11 ms·

Hackers are the new lawyers

53 points by calebm 10y ago

Kinnard 10y ago
This doesn't even account for the emergence of crypto-law which drives the point home.
- calebm 10y ago
  Very good point.
unimpressive 10y ago
This title is truly unfortunate, because if the article becomes popular it will contribute to the Computer Programmer Licensing movement.
trjordan 10y ago
I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. It's not perfect, but I'd think lawyers will learn unmasking techniques before corporations hire body-guard divisions full of black-hat crypto types. And international conflict is always messier...
- calebm 10y ago
  Yes, lawyers are still needed. For the sake of brevity, I didn't call the title "Hackers are the new lawyers, but lawyers are still useful." :)
- tobyjsullivan 10y ago
  Unfortunately lawyers still depend on the law as their weapon. And laws tend to respect borders whereas cyber weapons do not. The ability for a lawyer to defend against a cyber attack is incredibly limited. I think the article addresses this in both suggesting these attacks are more common in China (where lawyers from other countries tend to be notoriously ineffective) and in the hypothetical scenario that corporations grow in power to be above the law.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    That's also fortunate, because if some country has odd laws (and many do), at least their effects don't spread too much. Politicians and lawyers try their best to combat this (with laws as their weapon) through treaties. It's really two-sided coin. On the other hand, average person don't have to to learn about technical stuff. On the other, there is also weird stuff like illegal numbers, battles on encryption, censorship, restrictions on reverse engineering and learning, all the copyright/DRM weirdness, and, on more common level, also a lot of uncertainity about if something's legal or not[1] (because, duh, engineering and lawmaking are completely different worlds and they mismatch heavily). ____ [1] You encounter a computer system. You just can't tell if it's legal to access it or not. And a smart lawyers can make it look both ways - it's not tech (where things are straightforward but harsh), just humans persuading other humans.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      > You encounter a computer system. You just can't tell if it's legal to access it or not. I find this point of view fascinating. Walking down the street, do you have any trouble telling which buildings are legal to access and which are not? I would posit that there is nothing unclear about the law here. In meat-space, the social norm is clear: you go into other peoples' property only if you have business there, you go in through the front door, and once there, you do only what the owner would want you to do. Otherwise, your entry is illegal. Nobody complains that you can't tell just by looking at a building whether going inside is legal or not. Some people resist this clear social norm in cyber-space. They want to posit a "right to tinker" or a "right to explore." It is that resistance that creates uncertainty, not the law.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  How is hiring a lawyer to defend yourself against legal attacks any different than hiring a "cyber-thug" to defend yourself against technical attacks?
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. That doesn't actually work here. If someone attacks you from Russia or China or Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you. The reason hack back is unwise and unnecessary is that you don't need deterrence to prevent cyber attacks. In meatspace anybody with a rock and two hands can steal your television and the defenses necessary to prevent that are significantly more expensive than relying on the state to use prison as a deterrent. But it's a lot more practical to maintain a secure digital system than a secure physical system, because digital systems fail closed rather than fail open. If you can't pick a physical lock you can still break a window or bust down the door, but the equivalent brute force against digital systems yields only denial of service rather than unauthorized access. That doesn't mean you can't screw it up. Possible to succeed is not the same as impossible to fail. But it means it's possible to have a good enough defense that you require no offense.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - hienyimba 10y ago
