Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Jun 2011 18:49 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Oh boy, what do we make of this? We haven't paid that much attention to the whole thing as of yet, but with a recent public statement on why they do what they do, I think it's about time to address this thing. Yes, Lulz Security, the hacking group (or whatever they are) that's been causing quite a bit of amok on the web lately.
Thread beginning with comment 477583
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Bah
by umccullough on Fri 17th Jun 2011 19:10 UTC in reply to "Bah"
Member since:

Lets call these guys what they are, immature assholes with zero ethics who's looking to make a name for themselves.

But they can't actually reveal who they really are, lest they end up in prison... so it's kinda of pointless, no?

How do you make a name for yourself if nobody knows who you are? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Bah
by jptros on Fri 17th Jun 2011 19:21 in reply to "RE: Bah"
jptros Member since:

They are indeed making a name for themselves. LulzSec is ringing across the internet, even in main stream news sites. Just because we don't know their real names doesn't mean squat. I don't know the real names of people affiliated with lots of well known organizations, doesn't mean jack.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Bah
by Soulbender on Fri 17th Jun 2011 19:22 in reply to "RE: Bah"
Soulbender Member since:

Making a name for yourself does not necessarily mean people know who you really are.
Then there's these idiotic companies who think's it's a good idea to hire these kind of guys as "security" experts. I mean, come on, a loser like Kevin Mitnick gets fame and fortune and well paying consultancy jobs these days.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Bah - mitnick
by jabbotts on Sat 18th Jun 2011 16:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Bah"
jabbotts Member since:

How much do you know about the Mitnick case? It had a lot more to do with excessive force of law and inflated charges than justice or what Mr Mitnick actually did wrong. Not to say he was innocient but he was not nearly as guilty as made out to be. I mean, "could whistle into a phone and cause nuclear missile launches".. and the court believed this claim. "caused millions of dollars in damages".. never did show any evidence of that one.

The crimes he did commit appear to be for personal knowledge rather than for publicity and disregard of any third parties hurt in the process.

By contrast, lulzsec is showing blatant disregard for innocent third parties harmed in the process. They are indeed seeking publicity. They could expose passwords without usernames. They could expose partial names and partial passwords. They could expose vulnerability details without the trophy necklace of ears. They could even demonstrate responsible disclosure to the organization first as they have apparently done in a few of the cases (US dept of health?).

Since Mr Mitnicks release, there is no evidence of illegal activity. Indeed, he started his own consulting company and helps organizations improve there information security. He's even abstained from perfectly legal events to stay on the right side of the law.

What Mr Mitnick did and has done since is very different from what Lulzsec is doing currently.

If your open to hearing what actually happened:

Reply Parent Score: 2