22 ms·

Sure, and I can go around punching people in the face and tell 'em that I'm doing 'em a favour by reminding them to always wear a full-face helmet when out in p

by hugh3 15y ago

Sure, and I can go around punching people in the face and tell 'em that I'm doing 'em a favour by reminding them to always wear a full-face helmet when out in public. But if nobody except me is a big enough asshole to go round punching people in the face at random...

fourk 15y ago
The difference is that one of those people could very well return the favor and give you a proper ass kicking, or determine your identity with relative ease and file a complaint with the police. The disincentives that exist for your example and those that exist for actions similar to those taken by lulzsec are radically different. The conclusion that people should walk around with full-face helmets is ridiculous because of the existing disincentives for assaulting someone. The conclusion that companies should secure their networks, not such an unreasonable expectation.
- brisance 15y ago
  I don't think it's that easy to identify the hackers. Even if you could, which legal jurisdiction applies? What are the legal remedies? Securing networks is indeed a noble goal, but are we prepared to pay for the infrastructure? The end result does not justify the means, and we all know how the story goes. More legislation to "prevent" hacking, and everyone suffers under the yoke of over-reaction.
- roel_v 15y ago
  Right, the problem is that 'digital criminals' are a) not likely enough to get caught, and b) not punished enough if/when they are. What we need are stronger punishments against digital vandalism and profit-oriented digital burglary alike, and more and stronger enforcement. (not being sarcastic, in case anyone's wondering)
  - StavrosK 15y ago
    Good thing our politicians are listening and are prepared to clamp down hard on illegal filesharing.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dorian-graph 15y ago
Wearing a helmet in public would be considered over-the-top whilst LulzSec are generally taking advantage of simply holes (Not considered 'over-the-top') in the websites/servers of multi-million/billion dollar companies.
niels_olson 15y ago
you are ignoring the fact that China (a powerful recent player in math and physics), Russia (long time math and physics powerhouse), or any number of criminal elements have known about these security problems and have possibly been taking full advantage of them for some time, just skipping the publicity bit. LulzSec is, among other things, shaming the companies into tightening up. Red teaming is a good thing. Edit: to be clear, I agree there's no red-team value in DDOS. Though some have ascribed a "sit-in" utility to DDOS in certain circumstances (eg: Anonymous vs MasterCard after Wikileaks broke CableGate).
danssig 15y ago
Silly comparison. There is no reason for people to wear a full-face helmet in public. There may be a reason for people to know self defense though, which is why some martial arts clubs go out on the town with the specific goal of beating someone up: to remind that person and everyone else sees it that they need to know how to defend themselves. Sure, life would be grand if no one ever broke into computers. Security is expensive and not remotely fun. But there will always be someone out there motivated to break in. It's good that these guys are doing it publicly. The more common and nasty ones keep their mouths shut and use our machines to do bad things. EDIT: Made the text a bit clearer.

by hugh3 15y ago

fourk 15y ago

The difference is that one of those people could very well return the favor and give you a proper ass kicking, or determine your identity with relative ease and file a complaint with the police. The disincentives that exist for your example and those that exist for actions similar to those taken by lulzsec are radically different. The conclusion that people should walk around with full-face helmets is ridiculous because of the existing disincentives for assaulting someone. The conclusion that companies should secure their networks, not such an unreasonable expectation.

brisance 15y ago
I don't think it's that easy to identify the hackers. Even if you could, which legal jurisdiction applies? What are the legal remedies? Securing networks is indeed a noble goal, but are we prepared to pay for the infrastructure? The end result does not justify the means, and we all know how the story goes. More legislation to "prevent" hacking, and everyone suffers under the yoke of over-reaction.
roel_v 15y ago
Right, the problem is that 'digital criminals' are a) not likely enough to get caught, and b) not punished enough if/when they are. What we need are stronger punishments against digital vandalism and profit-oriented digital burglary alike, and more and stronger enforcement. (not being sarcastic, in case anyone's wondering)
- StavrosK 15y ago
  Good thing our politicians are listening and are prepared to clamp down hard on illegal filesharing.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dorian-graph 15y ago

Wearing a helmet in public would be considered over-the-top whilst LulzSec are generally taking advantage of simply holes (Not considered 'over-the-top') in the websites/servers of multi-million/billion dollar companies.

niels_olson 15y ago

you are ignoring the fact that China (a powerful recent player in math and physics), Russia (long time math and physics powerhouse), or any number of criminal elements have known about these security problems and have possibly been taking full advantage of them for some time, just skipping the publicity bit. LulzSec is, among other things, shaming the companies into tightening up. Red teaming is a good thing. Edit: to be clear, I agree there's no red-team value in DDOS. Though some have ascribed a "sit-in" utility to DDOS in certain circumstances (eg: Anonymous vs MasterCard after Wikileaks broke CableGate).

danssig 15y ago

Silly comparison. There is no reason for people to wear a full-face helmet in public. There may be a reason for people to know self defense though, which is why some martial arts clubs go out on the town with the specific goal of beating someone up: to remind that person and everyone else sees it that they need to know how to defend themselves. Sure, life would be grand if no one ever broke into computers. Security is expensive and not remotely fun. But there will always be someone out there motivated to break in. It's good that these guys are doing it publicly. The more common and nasty ones keep their mouths shut and use our machines to do bad things. EDIT: Made the text a bit clearer.