Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Jun 2011 12:13 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Well, after 50 days of causing amok on the web, the guys and/or girls behind LulzSec have called it quits last night. After hacking into the systems of various Arizona law enforcement agencies and releasing countless internal documents, they published a statement on Pastebin yesterday, dumping yet another boatload of data on The Pirate Bay, and announcing their disbanding.
Order by: Score:
12345 password
by unclefester on Sun 26th Jun 2011 12:33 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I noticed one of the police officers used 12345 as a password. Haven't tehy heard of security?

Reply Score: 3

RE: 12345 password
by Rahul on Sun 26th Jun 2011 13:13 UTC in reply to "12345 password"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

what security? welcome to the real world

Reply Score: 5

RE: 12345 password
by yfph on Sun 26th Jun 2011 19:40 UTC in reply to "12345 password"
yfph Member since:
2009-09-03

I noticed one of the police officers used 12345 as a password. Haven't tehy heard of security?

That is the stupidest password I've heard in my life! That is the kind of thing that an idiot would have on his luggage.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: 12345 password
by Ultimatebadass on Sun 26th Jun 2011 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE: 12345 password"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Prepare LulzBoat for departure! ...And change the combination on my luggage.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 12345 password
by DeadFishMan on Sun 26th Jun 2011 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE: 12345 password"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Plus 1 for the Space Balls reference!

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

With phones.. "1234" hit's number one. With passwords, "12345" hits second place only to "123456".

http://www.livehacking.com/2011/06/14/top-10-passcodes-to-avoid-usi...

Given that security "best practices" are actually "what the majority does" not "based on strong security principals".. "12345" as a password could actually be considered a "best practice". ;)

Reply Score: 3

voluntarily disbanded?
by fatjoe on Sun 26th Jun 2011 13:35 UTC
fatjoe
Member since:
2010-01-12

I was under the impression that luzsec quit because the personal details of their members was posted on the tubes last night?

Reply Score: 5

RE: voluntarily disbanded?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Jun 2011 13:37 UTC in reply to "voluntarily disbanded?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I was under the impression that luzsec quit because the personal details of their members was posted on the tubes last night?


The validity of those personal details is extremely questionable, since it all seems to come from that HBGary guy -who can't be trusted, of course. I'll wait for some official confirmation from a trusted source.

Also, those supposed details came later than the disband announcement. LulzSec denied the validity too (but of course, that doesn't say much).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: voluntarily disbanded?
by fatjoe on Sun 26th Jun 2011 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE: voluntarily disbanded?"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Still, you gotta admit that the timing is a little bit suspicious ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: voluntarily disbanded?
by Wafflez on Sun 26th Jun 2011 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: voluntarily disbanded?"
Wafflez Member since:
2011-06-26

I think they just ran out of scripts, as other institutions are safe and updated, so no more "hacking". ;)

Reply Score: 8

...
by Hiev on Sun 26th Jun 2011 14:58 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I think my challenge of hacking OSNews scare the $hit out of them.

Reply Score: 8

RE: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Jun 2011 15:00 UTC in reply to "..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Definitely. I think they hacked us and stumbled upon that collection of unicorn porn we mysteriously have on our server, and then slowly backed away, closed everything up, and decided never to speak of LulzSec ever, ever, ever again.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: ...
by anevilyak on Tue 28th Jun 2011 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

This begs the question of whether rule 34 still holds in this case, but I'm not even going to dare to attempt to google that from work.

Reply Score: 3

Democracy
by judgen on Sun 26th Jun 2011 14:58 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

What gives these people the self proclaimed right to use guerilla tactics in preventing a law from beeing passed in a state by a democratic assembly in wich it is unlikely that most of these felons does not even live in?

The states themselves has the right to create immigration laws, if you want to change opinion of the people that votes on the laws, please call them and explain what you feel and think. Attacking the police department in this manner does not bring much good to the side that is against the proposition. Only more hostility.

Sad.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Democracy
by stanbr on Sun 26th Jun 2011 15:20 UTC in reply to "Democracy"
stanbr Member since:
2009-05-22

I guess they think hacking a 12345 password is easier (and brings more attention)...

