The "banks" mistakes and failures do not justify the crimes committed by the "robbers". If you forgot to lock your car one day, it would be acceptable for me to steal said car if my intent was to teach you to always lock your doors?
"An activist is a rigidly-defined term meaning an entity which acts to further some idea and bring it to public perception."
If you agree that PETA's red paint stunts are counter-productive, how can you then turn around and argue that the same red paint stunt is furthering (is productive) to the cause?
Raising awareness for privacy and security issues is a good thing. Doing so by creating more privacy and security issues is decidedly counterproductive.
I agree to the defined terms, and further purpose hacktivist is an activist who's chosen/preferred method is "technology", be it illegally accessing private systems, or building nifty robots out of servos and shit.
But, what cause or idea have they furthered? Computer security? Social injustices? Tax evasion by corporate amarica? I can't find one other then their own personal enjoyment.
I can not point to a single action they have taken and describe it as "constructive." The issues they do occasionally allude to could be furthered much more successfully, legally and in a morally responsible fashion (respecting individuals privacy) by other means.
As for their harm, it is fairly self explanatory, but to make it clear, releasing innocent individual's personal information and encouraging others to use it to commit further crimes is most decidedly not neutral.
I don't believe LulzSec's actions helped anyone. If you think they did some good, please enlighten me, point it out. I can't see it.
I'm not talking about multinational corporations!
I'm talking about the people, individuals that did nothing more sinister then reuse a password, who's personal information was released without their consent.
Whoa is everyone except you, who's rights you scoff at.
Well, I think that about sums things up. burgerbrain doesn't "give a shit" about your rights, only his own! But we should still respect his option for some reason I can't think of right now.
Did you see the context of that comment? It was direct quote from the user I was replying to. I used the term "vandalism", in quotes, because that was how the previous poster categorized them. Do I consider them vandalism, on par with graffiti? No. Will a semantic discussion about how to refer to the crimes change anything? I don't see how.
> I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause.
> It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons.
You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you?
> I didn't address this at first because you are making too many assumptions about myself for it to be very interesting
Please quote me on unfounded assumption about you or your views
> Doesn't effect me, so I don't give a shit.
I think this is the most telling response you've made. You might have well as said "Human rights are not important, unless they are mine" because thats how it reads.
So the abuses LulzSec perpetrates are acceptable because they aren't as powerful as the big bad evil government? Or because they appear to hate the government as much as you?
I also could not help but notice you ignored my other points and questions, so ill sum it up.
How has anything LulzSec done been constructive to the cause you claim they represent?
This response reeks of inaccurate presumptions about my beliefs, options and reasoning. Not to mention, you aren't even the guy I was replying to. But I will respond none the less because I believe in open conversation.
>That you fixate on minor website inconvenience to these organizations ("vandalism") while ignoring the scale of the injustices going on shows you're hardly able to even think ill of these organizations.
That you fixate on minor website inconveniences to these organizations ("vandalism") and parade them around like some kind of political message or instrument of change shows just how biases you are. Please give me one piece of evidence (hell, I'll even take conjecture) that these acts of "vandalism" are even related to the "horrifying" injustices the big bad government and security forces commit. How have they helped your cause? Have they stopped a single injustice? Or raised awareness for a reputable cause (besides them selves)?
I think not.
If you want to talk about "horrifying abuses" by the government "with its boot on my neck" then lets talk about that. What does LulzSec have to do with it? Parading them around as heros of a cause they clearly have little concern for and even less connection to only serves to weaken your position on a legitimate issue, government abuse.
So in this little metaphor, the people play the role of the hostages, the government plays the role of the kidnappers (lawless criminals) and LulzSec play the role of the government (the good guys trying to save you)
Interesting. Confusing, but interesting.
> Think about it, how many people in this world have actually signed up to be dominated by their government?
No one is making any such claims.
Your claim appears to be that the government is this "big bad evil uncle who just wants to rape you" or some such nonsense. Do all governments have issues with corruption, abuse of power and not honouring individual's rights: Yes. Has LulzSec exposed a single government (or private/corporate) abuse? Not that I can find.
Lets take a look at some of their releases:
62,000 random logins
> Wow, that sounds like a very decisive and clear attack on those taking our rights roll eyes
Senate.gov internal data
> A copy of their apache config file, and a full file list (no real data, just the file names), I can only assume the documents they found would be so damming and pervasive that it would be wrong to release them....or it was just a publicly accessible site that had nothing to hide, not sure
Pron.com user database
> Clearly human rights abuses happen every day in the Pron.com offices....when they aren't watching porn
Sony International and friends
> I know they tend to make shitty stuff, especially music, but I have yet to have a single person be able to point to an action by sony that could be called "dominating", "abusive", "unjust", etc
PBS.org
> Does this even need an explanation? PBS isnt some evil company out to fuck the little guy. Take a look at their scheduling, Sesame Street, Cat in the Hat Knows A Lot About That! and Seven Wonders of Ancient Egypt. So what exactly has the evil PBS perpetrated to warrant this?
Even the Fox.com hack appears to be their licensing portal for other channels to license their syndicated content. It wasn't even news related, it was the site that let my local fox affilate run crappy reality tv. Absolutely ground breaking.
> We mistakenly think that they protect us when in reality they are just exploiting us.
Really? Because you appear to be mistakenly thinking that LulzSec is her to protect you, rather then exploit you.
They broke into a private computer network, stole your personal information (not the companies, not emploies, but your's) published it without your consent, and encouraged others to use it to commit further crimes agents you. All for personal enjoyment. How exactly has any of their acts helped any real situation? How is LulzSec violating your right to privacy considered an acceptable price to pay for....for what, free porn?
"they released the info so people could change their passwords"
They didn't need to release it for people to change their passwords. Wouldn't proving they compromised the database have be enough? Why does releasing innocent people's information constitute some kind of act of heroism? They did use it for nefarious purposes. They used it for their own personal gain (media/hype/pleasure/whatever). Don't be fooled into thinking they some how did this with your best interest at heart. Not having your info released was what was in your best interest.
They are no more transparent about their operations then Sony is. I find it hard to take people who preach about transparency well wearing the mask of anonymity seriously.
To hold these kids up as an example of "social justice" or some kind of "social movement" or even "security movement" is ludicrous. They are criminals. The only direct benefit of their actions was their own recognition, something the community seemed all too willing to give them.
You really think Sony is now going to be more open about their security practices? Dream on space cadet.
How does breaking into private systems and releasing customers personal information expose abuse and corruption or promote human rights?
Does Sony commit human rights atrocities I am not aware of?
The exposed poor security in select system, perhaps. Does that amount to abuse, corruption or human rights violations? Hardly, irresponsibility at worst.
The "banks" mistakes and failures do not justify the crimes committed by the "robbers". If you forgot to lock your car one day, it would be acceptable for me to steal said car if my intent was to teach you to always lock your doors?