LulzSec

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Stealing from Wal-Mart is like stealing games from Sony, not like stealing private information of customers of Sony. That's a superior example.

 

Niji's point is right, although I'd say the differences between the two (stealing from wm and stealing private info) are pretty huge.

[Pendragon]

Yeah, that's how I saw it.

 

Again, I wouldn't be so passionate about the subject if the moral was delivered by someone else.

 

But it's the fact that the thieves themselves are doing it that raises several flags in my brain.

[Harakiri Tiger]

Stealing from Wal-Mart is like stealing games from Sony, not like stealing private information of customers of Sony. That's a superior example.

That is a superior example, yah.

 

That would be significantly more respectable at least. The way they're going about it now strikes me as similar to the kind of outlash a 14 year old boy would have. The kid who wants to strike back but doesn't know what kind of damage striking back the wrong way entails. They really do seem to be blind to their own actions. That's humanity for you, though. We're very bad at associating sympatheticly with people who aren't close to us (forget empathy, haha).

 

Yeah, that's how I saw it.

 

Again, I wouldn't be so passionate about the subject if the moral was delivered by someone else.

 

But it's the fact that the thieves themselves are doing it that raises several flags in my brain.

Either way, it would be good to calm down the arguments a bit otherwise it'll escalate to annoying levels. You have to remember that this is just a random forum on the internet where our opinions won't change much. Haha.

 

Know what you are arguing about. Know why you are arguing about it. Know where you are arguing about it.

 

Otherwise you end up causing unjustified collatoral damage. Like these kids we're talking about.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Like stealing from Wal-Mart puts them in a hurt while their corporate hierarchy is the 2nd largest employer in the US behind the Federal Government, and they pay +90% of their workers minimal wage.

[Pendragon]

Know what you are arguing about. Know why you are arguing about it. Know where you are arguing about it.

 

Otherwise you end up causing unjustified collatoral damage. Like these kids we're talking about.

 

All good points. I'll remember them.

 

I'm just hoping Lulzsec doesn't cross the line and try to steal from FROM SOFTWARE. You think I'm angry now? If they delay AC5 in any way, I'll have an aneurism and PURE HOT RAGE will flow from my ears.

 

But as far as I know, FROM doesn't have 5 year olds programming their net security. So it should be safe.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Pendragon

[Harakiri Tiger]

That's why stealing from Wal-Mart is more respectable than stealing from Wal-Mart's customers.

 

I mean, do you steal the candy bar at the checkout lane or do you steal the wallet of the person in front of you? Both are stealing, but one causes significant more harm than the other. They also do not cause equal harm to all associated parties. The harm is biased in both scenarios to a specific party and only mildly affects the remaining parties.

 

Hence, stealing from Sony would be more respectable than stealing from Sony's customers.

 

This isn't to say stealing is really a respectable thing to do, but there are varying degrees of respect in every action you can take. Be it wrong or right or up or down.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Fuck wal-mart they are scum. They should be stolen from.

[Ataraxis]

Ahh, that's right. I forgot that they've outsourced that. I'll concede to your point now, as I've found out the amount of money that flows through some online sites is huge, and if disrupted could make the market take a turn for the worse.

 

On that note, apparently Steam made more than a small country last time they had their summer sale, which is coming soon.

Exactly. The online economy as a whole operates like a medium-large country, and that's something that can't be ignored. It thrives on globalization.

 

Well, to me it's relevant because it shows action coming from their threats, which makes it more genuine.

But my original point was that the threat of an action is often more effective than the action itself. We've covered some of the nuances of that statement, and I still stand by it. How genuine it is can only be determined by reputation (as you've covered) or when an act of defiance is encountered, and whether or not repercussions follow. As I previously mentioned, defiance can be hard to come by. The reputations in this case are established.

 

Truth be told, keys aren't a very good comparison. While both passwords and keys unlock things, there are only so many keys out there to unlock your door while passwords can be infinitely duplicated without cost. If someone breaks in with a key they made with a locksmith, and the owner determines a duplicate key was used, the owner can check all the locksmiths in town to see if his key was duplicated. And if one of the locksmiths has duplicated your key, you will get a witness to the suspect that made the duplicate.

 

There are no such physical trails like that with passwords, and passwords can be used invisibly, taking your information without leaving evidence that they were ever there.

 

As for people giving out their keys, there's an element of trust that goes into that. "I trust you to not be a dick and use my keys to steal my beer". Not to mention, if something does happen, there is immediately someone you can talk to and see if they misplaced the keys.