Anyways, I'm not really sure yet if democracy is the way to go. Sometimes I just think the majority of ppl is too dumb to decide important things and most of the time they will not make the best option ;) But that's just my opinion...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Democracy
by jack_perry on Sun 26th Jun 2011 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Democracy"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Anyways, I'm not really sure yet if democracy is the way to go.


(1) Democracy is the worst system of government... except for all the others that have been tried.

(2) The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Both courtesy Winston Churchill.

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: Democracy
by Moredhas on Sun 26th Jun 2011 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democracy"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Courtesy of Socrates, something to the effect of "most people are idiots, if most people think something is a good idea, it probably isn't"

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Unfortunately many people do not get what democracy is about. Hint: it is not about voting for a puppet once every n years or about voting for laws you know nothing about. Democracy is the power to the people. It involves education, information, economic access to all kind of resources, etc... Free school for everybody is democratic, free public transportation is democratic, distributing food to the people in need improves democracy. Voting with no real understanding about what this is about is not democratic at all, it is just entertainment.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Democracy
by viton on Mon 27th Jun 2011 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democracy"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Free communications and access to information is the most important ones. Soviet Union did most things you mentioned, but it was far from being democratic.
All communism-plagued countries suffered from it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

That is right but they never claimed to be democratic either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Democracy
by stanbr on Mon 27th Jun 2011 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democracy"
stanbr Member since:
2009-05-22

Good point. But the majority of society right now is too idiot to decide. So, until we have a nice educated society, democracy makes no sense. A benevolent dictator probably would be a better approach. Too bad it's not that easy to find one ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Democracy
by hscottyh on Tue 28th Jun 2011 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democracy"
hscottyh Member since:
2010-10-29

Democracy sucks! The USA is not supposed to be a democracy. Democracy is majority rule. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner".

The USA is supposed to be a republic based on the rule of law where the rights of the individual are protected above the rights of any group. That's what it's supposed to be, sadly it hasn't been a true republic in a long time.

Oh and nothing in life is free. There is no such thing as free schools. You have to rob from one group to give to another for anything the government provides. That is theft.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Democracy
by umccullough on Sun 26th Jun 2011 17:18 UTC in reply to "Democracy"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

What gives these people the self proclaimed right to use guerilla tactics in preventing a law from beeing passed in a state by a democratic assembly in wich it is unlikely that most of these felons does not even live in?


Did they actually prevent a law from being passed?

I got the impression they were more interested in exposing corruption and/or insecurity within Arizona's police force.

AFAICT, they didn't actually disrupt the democratic process, unless you believe potentially uncovering "dirty secrets" for everyone to see is somehow undemocratic.

Anyhow, that doesn't mean I condone their actions - but knowing the actual truth is generally important when it comes to making laws.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Democracy
by dizzey on Sun 26th Jun 2011 21:31 UTC in reply to "Democracy"
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

Democratic well germany was one of those when hitler got his power. Democratic's can do some horrible things to

Reply Score: 1

RE: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 08:44 UTC in reply to "Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

But there is no democracy. The rich people in countries like the USA or western Europe have all the power. That is called an oligarchy. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a poor guy who want to cross the border to get a better life. Sorry guy, we voted you out. Can the guy vote? No, sorry but democracy voted that you do not vote. The people outside the border do not participate in democracy. Democracy is a joke. It is just there to entertain the people. The power is financial, it does not belong to the people. If you have the money you can immigrate in any country you want. They will be happy to grant you "citizenship" (what a joke) and help you set foot there the best they can. It you don't have the money then get out of "our" soil, we have the right to control our immigration. And you call that democracy...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Democracy
by ricegf on Mon 27th Jun 2011 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Democracy"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

So let me get this straight. Our country isn't a democracy (sic) unless we let NON-citizens outside our border vote on the laws under which we'll live? Seriously?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Democracy is not about voting. Your country gives you an illusion of democracy that looks like democracy from within. They teach you that you live in a democracy since birth and the proof is that you vote. Actually they cherry pick the citizens based on the money they have. If there was a real democracy, all the immigrants would have the same power as the other citizens no matter how much money they have. As it stands, many immigrants are illegal. They still live under your law but it's not the same law that you live under and they have no say in whatever. You call them illegals and pretend to have democracy. This is a joke.

