4 ms·

While it may be unlikely for you to get caught in my mind that still doesn't make it a good idea to run Idiocy. In essence I consider it to be a form of cyber t

While it may be unlikely for you to get caught in my mind that still doesn't make it a good idea to run Idiocy. In essence I consider it to be a form of cyber terrorism. Terrorists use illegal or unsavory acts to gain attention and draw media coverage of their cause. Essentially idiocy is just cyber terrorism. It says "Look! I can take over your account. Now that you are scared let me show you what I want you to do." I'm sure that if this takes off it will get media coverage, and may even cause people and websites to change their habits and protocols, but why should terrorism be used to accomplish a change to secure web protocols? Then again I have never been a believer in "the end justifies the means" so even assuming that the end result of forcing people to use HTTPS is good, I don't think cyber terrorism is a good way to accomplish it.

Groxx 16y ago
Didn't mean to imply I disagreed with your stance, just pointing out the relative security (unless someone else knows something) of running it. It probably is illegal, yes, and I won't personally run it, nor recommend anyone else does (as much as I've toyed with the idea of doing just such a thing by hand, at times). One could consider this civil disobedience, however, as it's not inherently harmful nor capable of spreading like a virus, and is for a good cause. At worst it annoys and makes people more paranoid online (as they should be), at best it causes change.
- NathanKP 16y ago
  I understand. Mainly I'm just worried that people aren't thinking things through completely when they make a tool like this freely available. Personally I expect that Firesheep will be used mostly by 4chan, script kiddies, and others who just want lulz. Idiocy is clearly an attempt to use the same concepts for good, but it is still mildly worrying from the point of view of the methods being used to accomplish the goal. Like I said, it feels like a terrorist-style attention grabber to me.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Could we not use "terrorist style" to describe things like this? I don't think anybody is going to get killed over this.
    - NathanKP 16y ago
      I think it is sort of interesting that terrorism is such a loaded term that people object to its use. Terrorism doesn't have to involve killing people. It just means scaring people into doing what you want.
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        You really want to argue that security system salespeople are terrorists? Really?
      - Natsu 16y ago
        While I understand what you're saying, the problem with terms like that is that they shut down rational thought for many people. It's by no means the only such term, though: 'Republican' and 'Democrat' have the same kind of effect for a very large percentage of the problem with thoughts equivalent to, "Oh, he's an X. That tells me all I need to know about him and I don't have to know anything else."
pavel_lishin 16y ago
By that definition, if I find a flaw in (as an example) the New York Times, and e-mail them explaining the flaw and how to fix it, I'm engaging in cyber terrorism. Shit, I remember when people would throw around the words "white hat" and "black hat", instead of "terrorism".
- NathanKP 16y ago
  No one gets scared when you point out a flaw in the New York Times. (Except maybe the writer who is now at risk of getting fired.) Additionally, pointing out a flaw in a newspaper is not illegal. Impersonating someone is (or can be depending on what you do while impersonating them). Whether it is black hat or white hat wasn't my point. My point is that Idiocy aims to accomplish change by scaring people and getting media attention. That is the same thing that terrorism does, so I think the term fits. Now whether it is possible to have "white hat" terrorism is another related argument but it doesn't invalidate by original point.
  - gloob 16y ago
    My point is that Idiocy aims to accomplish change by scaring people and getting media attention. That is the same thing that terrorism does For what it's worth, that's also the same thing that many politicians and lobby groups do.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      I think that supports their argument.
    - NathanKP 16y ago
      Terrorism is used by many groups. In the broadest definition terrorism is the systematic use of fear especially as a means of coercion. Therefore, the spreading of FUD by politicians definitely fits under the umbrella of terrorism. In fact if you take out the media factor the United States commits terrorism all the time with its drones flying in the middle east. Terrorism is being used to fight terrorists. When a parent threatens a child with punishment for not changing their behavior it is terrorism. As I said, you can debate whether it is possible to have "good terrorism" or terrorism for a noble cause. Sometimes fear seems to be necessary. If criminals and citizens weren't at least slightly afraid of the police and government the world would probably be a lot more dangerous.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tcskeptic 16y ago
In my opinion this kind of cheapening of the language kills our ability to communicate as human beings. When you compare being redirected involuntarily to a polite note that helps you understand how currently insecure your use of twitter is to vicious and violent acts, many of which result in the brutal death of innocent bystanders, acts in which mothers watch their children die in agony, you debase the language to such an extent as to be talking babble. I don't know what the rhetorical strategy is called that you have employed, but it is beneath you.
- NathanKP 16y ago
  Personally I believe the exact opposite. It is important that we break free from the political propaganda that says that terrorism means a suicide bomber that kills others, and recognize that the basic concept of terrorism is used all the time by our own respective governments and other power figures. I see it as terrorism when a religious leader tells people that they will go to hell for not following religious tenants. I see it as terrorism when a government uses FUD on its own people to get them to support a war on another nation. I also see it as a form of terrorism to take over someone's account and post something in their name. The average person who discovers that someone has hijacked their account and posted in their name is going to feel angry and afraid. As far as I see it Idiocy and Firesheep can be used in the same manner as terrorism: to frighten people by threatening them. Sure the threat of taking over an online account is much less than the threat of death by a suicide bomb, but I see no reason why it should not be called terrorism. Instead I find it fascinating that there is so much negative feelings toward me personally for using the word terrorism. Is it suddenly non-kosher to make a comparison? You say I am "cheapening language skills" and "talking babble". I am just surprised at your vehement response, and the general dislike of my use of the word. I have a broad view of what terrorism is, you evidently have a very narrow view. If you do not want to broaden your view of what a terrorist act can be, then you will not notice the many subtle acts of terrorism committed. If people insist that terrorism can only be applied to acts of physical violence then they will be unaware of the way governments, political leaders, religious leaders, and others use fear to control the masses. But the point of my comments originally were not to define terrorism, but instead to explain why I might disapprove of Idiocy. Instead it appears to have turned into a large discussion on whether or not it is right to use the word terrorism to describe something which scares someone into changing their actions or habits. At any rate, downvotes do not hurt me, but I am disappointed by the narrow view of what the word terrorism means.