 

Trust is a very hard bond to form exclusively over the internet.

 

A better comparison would be retrieving the pass-code for one of these:

 

SHINY KEYPAD

 

And wearing gloves when you typed in the code.

 

That pretty much covers everything, doesn't it?

There are unlicensed and hobbyist locksmiths, so checking them all wouldn't be so cut and dry. Not to mention the complications if they're in on it. Yes, this still provides a witness, but not in a manner different to how everyone involved/with in depth knowledge of LulzSec is a witness.

 

Passwords can be taken without leaving evidence (this fiasco is not an example of such a situation), they can't be used without doing so (the evidence can be hid, but it's there).

 

The trust in giving keys out was what I was getting at, too. Mostly that people are too quick to give that trust. Unlicensed contractors obtain keys all the time, and in those situations, your ass is hardly covered.

 

Your keypad example is definitely more appropriate.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Ataraxis

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I think PD is still mad about that class action lawsuit vid I posted earlier.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I am.

[Magnus]

That doesn't excuse the fact that they lied. They're already stealing from people, how would that further hurt their appearance in ANY way? "OH THESE GUYS ARE TAKING A BUNCH OF CRAP, BUT THEY LEFT THE CREDIT CARDS THEY MUST BE NICE GUYS". That already gives them a horrible track record of trustworthiness.

 

Here's what Lulzsec SHOULD have done:

 

Hack a few websites, release a hundred or so accounts, then let it fly. Everyone would get the message. BUT NO. They're continuing to steal data, even from well protected websites. Why are you punishing the consumer for what the company does? Hmm?

 

In my honest opinion, I'll only trust them when they stop hacking and compensate EVERY SINGLE person who suffered from their attacks. I don't wanna hear any of this "SOME MUST SUFFER FOR THE GREATER GOOD" bullcrap that has been spreading recently. That's NOT how you get a message across. Lulzsec, in their greed and stupidity, seem to have missed that message.

 

Until then, they aren't worthy of trust. And if they refuse to compensate the people who they've made miserable, well they're no better than the corporations that fumble their user data. And thus they have no right to preach about security.

 

 

 

 

A DDOS does count as a hack because it's denying service. So that's two strikes.

 

The third was FAR back before Lulzsec, when Geohot and Fail0verflow made a crack to jailbreak PS3's. The jailbroken systems, thanks to Geohot, were modified to be able to access PSN despite bans on the consoles. Furthermore, they could unban themselves and then ban others, a practice Geohot himself personally encouraged to "punish the man".

 

The way I see it, that's more than enough to not trust Geohot, Lulzsec, or whatever other douchebags have gotten into this.

 

You're still misreading. They haven't lied, and you've got no proof they've lied besides you just saying they're admitting they haven't released data is lying somehow. They're not stealing from people, they're stealing information and releasing it to the public, not at all stealing from random people. OTHER people may use things from the releases, but LulzSec isn't stealing from random people.

 

One hack wouldn't get their message across. Most people wouldn't have cared if there were a persistent threat. You're not counting the message they're trying to convey, which is people shouldn't reuse their passwords.

 

Trust is not 'disagreeing with what they do.' Trust is knowing what someone will do. So everyone trusts LulzSec to hack. Even you trust LulzSec will hack more, no matter how much you deny it. Please don't misuse 'trust.'

 

DDoSing isn't hacking still. It's not an opinion that's up for debate. I'm sorry.

 

No, all this is not me defending LulzSec. This is me correcting you.

 

Please don't fill this topic with inaccurate, baseless speculations. This is not the topic for that.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Obscure

[Artdeux]

Which is why I'm sickened that nobody took this issue up sooner. Because nobody stopped EA's illegal activities, they're alive and well making horrible games and DRM services. But that's getting off topic so I'll stop there.

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

 

But my original point was that the threat of an action is often more effective than the action itself. We've covered some of the nuances of that statement, and I still stand by it. How genuine it is can only be determined by reputation (as you've covered) or when an act of defiance is encountered, and whether or not repercussions follow. As I previously mentioned, defiance can be hard to come by. The reputations in this case are established.

I don't think we're going to be able to come to an agreement on this. Let's just agree to disagree on this one yah?

 

There are unlicensed and hobbyist locksmiths, so checking them all wouldn't be so cut and dry. Not to mention the complications if they're in on it. Yes, this still provides a witness, but not in a manner different to how everyone involved/with in depth knowledge of LulzSec is a witness.

Hm, hadn't thought of that.