Edited 2011-06-27 13:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Democracy
by ricegf on Mon 27th Jun 2011 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democracy"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

That's truly bizarre. Have you ever even been to the USA?

"Actually they cherry pick the citizens based on the money they have. "

Who's "they"? A person is a citizen who was born or naturalized here. I know several naturalized citizens, none of whom are wealthy. I know not one person in the homeless shelters and missions in which I've worked over the past few decades that have ever had their citizenship revoked. Not one.

"If there was a real democracy, all the immigrants would have the same power as the other citizens no matter how much money they have."

An immigrant who is a naturalized citizen has the same power as any other, with trivial exceptions. Ever heard of Arnold Swartzenagger, recent governor of California? Immigrant.

"As it stands, many immigrants are illegal. They still live under your law..."

They live in violation of our law. By definition - that's why they are "illegal". The solution is to obtain a green card and become a legal immigrant by "living under our law".

Seriously, which country in the world do you propose would allow me to fly in for an afternoon and vote in their elections. Why would they want to permit that?

I think you've been reading some seriously misleading blogs!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

That's truly bizarre. Have you ever even been to the USA?
I didn't single out the USA. Most of western Europe is just like that.

They live in violation of our law. By definition - that's why they are "illegal". The solution is to obtain a green card and become a legal immigrant by "living under our law".

Seriously, which country in the world do you propose would allow me to fly in for an afternoon and vote in their elections. Why would they want to permit that?

Again, democracy is not about voting. The green card should be given to whoever requests it and people should be given all the rights to education, information and access to resources that democracy entails. If you vote to deny access to democracy for a part of the people then you vote against democracy.
If you want to select and cherry pick your immigrants and call those you didn't pick illegals, then you don't have democracy. The illegals are still people and under a democracy they don't exist since the people has the power.

Edited 2011-06-27 16:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Democracy
by ricegf on Mon 27th Jun 2011 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democracy"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Look, we tried that through the early 20th century, and eventually the problems it caused became so dire that we switched to the current system - which, while far from flawless, did in fact resolve the most serious of those problems.

Since you proclaim yourself an expert on "democracy" (ignoring for the moment that we are a republic rather than a democracy) and on the USA (even though you've never set foot in this country), what alternate solutions to those problems would you offer?

Bold pronouncements should be backed by bold solutions. Let's hear 'em!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Here is my solution: stop bragging about democracy. Until you are a democracy, just get a low profile and don't lecture the world on democracy. Democracy is not necessarily what you want anyway. You have a so called democat party that want to improve democracy in your country. As I understood it they are as powerless as the rest of the political scene but at least they tend to speack in favor of the illegal immigrants. If you don't agree with democracy, it's fine but don't call yourself a democrat then. If you are a republican, you are a republican, not a democrat.

Edited 2011-06-27 19:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Democracy
by smitty on Mon 27th Jun 2011 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democracy"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

democracy is not about voting.

Huh?

The green card should be given to whoever requests it and people should be given all the rights to education, information and access to resources that democracy entails. If you vote to deny access to democracy for a part of the people then you vote against democracy.
If you want to select and cherry pick your immigrants and call those you didn't pick illegals, then you don't have democracy. The illegals are still people and under a democracy they don't exist since the people has the power.

So basically you're saying that all immigration laws are inherently undemocratic and that everyone in the world should be counted as an American citizen?

Sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

If we ever get a single world-government that argument would make sense. While we still have different nation states, it's nonsense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

That is not what I said.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Democracy
by Alfman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ricegf,

"They live in violation of our law. By definition - that's why they are 'illegal'. The solution is to obtain a green card and become a legal immigrant by 'living under our law'."

Green card holders do not vote in the USA, despite being legal residents. They abide by the laws, pay the same taxes, but no voting rights. Is this different in other countries?

But anyway my take is that voting is one ingredient for a genuine democracy. But by itself voting is insufficient - the government needs to be transparent to the people, there cannot be secrets from the people. Democratic governments must make laws for the people, not in spite of them or to control them. Whistle-blowing sources like wikileaks are in fact integral to democracy.