    > If someone attacks you from Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you. This statement is all shades of Wrong. In Nigeria at least, I know you can easily report to the Country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which is currently doing a very good job of getting back foreign stolen money through internet scams.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      Your contention supposes that Nigerian scammers are stealing money because they're keen to invest in easily confiscated securities instruments rather than spending the money like it's burning a hole in their pocket. And that the purported successes of the Nigerian "EFCC" are real and typical rather than government propaganda from a government trying to spin their country's association with 419 scams. And that having your money stolen and then going through an international bureaucratic process to maybe get some of it back is in any way comparable to not having it stolen to begin with. But let's suppose all of that is true. If someone in Nigeria steals your money, you pick up the phone and in five minutes they're in jail and your money is returned. Then you're doing this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo... Because there are still many places where no such process is available. Many of the attacks from China are state-sponsored. Many of the attacks from Russia are from organized crime who have law enforcement on payroll. ISIS. You haven't done anything to refute the point, you're just arguing about which examples I should be using this year.
jeffreyrogers 10y ago
I think this greatly overestimates the importance of IT and high technology in the modern economy. Outside of the pure tech companies that are well known on HN, most technology is used to facilitate the rest of whatever the company in question does. It isn't the business itself. Most economic value is due to labor and tangible products, and cyber attacks can only indirectly touch those. Cyber attacks are unfortunate, sure, but they're hardly all that damaging to the core operations of the organizations they affect, unless, of course, it's something like Stuxnet, where physical damage is done.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Absolutely. One just has to look af the Global 2000 list to see how little tech and software make businesses directly. It's usually indirect as you say, even minimized in many.
- josu 10y ago
  >It isn't the business itself. Neither is lawyering, that's his point. Lawyers do not (usually) create value, they protect it, same as the hackers he is talking about. >Cyber attacks are unfortunate, sure, but they're hardly all that damaging to the core operations of the organizations they affect, unless, of course, it's something like Stuxnet, where physical damage is done. The Sony hack: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/sony-hacking-seth-rogen-evan-goldberg http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/sony-hacking-set... Bangladesh Bank hack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bangladesh_Bank_heist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bangladesh_Bank_heist
  - mathattack 10y ago
    Additionally, software is eating much of the enterprise. By and large software makes companies more efficient. Lawyering makes them less. Adding hackers doesn't just protect the enterprise, it improves it.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      The point of lawyers is not to make companies "more efficient," so that's a strange criticism of them.
goffley3 10y ago
In certain aspects corporations already do have more power than government. However that's because of money rather than tech chops. It's important now more than ever for companies to have a viable security model.
83457 10y ago
off topic... after listening to Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution during my commute over the last month (and to a degree Masters of Doom) it is distracting to see the word "hacker" in relation to cyber attacks/espionage. When I was growing up hacker always meant someone who broke into computer systems/networks, then I started hearing about hacking actually meaning something else originally and of course in more recent years with hacker news, hardware hacking and other usage of the word becoming more popular "hacker" seemed to take back its original meaning. Now after listening to some books that only use the word under its original meaning it is hard to take articles seriously that use it in relation to breaking into systems. When I saw the title of this article I misunderstood their usage of "hackers" /rant
sandworm101 10y ago
Lol. The OP really doesn't understand what lawyers do all day. Running a a so-called 'hacking back' team isn't done lightly. And instigating an attack, hacking without the 'back', is just plain dangerous. I may not be the sort of lawyer that is sent to openly attack rivals via abusive legal process, but I do have a slide deck of hacking back stories that ended badly. One ends with a panicked call to an attorney after a response team snapped a pic from the webcam of the attacking machine ... an virus infected desktop in a kid's bedroom. That team suddenly found the need for legal process and advice, something they eschewed only minutes previously.
- grillvogel 10y ago
  >Lol. lol indeed
- calebm 10y ago
  Just to clarify, I am NOT suggesting companies should be hacking back :) I'm just pointing out a trend, which could continue to evolve.
  - quanticle 10y ago
    Except that it's not even a trend. Which companies hack back? Every major internet firm publicly disavows hacking back (much less launching offensive attacks) specifically because of the massive liabilities it could expose them to.
    - calebm 10y ago
      The trend is Chinese companies attacking other companies. Hacking back is not a trend, as of yet.
      - l33tbro 10y ago