 

Passwords can be taken without leaving evidence (this fiasco is not an example of such a situation), they can't be used without doing so (the evidence can be hid, but it's there).

Of course, but the only reason that you'd know if someone got into the account would be if it was obvious someone was in there, things deleted or added, or if you were some sort of security expert checking for intrusions every day. It's not something the regular person is going to know if the person breaking in doesn't add or delete anything.

[Ataraxis]

I don't think we're going to be able to come to an agreement on this. Let's just agree to disagree on this one yah?

History and statistics support both of us. I'm focusing on the majority where people en masse have proven themselves to be submissive to a perceived possibility; though this doesn't mean that I'm arguing against the minority of individuals that have provided evidence for your point as well.

 

Of course, but the only reason that you'd know if someone got into the account would be if it was obvious someone was in there, things deleted or added, or if you were some sort of security expert checking for intrusions every day. It's not something the regular person is going to know if the person breaking in doesn't add or delete anything.

Or if they told you they did in order to get something out of you. Scam artists do this all the time, making phony phone calls about issues with insurance, potential threats to bank accounts, and other avenues of sensitive information. They ask for more information under the guise that they're verifying things in order to protect your assets. This is a multi-million dollar endeavour in Canada alone.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I just read that Brit claims sex with a vegetable is disgusting and wrong. Not sure how I feel about that.

[Harakiri Tiger]

They're not stealing from people, they're stealing information and releasing it to the public, not at all stealing from random people. OTHER people may use things from the releases, but LulzSec isn't stealing from random people.

 

This isn't attacking you personally, but it is attacking that statement and anyone that adheres to that belief.

 

That's an incredibly moronic excuse for their actions. That literally is nothing more than an attempt at an excuse for their actions, too. It's not even a reason for their actions. You're attempting to validate their stealing by claiming that it's not theft and then claiming that they're not the ones misusing the stolen information. That is at its very core foolish and shows a poor ability to judge situations.

 

I don't seem to recall the people who had their information used stating that they had granted LulzSec permission to use it. That is called taking their information without their permission. In simpler terms that is called stealing. I also don't seem to recall the people who had their information taken stating that they had granted LulzSec permission to distribute it to the general populace. That is called using their information in a method they would not approve of without their permission. That is called misuse. LulzSec has both stolen and misused private information of the general populace.

 

A right does not undo a wrong. A wrong does not undo a right. They do not balance each other out. They stand as seperate scenarios that you will be judged on accordingly. A child murderer who donates thousands of dollars to the cure for cancer every year does not get special lenience in a court and should not. He is unstable and dangerous at best.

 

Going with the previous Wal-Mart example, instead of someone stealing the candy bar at the checkout lane or stealing someones wallet at the checkout lane, they're instead grabbing the wallet in the pocket of the man in front of them and opening it, taking a picture of his driver's license with their phone, giving it back to the man, and then taking a picture of the man's signature after he signs it off on the credit card machine's screen or receipt. Then, they open their phone and begin reading all the information off loudly in the middle of the Wal-Mart checkout lane.

 

Now they say "Look at how badly Wal-Mart protects its customer's information.", because it was so easy to take a picture of the man signing his name off for the sale followed up by "Look at how badly this man protects his information.", because it was so easy to take his wallet from him. Now he has stolen private information from the man and then released that information to the immediate public. Then he says, "Don't worry, I'll be sure to delete the picture off my phone later. Now you know to protect yourself better!"

 

How wonderful of him.

 

By the way Magnus, I want you to do that. I want you to perform the example I just gave in a Wal-Mart. I want you to have a friend sit off to the side and record it with a camera, too. I want to see the reaction of the people around as you give the man his wallet back after you took it. I want to see his face when you tell him it isn't stealing, since you didn't take his money. Then I want to see the reaction of the people around you when you start to read his private information off out loud to the public, albeit just information from his driver's license.

 

I wonder if you'll go to jail for that? I mean it's so much less impactful than what LulzSec is doing. The benefits should outweight the cons, since no real damage was done and no one else can really misuse the information. I doubt anyone would even remember it after a day. Would you go to jail for that, you think? Haha! I wonder if the guy you targeted would want to punch your face? That would definitely be the most entertaining thing you could find out for us. You could always try your line of reasoning with him, you know? Maybe it'll keep you from getting jailed. Haha.

 

Really, though. Until you've done that and proven that it's not a crime and that the people at the store during that event feel like their lives are now better off after your stunt than they were before it, I'd have to say your line of reasoning is 100% invalid.