I make the claim that, in democracy, there is no distinction between "government" and "the people", they're one and the same. Of course you've mentioned that the US is a republic, and that's true. Effectively it doesn't matter how the people feel about anything if there's an elite political class who entitle themselves to write laws in their own image.

Take for example billionaire mayor bloomburg in NY, who changed the laws on term restrictions in order to continue "serving" as mayor past legal limits. Noone can compete politically against his wealth and power. His single voice overrides millions of critics - that's not democracy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Democracy
by ricegf on Mon 27th Jun 2011 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democracy"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I initially missed the change in topic - spiderman and I were discussing illegal immigrants and you shifted to legal immigrants, hence the edit.

I'm not familiar with laws concerning legal immigrants in most countries, so I can't answer your specific question with any confidence. I don't think that requiring a person to become a citizen prior to granting voting rights makes the USA less democratic to any significant degree, since an important part of the naturalization process is learning civics and American history - though I'll reserve the right to change my mind after thinking about it more deeply.

I realize the immigration issue is more complex than we can hope to cover here - but I'm sick to death of apologists creating new names for those who violate our immigration laws. Yesterday I heard a newscaster refer to "self-sponsored immigrants". Huh?!? If I'm traveling 120 mph on I-5, am I complying with a "self-sponsored speed limit"?

Before we can resolve the problem, we'll have to stop pretending that it's not really a problem.

Edited 2011-06-27 22:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Democracy
by vodoomoth on Tue 28th Jun 2011 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democracy"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Green card holders do not vote in the USA, despite being legal residents. They abide by the laws, pay the same taxes, but no voting rights. Is this different in other countries?

Same thing here in France. Residents don't vote: I know, I can't. At least not in presidential or parliamentary elections. Maybe they can vote in local elections (mayors and such) but I couldn't tell.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Democracy
by gilljr on Tue 28th Jun 2011 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democracy"
gilljr Member since:
2008-01-30

FYI: The United States of America is a Republic and not a Democracy.

I live in Arizona and have issues with your comments and animosity. There are monetary requirements and health requirements to become a US citizen if you are not born into the country. The US does not want new citizens to become a burden to the system and draw welfare. They have determined this the best way to reduce that risk. I personally have sponsored 2 immigrants to become citizens and neither one of them met the monetary requirements without my help. One is now a productive US citizen and the other will be soon. The only thing that is a joke is your lack of knowledge on the subject.

The US and the State of Arizona provide protections to all people including illegal immigrants. In fact, we provide more protections than most countries.

Arizona is a major traffic path for people entering the US illegally. This has put enormous strain on our State's resources (other States do not have this strain) that the federal government is not willing to cover. The citizens are now enacting laws to discourage illegal immigrants from entering and staying by taking away free services and enabling local law enforcement to supplement the federal law enforcement. These laws are meant to relieve the burden on the State, nothing more.

Unfortunately, it is not in the federal government's interest to put up more than a token effort in stopping illegal immigration. There are powerful lobbing forces (farmers are the ones that come to mind first, but there are others) that do not want illegals to leave because they can be paid lower than legal wages under the table. I think you find this in many countries with high labor costs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Democracy
by smitty on Tue 28th Jun 2011 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

FYI: The United States of America is a Republic and not a Democracy.

Definitely. A true democracy is not possible.

The US and the State of Arizona provide protections to all people including illegal immigrants. In fact, we provide more protections than most countries.

Something often forgotten is that the same issues are happening all around the world. France in particular has had a lot of immigration problems, and I don't think Arizona is particularly worse than any other country.

Arizona is a major traffic path for people entering the US illegally. This has put enormous strain on our State's resources (other States do not have this strain) that the federal government is not willing to cover. The citizens are now enacting laws to discourage illegal immigrants from entering and staying by taking away free services and enabling local law enforcement to supplement the federal law enforcement. These laws are meant to relieve the burden on the State, nothing more.

I'm not sure there's been any serious study actually showing this. Most of the ones I've heard have shown that immigrants have helped the economy by providing cheap labor. That may hurt a few parts of the economy in exchange for helping others, but let's be honest - that's not the reason for what's happening in Arizona. It's because they are easy scapegoats. Unemployment hits 10% because of the bad economy? Govt spending exceeds tax revenue? Must be the illegal immigrant problem, because the government sure doesn't want you to blame them. It really doesn't matter whether or not unemployment would have been 5% or 15% without the immigrants, they're going to take the blame.