        Then why make such a big, global statement in your title if you know it is not an actual thing? No offence, but it's just hard not to see this as click-bait.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
This isn't really a statement about the relative importance of certain professions, it's mostly a statement about China. They're a lawless country, and we should probably just disconnect their country from the rest of the internet until that changes. Or at least fine them and issue sanctions until they pay up. It would be a very bad idea for a US company to start a renegade hacking team that broke into other companies and stole their documents. That would get you thrown in jail, no matter who you were. It would be an even worse if you started counter-hacking random ips that attacked your machines, because you'd end up with soccer moms crying to politicians on national television about what you did to their kids.
noxToken 10y ago
I mean...I guess? I can see where this analogy is supposed to go, but I feel the author is dismissing how close corporate espionage toes the line between legal and illegal. Even if it's in a scummy manner, lawyers use the laws at hand to protect IP both offensively and defensively. Finding business strategy is one thing. "Let's run through their service, deconstruct it, and see how we can make ours better than theirs." That's above board."Find a hole, pivot, take what you can." Pump the brakes there, sweetie. Or maybe I'm just interpreting this wrong.
seajosh 10y ago
A hacker is really the red-shirt ensign on the away team
meeper16 10y ago
How is this getting upvoted?
_audakel 10y ago
this is a great insight, i have been thinking the same thing for some time. Another angle is the "media image" your company has. I read the book "Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator" after watching some YC videos and was blown away how a few people can use technology (bots, tweets..etc) to influence small local blogs, which influence larger blogs and in turn media outlets like CNN etc.. He talked about using this strategy to shape public opinion which eventually called in the lawyers and caused congress member to resign, and in another case help his friend promote a low budget movie to a national level etc. I can't help but wonder if the competitors of Theranos understand this idea (use tech to influence media to influence regulators)and used it as a weapon that Theranos has not done a good job of defending against. It would be fun to run an analysis of all news articles mentioning Theranos and see historically the sentiment analysis of each one, and at what average sentiment point the regulators got involved. You could extrapolate and see if there is an average media sentiment that can predict when regulators will get involved. Could be a great "weapon" to use.
tdeck 10y ago
I expected this to be about how tech has replaced law as the recommended "just learn this and you'll have a good job" career path for today's students. This is something we as a community should probably have a conversation about. Too many people went to law school, and now they can't find jobs. Meanwhile, the "tech" (read: software) zeitgeist has enthusiastically taken up the mantle by proclaiming that everyone should learn to code and start making $100k. We're only devaluing our own work and setting unrealistic expectations by doing this.
ezoe 10y ago
I was expecting to see an article which predict hackers will develop AI which obsoletes many lawyers. It turns out an article predicting crackers becoming military force by acquiring secret information of competitors. A company who don't spend their effort on R&D and just cloning competitors technologies cannot dominate the market. A company which doesn't seriously concerns security deserve to die. No worries at all.
taesu 10y ago
Catchy title but lack of content and it failed to back itself up.
taesu 10y ago
Catchy title, almost like a click bait. Lack of content and it failed to back itself up. These kind of posts...I don't understand how they are first page of hackers news.
sqeaky 10y ago
Except China does do the most hacking, us Americans do. We have more computers, computer scientists, money and government sanctioned orgs doing hacking. Also this article is super-naive. If a country were not the USA and caught hacking a bunch of western businesses then the US political and military machine would start up. Look at what we pressured others to do about the pirate bay and megaupload.
- calebm 10y ago
  As far as corporate espionage via hacking goes, China is way ahead of the US or any other country.
Ileca 10y ago
I am disappointed. I thought "Lawyers are the new Knights" was a Serial Experiments Lain reference. Nothing new under Neuromancer's sun.
- calebm 10y ago
  You know, I just watched Lain for the first time like 3 months ago. It's quite plausible my subconscious was influenced by it.
  - Ileca 10y ago
    When you will design the login button of your site in development with "Open the nExt", you will know for sure you have been influenced. When you start praying Lain before accessing any network, it's time to call a doctor.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