Groxx 16y ago

Didn't mean to imply I disagreed with your stance, just pointing out the relative security (unless someone else knows something) of running it. It probably is illegal, yes, and I won't personally run it, nor recommend anyone else does (as much as I've toyed with the idea of doing just such a thing by hand, at times). One could consider this civil disobedience, however, as it's not inherently harmful nor capable of spreading like a virus, and is for a good cause. At worst it annoys and makes people more paranoid online (as they should be), at best it causes change.

NathanKP 16y ago
I understand. Mainly I'm just worried that people aren't thinking things through completely when they make a tool like this freely available. Personally I expect that Firesheep will be used mostly by 4chan, script kiddies, and others who just want lulz. Idiocy is clearly an attempt to use the same concepts for good, but it is still mildly worrying from the point of view of the methods being used to accomplish the goal. Like I said, it feels like a terrorist-style attention grabber to me.
- Natsu 16y ago
  Could we not use "terrorist style" to describe things like this? I don't think anybody is going to get killed over this.
  - NathanKP 16y ago
    I think it is sort of interesting that terrorism is such a loaded term that people object to its use. Terrorism doesn't have to involve killing people. It just means scaring people into doing what you want.
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      You really want to argue that security system salespeople are terrorists? Really?
    - Natsu 16y ago
      While I understand what you're saying, the problem with terms like that is that they shut down rational thought for many people. It's by no means the only such term, though: 'Republican' and 'Democrat' have the same kind of effect for a very large percentage of the problem with thoughts equivalent to, "Oh, he's an X. That tells me all I need to know about him and I don't have to know anything else."

pavel_lishin 16y ago

By that definition, if I find a flaw in (as an example) the New York Times, and e-mail them explaining the flaw and how to fix it, I'm engaging in cyber terrorism. Shit, I remember when people would throw around the words "white hat" and "black hat", instead of "terrorism".

NathanKP 16y ago
No one gets scared when you point out a flaw in the New York Times. (Except maybe the writer who is now at risk of getting fired.) Additionally, pointing out a flaw in a newspaper is not illegal. Impersonating someone is (or can be depending on what you do while impersonating them). Whether it is black hat or white hat wasn't my point. My point is that Idiocy aims to accomplish change by scaring people and getting media attention. That is the same thing that terrorism does, so I think the term fits. Now whether it is possible to have "white hat" terrorism is another related argument but it doesn't invalidate by original point.
- gloob 16y ago
  My point is that Idiocy aims to accomplish change by scaring people and getting media attention. That is the same thing that terrorism does For what it's worth, that's also the same thing that many politicians and lobby groups do.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    I think that supports their argument.
  - NathanKP 16y ago
    Terrorism is used by many groups. In the broadest definition terrorism is the systematic use of fear especially as a means of coercion. Therefore, the spreading of FUD by politicians definitely fits under the umbrella of terrorism. In fact if you take out the media factor the United States commits terrorism all the time with its drones flying in the middle east. Terrorism is being used to fight terrorists. When a parent threatens a child with punishment for not changing their behavior it is terrorism. As I said, you can debate whether it is possible to have "good terrorism" or terrorism for a noble cause. Sometimes fear seems to be necessary. If criminals and citizens weren't at least slightly afraid of the police and government the world would probably be a lot more dangerous.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

tcskeptic 16y ago

In my opinion this kind of cheapening of the language kills our ability to communicate as human beings. When you compare being redirected involuntarily to a polite note that helps you understand how currently insecure your use of twitter is to vicious and violent acts, many of which result in the brutal death of innocent bystanders, acts in which mothers watch their children die in agony, you debase the language to such an extent as to be talking babble. I don't know what the rhetorical strategy is called that you have employed, but it is beneath you.

NathanKP 16y ago
Personally I believe the exact opposite. It is important that we break free from the political propaganda that says that terrorism means a suicide bomber that kills others, and recognize that the basic concept of terrorism is used all the time by our own respective governments and other power figures. I see it as terrorism when a religious leader tells people that they will go to hell for not following religious tenants. I see it as terrorism when a government uses FUD on its own people to get them to support a war on another nation. I also see it as a form of terrorism to take over someone's account and post something in their name. The average person who discovers that someone has hijacked their account and posted in their name is going to feel angry and afraid. As far as I see it Idiocy and Firesheep can be used in the same manner as terrorism: to frighten people by threatening them. Sure the threat of taking over an online account is much less than the threat of death by a suicide bomb, but I see no reason why it should not be called terrorism. Instead I find it fascinating that there is so much negative feelings toward me personally for using the word terrorism. Is it suddenly non-kosher to make a comparison? You say I am "cheapening language skills" and "talking babble". I am just surprised at your vehement response, and the general dislike of my use of the word. I have a broad view of what terrorism is, you evidently have a very narrow view. If you do not want to broaden your view of what a terrorist act can be, then you will not notice the many subtle acts of terrorism committed. If people insist that terrorism can only be applied to acts of physical violence then they will be unaware of the way governments, political leaders, religious leaders, and others use fear to control the masses. But the point of my comments originally were not to define terrorism, but instead to explain why I might disapprove of Idiocy. Instead it appears to have turned into a large discussion on whether or not it is right to use the word terrorism to describe something which scares someone into changing their actions or habits. At any rate, downvotes do not hurt me, but I am disappointed by the narrow view of what the word terrorism means.