And to be fair, they are in the country illegally. So I don't think they have any right to complain.

Unfortunately, it is not in the federal government's interest to put up more than a token effort in stopping illegal immigration. There are powerful lobbing forces (farmers are the ones that come to mind first, but there are others) that do not want illegals to leave because they can be paid lower than legal wages under the table. I think you find this in many countries with high labor costs.

Yep. Ultimately it's not going to be possible to stop illegal immigration as long as the money is available to them. Stop the corporations and farms from hiring them, and they'll stop coming. Is that doable? Certainly - but it's going to piss off big business, which is why it won't happen. Instead, we'll get ineffective half-measures that let politicians tell people they're doing something while still letting businesses take advantage.

While I don't have any problem with the countries immigration laws, I do admit to being troubled by the one in Arizona that requires them to have papers at all times. Even though i can see the logical reasoning behind it, the law will forever be linked in my mind to the way Germany required Jews to carry id. At the time, Jews were blamed by common society for many of the problems of the day, just like immigrants are now. I realize that the current government would never go on to do what the Nazis did, but for me the situations are already too similar to feel comfortable with.

Edited 2011-06-28 01:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Democracy
by DrillSgt on Tue 28th Jun 2011 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democracy"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

While I don't have any problem with the countries immigration laws, I do admit to being troubled by the one in Arizona that requires them to have papers at all times. Even though i can see the logical reasoning behind it, the law will forever be linked in my mind to the way Germany required Jews to carry id. At the time, Jews were blamed by common society for many of the problems of the day, just like immigrants are now. I realize that the current government would never go on to do what the Nazis did, but for me the situations are already too similar to feel comfortable with.


Just wanted to point out, it is not only immigrants that are required to carry "papers", but everyone who lives in the US. Without having a government issued ID on you, be it a drivers license, or regular ID card, etc, the police will take you into custody if they ask for it and you cannot produce it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Democracy
by vitae on Tue 28th Jun 2011 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

I think Arizonans expect too much from the Federal government. Sorry, but this is Arizona's problem being a border state, and if they don't like the job the U.S. government is doing, they are free to build a wall 50 feet high or whatever AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE (not the U.S. taxpayer's).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Democracy
by gilljr on Tue 28th Jun 2011 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Democracy"
gilljr Member since:
2008-01-30

Arizona does not expect to much from the Federal government. Arizona is actually trying to do things but the Federal government is telling them no, taking the State to court. Arizona does not have a problem with implementing solutions at its own expense. The Feds do, saying that it is their job and anyone else trying to regulate immigration (legal or illegal) is breaking the law. Installing a 50ft fence I am sure they would deem illegal. I personally would not go along with a 50ft fence.

If you have followed the immigration issue in Arizona, the State has some tough employer sanction laws to target businesses that hire illegal immigrants. It does not only have laws targeting the immigrants. Employers who focus on hiring illegal immigrants are the modern day slavers if you ask me.

Immigration in the US and the State of Arizona is a big issue. There is to much money supporting illegal immigration for it to stop or for the government to enact measures that discourage the act. Until the government takes a stand, people are going to be taken advantage of. It is plain sad!

I will make no more posts on this subject in this forum because it is way of topic and has nothing to do with OSNews.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Democracy
by spiderman on Tue 28th Jun 2011 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I don't accept the "we do more than other countries" as an excuse. Your country is not the other countries. In my country I hear it all the time. They always take the other countries as an excuse. Even if that was true that other countries do less than mine, so what? This is not an excuse to stagnate while the others catch up. They will never catch up because they use the same excuse. Actually this excuse is conservative. Progress is only possible when you stop waiting for others to catch up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Democracy
by bryanv on Tue 28th Jun 2011 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Democracy"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

They aren't living -under- the law. They're living outside of it. Their continued presence is a violation of the law -- hence ILLEGAL.

Also, if they're here living under our law, then why aren't they PAYING TAXES LIKE THE REST OF THE VOTING POPULATION?!

Yet, they continue to receive the benefits of social services paid for by the rest of the LEGAL, VOTING, TAX-PAYING POPULATION.