53 points by calebm 10y ago

Kinnard 10y ago

This doesn't even account for the emergence of crypto-law which drives the point home.

calebm 10y ago
Very good point.

unimpressive 10y ago

This title is truly unfortunate, because if the article becomes popular it will contribute to the Computer Programmer Licensing movement.

trjordan 10y ago

I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. It's not perfect, but I'd think lawyers will learn unmasking techniques before corporations hire body-guard divisions full of black-hat crypto types. And international conflict is always messier...

calebm 10y ago
Yes, lawyers are still needed. For the sake of brevity, I didn't call the title "Hackers are the new lawyers, but lawyers are still useful." :)
tobyjsullivan 10y ago
Unfortunately lawyers still depend on the law as their weapon. And laws tend to respect borders whereas cyber weapons do not. The ability for a lawyer to defend against a cyber attack is incredibly limited. I think the article addresses this in both suggesting these attacks are more common in China (where lawyers from other countries tend to be notoriously ineffective) and in the hypothetical scenario that corporations grow in power to be above the law.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  That's also fortunate, because if some country has odd laws (and many do), at least their effects don't spread too much. Politicians and lawyers try their best to combat this (with laws as their weapon) through treaties. It's really two-sided coin. On the other hand, average person don't have to to learn about technical stuff. On the other, there is also weird stuff like illegal numbers, battles on encryption, censorship, restrictions on reverse engineering and learning, all the copyright/DRM weirdness, and, on more common level, also a lot of uncertainity about if something's legal or not[1] (because, duh, engineering and lawmaking are completely different worlds and they mismatch heavily). ____ [1] You encounter a computer system. You just can't tell if it's legal to access it or not. And a smart lawyers can make it look both ways - it's not tech (where things are straightforward but harsh), just humans persuading other humans.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > You encounter a computer system. You just can't tell if it's legal to access it or not. I find this point of view fascinating. Walking down the street, do you have any trouble telling which buildings are legal to access and which are not? I would posit that there is nothing unclear about the law here. In meat-space, the social norm is clear: you go into other peoples' property only if you have business there, you go in through the front door, and once there, you do only what the owner would want you to do. Otherwise, your entry is illegal. Nobody complains that you can't tell just by looking at a building whether going inside is legal or not. Some people resist this clear social norm in cyber-space. They want to posit a "right to tinker" or a "right to explore." It is that resistance that creates uncertainty, not the law.
marssaxman 10y ago
How is hiring a lawyer to defend yourself against legal attacks any different than hiring a "cyber-thug" to defend yourself against technical attacks?
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attack surface), but hopefully not everybody has to hire cyber-thugs to defend their turf. If another cyber-thug attacks you, you figure out who they are, call your lawyer, and let the state deal with it. That doesn't actually work here. If someone attacks you from Russia or China or Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you. The reason hack back is unwise and unnecessary is that you don't need deterrence to prevent cyber attacks. In meatspace anybody with a rock and two hands can steal your television and the defenses necessary to prevent that are significantly more expensive than relying on the state to use prison as a deterrent. But it's a lot more practical to maintain a secure digital system than a secure physical system, because digital systems fail closed rather than fail open. If you can't pick a physical lock you can still break a window or bust down the door, but the equivalent brute force against digital systems yields only denial of service rather than unauthorized access. That doesn't mean you can't screw it up. Possible to succeed is not the same as impossible to fail. But it means it's possible to have a good enough defense that you require no offense.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hienyimba 10y ago
  > If someone attacks you from Nigeria, there are no lawyers that can help you. This statement is all shades of Wrong. In Nigeria at least, I know you can easily report to the Country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which is currently doing a very good job of getting back foreign stolen money through internet scams.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Your contention supposes that Nigerian scammers are stealing money because they're keen to invest in easily confiscated securities instruments rather than spending the money like it's burning a hole in their pocket. And that the purported successes of the Nigerian "EFCC" are real and typical rather than government propaganda from a government trying to spin their country's association with 419 scams. And that having your money stolen and then going through an international bureaucratic process to maybe get some of it back is in any way comparable to not having it stolen to begin with. But let's suppose all of that is true. If someone in Nigeria steals your money, you pick up the phone and in five minutes they're in jail and your money is returned. Then you're doing this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo... Because there are still many places where no such process is available. Many of the attacks from China are state-sponsored. Many of the attacks from Russia are from organized crime who have law enforcement on payroll. ISIS. You haven't done anything to refute the point, you're just arguing about which examples I should be using this year.