 

The belief that people must learn through threats and force validates one of the most disgusting traits of some religious zealots and helps hold our species back. That basic goodness is a trait that comes from outside of humanity. That we are incapable of behaving like intelligent creatures capable of foresight. That, as a species, we do not have the ability to increase our general welfare. Afterall, someone could stab you in the back at a Wal-Mart checkout lane pretty easy, so we should all wear armor to Wal-Mart.

 

Sometimes the only way to teach people is to stab them, though right? Stab them in the back, make them wear that armor. Fuck being a creature with a brain. A species that could understand that if they don't stab people in the back at the checkout lane that it would negate the need to wear armor to the store, making our trips to the store easier and more comfortable. We don't want a state of better welfare for our species. We should all have to carry guns and swords and wear armor and gas masks and be strapped down with dynamite so we're not fucked by someone else everywhere we go. Fuck brains. Fuck intelligence. We're all just base animals with the undeveloped brains of ten year olds. We have the foresight of a child with a brain tumor. We should act that way! Fuck you if you're one of those intelligent fuckers. You should give up your intelligence, give up one of your distinguishing traits and be a base animal with the rest of us.

 

A woman does not deserve to be raped because she wears slutty clothes. A man does not deserve to die because he leaves his back bare to you at a checkout lane. A wallet does not deserve to be stolen because it was left out on the cabinet dresser when your friend goes to use the bathroom. A child does not deserve to be raped because he went to go find his lost dog and ended up the wrong neighborhood. A ten dollar bill does not deserve to be taken off the table of a Master of California tournament just because no one is watching. If you believe any of these things are right you should probably seek immediate clinical help. You should also find someone to babysit you, because you are incapable of being an adult on your own.

 

The end does not justify the means, the end justifies the end. The means justify the means.

 

Fkn Gaddafi. We should burn all of Libya's fields to the ground and issue a quarantine on his country. That'll teach the fucker to oppose the will of the fucking USA.

 

Maybe you're a base animal, but I'm not. You play too much Demon's Souls. You need to get out more.

[Brit]

I just read that Brit claims sex with a vegetable is disgusting and wrong. Not sure how I feel about that.

 

No, no, not the GROUND vegetables. There is no morality defending the PLANT vegetables. I was referring to the HUMAN vegetables. You know, think Terry Schiavo.

 

I mean, if a dude or chick wants to screw a zucchini or blow a cucumber, that's fine, just stay out of the hospitals.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Morality is a creation of man.

[Magnus]

I don't really believe it myself, Niji. I'm just tired of someone stating their position incorrectly. (But damn you replied to it. That's a fantastic example. Also I totally won't do that. There's no Walmart anywhere near me!)

 

And, maybe just a bit of an animal.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Obscure

[Artdeux]

This isn't attacking you personally, but it is attacking that statement and anyone that adheres to that belief.

 

[snip]

 

Maybe you're a base animal, but I'm not. You play too much Demon's Souls. You need to get out more.

Uhh, what?

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Man is but an animal.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Man is but an animal that's going to shove a cucumber into his sexual partner, now that he knows it's cool.

 

EDIT for PCness

Edited June 22, 2011 by Penguin Deus

[Falco]

maybe lulzsec released the info as a social experiment, to prove that people would be assholes enough to steal cash from random cards or buy shit like dildos with em

[Magnus]

Like anyone would need to test that.

[Harakiri Tiger]

I don't really believe it myself, Niji. I'm just tired of someone stating their position incorrectly. (But damn you replied to it. That's a fantastic example. Also I totally won't do that. There's no Walmart anywhere near me!)

 

And, maybe just a bit of an animal.

I understand, I just wanted to attack the argument. Pendragon can be dumb, haha.

 

Uhh, what?

That was me poking fun at him. Hence my DS joke. I thought of it when I thought of stabbing in the back. TM has this hilarious vid of him doing a backstab/cloak run on DS up on youtube, which I was reminded of. Backstab seems to rape ass in that game in PvP. I can see how it would come off as an attack, though. It's easy to read that post of mine as an angry post (like when I respond to EJ), but it wasn't. My fault there, haha.

 

Even the part about going to a Wal-Mart was just using him as a reference cuz he was the person in the quote, not because I actually think he's dumb, haha. I have more faith in him and most of you to not think that you're that crazy. Though Pen does seem to have a hole in his marble bag.

 

A leak in his vat.

 

 

 

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I hear small holes can be patched with grapes. Big ones I guess a mango or something I dunno.