We damn well ought to be able to tell them to f**k off and go home. If they want to participate in our society, there are legal ways in which to do that. It's a process engineered to weed out the leeches, and to reward those individuals and families which genuinely want to live, contribute, and flourish in our society.

The rest of the leeches can GTFO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Democracy
by spiderman on Tue 28th Jun 2011 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

They can not be in violation of the law if they are not under the law.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Democracy
by jefro on Mon 27th Jun 2011 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Democracy"
jefro Member since:
2007-04-13

You mis-understand. It is not poor people crossing the boarder for a better life. It is cheap, no good employers that hire them. The employers only pay half or less what the job should pay. I still say it is a simple form of slavery.

I also don't feel bad for anyone in Mexico. They are a member of OPEC. If Mexico were to get honest people in charge they would have Americans sneaking across the boarder.

By the way, millions and millions of poor Mexican and Central American's have become legal citizens based on blanket policies that simply allow anyone in the country to be a citizen.

Only a small fraction of immigrants are from wealthy backgrounds.

Edited 2011-06-27 16:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Democracy
by spiderman on Mon 27th Jun 2011 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Democracy"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I fully agree. This is modern slavery. They did the right thing in Spain when they gave papers to all the "illegal immigrants". Then they went after the employers and forced them to enforce the safety rules and to pay them according to their legal worker status. That is the democratic thing to do. Ousting them is definitely not democratic and should not be confused with democracy.

Reply Score: 2

Probablyj just worried
by pantheraleo on Sun 26th Jun 2011 15:39 UTC
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

They are probably just worried that the teenager arrested in London who is supposedly part of the group is gonna spill his guts and tell everything he knows about the group in order to cut a deal with prosecutors and get a reduced sentence.

Btw Thom, any particular reason why you decided the story I submitted about the FTC launching an antitrust investigation against Google was not news worthy? I saw it was removed from the queue, but never posted.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Probablyj just worried
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Jun 2011 15:40 UTC in reply to "Probablyj just worried"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Btw Thom, any particular reason why you decided the story I submitted about the FTC launching an antitrust investigation against Google was not news worthy? I saw it was removed from the queue, but never posted.


It shouldn't be removed - did someone remove it?

Don't worry, I'll be writing about it. Got all the stuff lined up in Instapaper to read it later today.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Probablyj just worried
by Elv13 on Mon 27th Jun 2011 03:21 UTC in reply to "Probablyj just worried"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Where is the queue, I never found it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Probablyj just worried
by vodoomoth on Tue 28th Jun 2011 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Probablyj just worried"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

It's on the news submission page. You need to click "Submit News".

Reply Score: 2

Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Sun 26th Jun 2011 16:41 UTC
yoshi314@gmail.com
Member since:
2009-12-14

"here's no denying that they have had their impact - for instance, an Australian ISP has announced not to participate in the voluntary net censorship Down Under out of fear of LulzSec. Call it what you want, but I call that a major win. "

right, since lulzsec is apparently no more, that means that that ISP will reconsider. right?

no win there for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com
by unclefester on Mon 27th Jun 2011 03:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Telstra (the Australian "ISP") is one of the largest telecoms companies in the world (~$40 billion capitalisation). They have nothing to fear from LulzSec.

Telstra is considering dropping internet filtering because of a customer backlash.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What, are you saying they're not afraid of some pimply teenagers who have mastered the art of downloading scripts?

Reply Score: 2

Lulzsec sukz
by jefro on Sun 26th Jun 2011 20:07 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

Sure, why pay illegals the correct amount to work here? Let the tax payers instead of the employers pay for social benefits that should be part of the employment package.

There is a large segment of the American public that makes a lot of money from this modern slave traffic. That is really what the illegals are. Modern day slaves, they are protected in places like San Fransisco so that the almost rich can have maids and gardeners. It is there so they can buy cheap fast food.

And to be socially for illegal immigration is nothing short of being a slave trafficker.

Shame on you Lulzsec. You should have picked a better outlet for your skills. Why not use your talents to cure cancer? I'll tell you why, you are just idiots and don't really care to do good.

Reply Score: 7

smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

but there's no denying they were entertaining.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

but there's no denying they were entertaining.