jeffreyrogers 10y ago

I think this greatly overestimates the importance of IT and high technology in the modern economy. Outside of the pure tech companies that are well known on HN, most technology is used to facilitate the rest of whatever the company in question does. It isn't the business itself. Most economic value is due to labor and tangible products, and cyber attacks can only indirectly touch those. Cyber attacks are unfortunate, sure, but they're hardly all that damaging to the core operations of the organizations they affect, unless, of course, it's something like Stuxnet, where physical damage is done.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Absolutely. One just has to look af the Global 2000 list to see how little tech and software make businesses directly. It's usually indirect as you say, even minimized in many.
josu 10y ago
>It isn't the business itself. Neither is lawyering, that's his point. Lawyers do not (usually) create value, they protect it, same as the hackers he is talking about. >Cyber attacks are unfortunate, sure, but they're hardly all that damaging to the core operations of the organizations they affect, unless, of course, it's something like Stuxnet, where physical damage is done. The Sony hack: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/sony-hacking-seth-rogen-evan-goldberg http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/sony-hacking-set... Bangladesh Bank hack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bangladesh_Bank_heist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bangladesh_Bank_heist
- mathattack 10y ago
  Additionally, software is eating much of the enterprise. By and large software makes companies more efficient. Lawyering makes them less. Adding hackers doesn't just protect the enterprise, it improves it.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    The point of lawyers is not to make companies "more efficient," so that's a strange criticism of them.

goffley3 10y ago

In certain aspects corporations already do have more power than government. However that's because of money rather than tech chops. It's important now more than ever for companies to have a viable security model.

83457 10y ago

off topic... after listening to Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution during my commute over the last month (and to a degree Masters of Doom) it is distracting to see the word "hacker" in relation to cyber attacks/espionage. When I was growing up hacker always meant someone who broke into computer systems/networks, then I started hearing about hacking actually meaning something else originally and of course in more recent years with hacker news, hardware hacking and other usage of the word becoming more popular "hacker" seemed to take back its original meaning. Now after listening to some books that only use the word under its original meaning it is hard to take articles seriously that use it in relation to breaking into systems. When I saw the title of this article I misunderstood their usage of "hackers" /rant

sandworm101 10y ago

Lol. The OP really doesn't understand what lawyers do all day. Running a a so-called 'hacking back' team isn't done lightly. And instigating an attack, hacking without the 'back', is just plain dangerous. I may not be the sort of lawyer that is sent to openly attack rivals via abusive legal process, but I do have a slide deck of hacking back stories that ended badly. One ends with a panicked call to an attorney after a response team snapped a pic from the webcam of the attacking machine ... an virus infected desktop in a kid's bedroom. That team suddenly found the need for legal process and advice, something they eschewed only minutes previously.

grillvogel 10y ago
>Lol. lol indeed
calebm 10y ago
Just to clarify, I am NOT suggesting companies should be hacking back :) I'm just pointing out a trend, which could continue to evolve.
- quanticle 10y ago
  Except that it's not even a trend. Which companies hack back? Every major internet firm publicly disavows hacking back (much less launching offensive attacks) specifically because of the massive liabilities it could expose them to.
  - calebm 10y ago
    The trend is Chinese companies attacking other companies. Hacking back is not a trend, as of yet.
    - l33tbro 10y ago
      Then why make such a big, global statement in your title if you know it is not an actual thing? No offence, but it's just hard not to see this as click-bait.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

