TigerDirect, just to name a few sources other's can buy from."

There are always other limitations. In these examples, price and availability of service comes to mind. Amazon does no operate in all states for example. There is always a reason you pick one service over another. This reason is often based off of what the service offers rather than a side part of that service. People don't go to Newegg because they trust them with personal information more, they go because the prices are lower or they can get a better deal.

"but that's unfair to say because the consumer went into that option fully knowing they only had the one provider to buy and get things from."

If you only have one choice it's not an option. Unfortunately as it is, monopolized are rampant on local levels.

 

 

avatar

I Jedi

"You said that you support them because they expose security flaws, but you don't support them because of their harming of individuals. That's called a middle ground."

You're absolutely right, I don't support them harming others, but because of what they ARE doing to others, it truly is bringing to light the unfortunate reality of what these companies and organizations are failing to do: protect data.

"Explain what you mean by downplay."

When I talk about downplay, I simply mean that everyone I hear is making these guys out to be villains. I don't necessarily see them as "evil," as others seem to imply. One user here even stated very simply that they should, "die." That just goes to show how heated and biased everyone is towards LulzSec.

"...No. You are wrong. Where in the world did you get this from? Haven't you ever noticed all the security updates you computer gets?"

You are absolutely 100% right in this regard. I didn't think about the updates I get, the security patches that are constantly fixed; however, when I see Lulzsec take down another site, or steal information from some organization, it makes me wonder just how difficult it was for LulzSec to do it in the first place. They've stated before that it wasn't hard to actually break into and disrupt service for these organizations that have already been affected. So, when I say the security hasn't been improved, I suppose I'm really implying that the security network administrators are placing on their own individual networks to protect these networks is to lax or inadequant.

"No, it is no more pronounced than before. Everyone knew how bad securities and we still do. What is more pronounced is that now politicians feel they need to make stricter laws and take more legal action against offenders. Which is overall, a bad thing for the people."

Here is where I agree with you, so I don't see where we're not seeing eye to eye? I, too, don't think that new laws are the answer, but at the same time I think these companies need to really take a look at just how strong their security is for their own individual infrastructures. A Tuesday security patch from Microsoft isn't likely to resolve every exploit available to hackers. This is why it's important that security personnel are constantly notified of new potential threats. I'm confident, though, that there are such places that do notify of new threats; however, Microsoft has previously asked people to keep,"hush, hush" on known exploits until Microsoft finds a way it feels best to confront the issue. There are exploits that go unchecked for years.

"What they are doing is evil. It doesn't seem. It IS. You wouldn't argue that Osama Bin Laden only seemed evil because he exposed holes in airline security with 9/11. Positive consequences do not justify crimes."

Evil is a word that can loosely be related to any context anyone wants to throw at it. I can label a politican evil because he/she puts the needs of his constinuents above the needs of the entire nation. You're putting LulzSec on the same level as Osama Bin Laden is fundamentally wrong, I believe. LulSec, while actively terrorizing people by exposing sensitive information, has not threatened to kill anyone, nor have they actually flown any planes into any buildings.

"It's not a price you need to pay, nor one that you should."

You're absolutely right in this regard; however, whenever you put your CC number out there, your name, social security number, out on the web, you are allowing another entity to use that information, and trust that the entity in question has your best interest in mind. In other words, when you shop online, when you give personal information away, you run the risk of being exposed. You're right, it's not right and not something people should be subjected to, but it happens on a daily basis.

 

 

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

"You're absolutely right, I don't support them harming others," 

Then you don't support what they are doing.

"but because of what they ARE doing to others, it truly is bringing to light the unfortunate reality of what these companies and organizations are failing to do: protect data." 

Even storm clouds have silver linings. Doesn't mean I support tornados.

 

"When I talk about downplay, I simply mean that everyone I hear is making these guys out to be villains. I don't necessarily see them as "evil," as others seem to imply."

People are implying that LulzSec hack and release personal data with malicious intent (particularly the intent to cause mayhem). Seeing as LulzSec confirmed this multiple times, I don't know why you would say otherwise. They are, in their own words, villains.

"One user here even stated very simply that they should, "die." That just goes to show how heated and biased everyone is towards LulzSec."

It's the internet. People will tell you go die if you frag them in Counter-Strike.

" Microsoft has previously asked people to keep,"hush, hush" on known exploits until Microsoft finds a way it feels best to confront the issue. There are exploits that go unchecked for years."

Microsoft has asked people not to reveal known exploits until they plug the hole, yes; however, I have yet to hear of one where it took years to plug.

"LulSec, while actively terrorizing people by exposing sensitive information, has not threatened to kill anyone, nor have they actually flown any planes into any buildings."

No one is saying that they did kill people; they are saying that they did very bad things (which was the intent of the analogy). Exposing sensitive information like they have has likely ruined or damaged a few people’s lives. In essence, they are playing with people’s lives for amusement.

What they are doing, exposing people personal info unnecessarily, is a bad thing; their written intent is to do bad things. Because their might be a lessoned learned out of this, doesn't change the fact that they did bad things with the intent to do bad things.

"You're absolutely right in this regard; however, whenever you put your CC number out there, your name, social security number, out on the web, you are allowing another entity to use that information, and trust that the entity in question has your best interest in mind. In other words, when you shop online, when you give personal information away, you run the risk of being exposed. You're right, it's not right and not something people should be subjected to, but it happens on a daily basis."

Then you should not be saying you support LulzSec for doing something you don't think is right.

 

I think you are confusing the idea of supporting LulzSec with the idea of learning from them. We can take away a need for increased security from this without supporting LulzSec. Those are two different ideas that need not be intertwined. I can say we need more security without treating LulzSec like heroes, or even a necessary evil (as has been said, there are many hackers who find exploits, inform companies, and that is the end of it).

 

avatar

I Jedi

Look, in general, you pointed out some hypocritical statements, correcting some half-truths, and showing me in general what points I was wrong at and I appreciate that, as it will help me in the future. I know the majority here, including you, disagree with me on the one major point I made, though. That thanks to LulzSec, security will not be even more scrutinized and looked at than before their help. While I understand white hats do a great job at finding known exploits, and help companies fix these exploits, I simply do not think it was ever enough. When your the minority, you're always suppose to look at what the majority is telling you and weigh it against what you've said and what you believe. I believe in what I said, that LulzSec has now caused a stir for security like never before. Are they (LulzSec) a necessary evil, they shouldn't be. If it's going to get the industry to work harder than before, I see it as a possible good effect, though. Neither you or I are wrong, we just have a difference in opinion when it comes to what we believe to be the right course. Your idealism is more sounder and less harmful, but I don't believe it will get the desired effects we want to see fast enough. My idealism has it's problems because, as you pointed out, I advocate that necessary evil can prevail to good things, and to be honest, I think that will hold true here.

Again, neither you or I are wrong, we just have a difference in opinion about how things should have gone down. I can appreciate that you kept me on my toes, as you'll help me write more effective writing in the future to argue my points, but I have to stick to my guns with what I believe in my original statement about LulzSec.

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.