Yes, there is: I didn't find anything they did to be entertaining. And I doubt I'm the only one at that.

Reply Score: 4

Jester & Arizona
by fran on Sun 26th Jun 2011 23:43 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Jester the guy who is said to be the lone hacker that brought down lulzsec is actually not one guy but a US gov anti cybercrime unit.

Regarding Arizona.
Not all Hispanics in Arizona are illegal immigrants.
But by far the most illegal immigrants there is Hispanic.

Accusing a police officer for racial profiling because he asks a Hispanic person for identification is racist against the police officer. If you have identification then what's the problem.
Border town Arizona is under seize from Drug violence spilling over.

Here in Africa you know Namibians, Botswana's, Kenyans, Zimbabweans, Congo and Nigerians, Somali guys look different.
We have a huge immigration problem as well.
Black and white policeman asks immigrants for their papers on the grounds of how they look. This does not make you a racist. This only make you smart. Immigrants is required to wear they're identification for such purposes anyway, so it is only a 20 second check then it's over.

Dont know why this is such a fuss.

Edited 2011-06-26 23:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Jester & Arizona
by vitae on Mon 27th Jun 2011 03:10 UTC in reply to "Jester & Arizona"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

It's racist because this was brought about by an illegal hispanic killing a rancher.

Meanwhile, in the same state a white guy shoots a member of Congress, killing 6 others and wounding a bunch more, but nobody's asking white people for their IDs or checking to see if they're sane enough to carry a gun.

And that's what makes it state sponsored racism. If a white guy had killed that rancher, then nothing. But somebody with different colored skin? "OMG, they're coming across the border to kill us all!" And they send out the Gestapo to make it all better.

All of this in a state with a rather high murder rate to start with.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Jester & Arizona
by fran on Mon 27th Jun 2011 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Jester & Arizona"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

And in Arizona the right to bear arms is exclusive to white people? Is the sale of guns only permitted to white people there? Have any proof.

Let’s say there is a reversal of roles. Let’s say there is an influx into Mexico from the US side. Few would say "Mexican guys" is racist if they check white people for citizenry in a higher ratio.

Talking about "white guys" is a generalisation.
A lot of times white people as whole is generalised and painted badly.
They are not realising their own hypocrisy.
You become more in tune to this when you are a minority like me where I live.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Jester & Arizona
by vitae on Tue 28th Jun 2011 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jester & Arizona"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Pretty sure you totally missed the point there. The point is that you don't blame an entire ethnic group for a crime committed by one member of that ethnic group, because if you do, that is the very definition of racism.

Reply Score: 2

Good Riddance..
by Uncle_Fester on Mon 27th Jun 2011 02:43 UTC
Uncle_Fester
Member since:
2011-06-27

But, I'll bet our friends at Lulusec will still enjoy visits from real-world security, the FBI and the like. Also, let me gently correct your opening language: "causing amok" should be "running amok." Cheers and thanks for the great articles.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good Riddance..
by orestes on Mon 27th Jun 2011 05:19 UTC in reply to "Good Riddance.."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

One can only hope they end up in some hellhole like guantanamo, nameless and forgotten for a decade or two. If not for their actions, then for their hubris.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good Riddance..
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Jun 2011 05:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Good Riddance.."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

One can only hope they end up in some hellhole like guantanamo, nameless and forgotten for a decade or two. If not for their actions, then for their hubris.


People like you scare me.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Good Riddance..
by orestes on Mon 27th Jun 2011 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good Riddance.."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Understandable. People who shrug off things like these pricks were doing as "lulz" terrify me. Those who actually support their actions even moreso.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

They should most definately face a justified legal response. Gitmo though? It's a military prison outside of US borders so the gov has an easier time of breaking it's own human rights laws. Demaning Gitmo for kids that break into computer system? It's kind of like demanding the punishment for j-walking be four years in maximum security.

I'd much rather see them face justifiable punishments. The companies they borke into should also be facing some charges too given the neglegence with which they managed customer information.

Reply Score: 2

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

On the other hand, why should they be treated any differently than other terrorists? That's essentially what they've become, only the damage their acts are going to trigger in the respective legal systems might not become fully apparent for decades.