This isn't really a statement about the relative importance of certain professions, it's mostly a statement about China. They're a lawless country, and we should probably just disconnect their country from the rest of the internet until that changes. Or at least fine them and issue sanctions until they pay up. It would be a very bad idea for a US company to start a renegade hacking team that broke into other companies and stole their documents. That would get you thrown in jail, no matter who you were. It would be an even worse if you started counter-hacking random ips that attacked your machines, because you'd end up with soccer moms crying to politicians on national television about what you did to their kids.

noxToken 10y ago

I mean...I guess? I can see where this analogy is supposed to go, but I feel the author is dismissing how close corporate espionage toes the line between legal and illegal. Even if it's in a scummy manner, lawyers use the laws at hand to protect IP both offensively and defensively. Finding business strategy is one thing. "Let's run through their service, deconstruct it, and see how we can make ours better than theirs." That's above board."Find a hole, pivot, take what you can." Pump the brakes there, sweetie. Or maybe I'm just interpreting this wrong.

seajosh 10y ago

A hacker is really the red-shirt ensign on the away team

meeper16 10y ago

How is this getting upvoted?

_audakel 10y ago

this is a great insight, i have been thinking the same thing for some time. Another angle is the "media image" your company has. I read the book "Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator" after watching some YC videos and was blown away how a few people can use technology (bots, tweets..etc) to influence small local blogs, which influence larger blogs and in turn media outlets like CNN etc.. He talked about using this strategy to shape public opinion which eventually called in the lawyers and caused congress member to resign, and in another case help his friend promote a low budget movie to a national level etc. I can't help but wonder if the competitors of Theranos understand this idea (use tech to influence media to influence regulators)and used it as a weapon that Theranos has not done a good job of defending against. It would be fun to run an analysis of all news articles mentioning Theranos and see historically the sentiment analysis of each one, and at what average sentiment point the regulators got involved. You could extrapolate and see if there is an average media sentiment that can predict when regulators will get involved. Could be a great "weapon" to use.

tdeck 10y ago

I expected this to be about how tech has replaced law as the recommended "just learn this and you'll have a good job" career path for today's students. This is something we as a community should probably have a conversation about. Too many people went to law school, and now they can't find jobs. Meanwhile, the "tech" (read: software) zeitgeist has enthusiastically taken up the mantle by proclaiming that everyone should learn to code and start making $100k. We're only devaluing our own work and setting unrealistic expectations by doing this.

ezoe 10y ago

I was expecting to see an article which predict hackers will develop AI which obsoletes many lawyers. It turns out an article predicting crackers becoming military force by acquiring secret information of competitors. A company who don't spend their effort on R&D and just cloning competitors technologies cannot dominate the market. A company which doesn't seriously concerns security deserve to die. No worries at all.

taesu 10y ago

Catchy title but lack of content and it failed to back itself up.

taesu 10y ago

Catchy title, almost like a click bait. Lack of content and it failed to back itself up. These kind of posts...I don't understand how they are first page of hackers news.

sqeaky 10y ago

Except China does do the most hacking, us Americans do. We have more computers, computer scientists, money and government sanctioned orgs doing hacking. Also this article is super-naive. If a country were not the USA and caught hacking a bunch of western businesses then the US political and military machine would start up. Look at what we pressured others to do about the pirate bay and megaupload.

calebm 10y ago
As far as corporate espionage via hacking goes, China is way ahead of the US or any other country.

Ileca 10y ago

I am disappointed. I thought "Lawyers are the new Knights" was a Serial Experiments Lain reference. Nothing new under Neuromancer's sun.

calebm 10y ago
You know, I just watched Lain for the first time like 3 months ago. It's quite plausible my subconscious was influenced by it.
- Ileca 10y ago
  When you will design the login button of your site in development with "Open the nExt", you will know for sure you have been influenced. When you start praying Lain before accessing any network, it's time to call a doctor.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]