You are right in that they need to be dealt with in a more public venue though. If only to educate the 4chan kiddies supporting them just how anonymous they aren't.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

the word "terrorist" should really be reserved for honest to goodness terrorist acts. These days, it's more often used to generate an magnified emotional response for sensationalism.

Let me know when one of these guys does more than breaks USC 18 Title 1030. We can revisit the "terrorist" label when they explode a car in a crouded market or otherwise directly cause catastrophic physical harm.

Reply Score: 2

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't take a car bomb to cause catastrophic harm, and in many ways the car bomb is far easier to deal with when cleaning up. It's certainly easier to recognize the effects.

The end result is the same though. Acts of violence and coercion to turn the system against itself and corrupt it into something worse. Subversion, under the distraction of a direct impact.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good Riddance..
by Soulbender on Mon 27th Jun 2011 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Good Riddance.."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Or for being sociopaths. Seriously, you'd have to be one to do what they did "for fun".

Reply Score: 2

Ryan Cleary
by ameasures on Mon 27th Jun 2011 09:30 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

Correct me if I am wrong but: as a British citizen, the American government has the power & right to extradite and prosecute Ryan Cleary on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation.

Frankly if national security experts cannot stand up against teenagers with aspergers then something is wrong with the team of experts.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ryan Cleary - no greater crime
by jabbotts on Tue 28th Jun 2011 12:04 UTC in reply to "Ryan Cleary"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

There really is no greater crime than emberassing a politition or military officer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ryan Cleary
by unclefester on Wed 29th Jun 2011 09:18 UTC in reply to "Ryan Cleary"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Frankly if national security experts cannot stand up against teenagers with aspergers then something is wrong with the team of experts.


You are describing Bill Gates circa 1975.

Reply Score: 2

Jail them
by 3rdalbum on Mon 27th Jun 2011 09:59 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

Well it's good to hear that LulzSec is coming to an end, although I would have preferred that they be put behind bars rather than just slip into the night. Stealing innocent people's credit card details "for the fun of it" and putting those people through a lot of bother and hassle cancelling credit cards is NOT funny, nor is it clever, nor is it a political statement.

It's just plain criminal, and these guys should be made to pick up the soap in Bubba's shower every night.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Jail them
by umccullough on Mon 27th Jun 2011 16:39 UTC in reply to "Jail them"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

It's just plain criminal, and these guys should be made to pick up the soap in Bubba's shower every night.


As should the corporations that pretend they're securing their customers/users data...

Reply Score: 2

it's time
by alibadrelsayed on Mon 27th Jun 2011 11:14 UTC
alibadrelsayed
Member since:
2011-06-27

I think it's time for government to stop stupidity and move toward Linux Operating System, and they won't regret it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: it's time
by WereCatf on Mon 27th Jun 2011 12:42 UTC in reply to "it's time"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think it's time for government to stop stupidity and move toward Linux Operating System, and they won't regret it.


Uhh, how would that help? For example LulzSec simply used quick-and-dirty SQL injection on most of their targets, and well, SQL injection works just as well on Linux as it does on Windows. It's the _website_ that's coded poorly, not the OS, if it allows for an SQL injection.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: it's time
by bryanv on Tue 28th Jun 2011 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE: it's time"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Didn't you know? Linux Fixes Everything!

Reply Score: 2

How secure are you?
by DavidShepherd on Tue 28th Jun 2011 04:00 UTC
DavidShepherd
Member since:
2011-06-28

This is definitely an area individuals also need to put some focus on. If you have the habit of using the same password, you risk someone gaining access to everything. One incident of compromised or hacked data is all it takes!
You can increase your security and protection with two simple tools:
One - Try creating easy to remember unique and strong pass-phrases - Tips how to at the end of this article http://wp.me/p1rE6R-4O
Two - Use LastPass! Reviewed here http://wp.me/p1rE6R-dO

Reply Score: 1

Hiding is not enough
by vodoomoth on Tue 28th Jun 2011 11:25 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

It is not entirely unwarranted to assume that law enforcement may be closing in on them, and that as such, they simply have to disappear for a while.

Usually, hiding is not enough; because traces are left and evidences would lead to proofs.

Reply Score: 2