5 ms·

Sadly, I doubt they can be stopped.

by gasull 15y ago

Wickk 15y ago
No one is infallible, it's only a matter of time until they slip up. They're making a rather large footprint
- madmaze 15y ago
  I think calling it a "large" footprint is an understatement. My conspiracy buddies are going nuts with the idea that its the government trying to convince us to hand over our internet freedom to them. I wish i could laugh at them with confidence
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    Well said. I'm not completely convinced this isn't the government, and I'm definitely not normally a tinfoil-hatter. I think the most likely scenario is that, like the ATF's blind eye toward gun-runners on the Mexico border, an agency or agencies have been ordered to turn a blind eye for now. The chickens are coming home to roost on the ATF thing and I sincerely hope that, if my suspicions are true, they do the same on this.
  - Wickk 15y ago
    Agreed @ the understatement. I'm not sold on this being one gigantic government conspiracy. I wouldn't doubt the existence of this being one giant social engineering tactic, but something in the back of my head tells me otherwise. I stand by the belief however that this group is just further enabling the US and other nations to take actions against internet freedom by their tactics against it.
palish 15y ago
Their twitter account needs to be suspended. It's being used to distribute the proceeds of criminal activity.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  To what end? So they can create another? And another? And another? I'm quite sure they can create new accounts faster than Twitter can delete them, and the last thing Twitter wants to deal with is MORE spam. Smarter to contain the issue.
  - palish 15y ago
    Surely they could red-flag the term "LulzSec"? Yes, I'm advocating some well-thought-out censorship in this case. Anonymity + audience = lulzsec. If we remove the audience, we remove LulzSec.
    - mattdeboard 15y ago
      This is a profoundly short-sighted and ignorant position for many reasons. 1. You will give far more publicity to LulzSec than they are already getting by acknowledging them as such a severe concern you've pulled your engineers off other more valuable tasks to enact draconian and totally meaningless interdiction efforts 2. It won't actually shut them up. LulzSec is an example the ultimate asymmetrical enemy. They have fewer numbers, fewer financial resources and less technology, but have a mastery of the terrain. You don't defeat a guerrilla by pretending they don't exist. You do not attack them where they are strongest. 3. You're not actually achieveing anything here. Twitter isn't exposing itself to legal vulnerability here, and you certainly wouldn't shut up LulzSec for even a split second by just taking away their Twitter account. I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? This kind of short-sighted feel-good finger-in-the-dyke measure is exactly why we're all sitting here screaming into the wind about copyright and piracy. What a shame that there are so many people who think this is the way to handle serious issues on the Internet.
      - palish 15y ago
        I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? Nope. You're correct. When I'm presented with a problem, I tend to point out the first solution that comes to mind. If there are secondary problems, I refine the solution until the problem is solved. In this case, the secondary problems would be that LulzSec would gain more audience, rather than be effectively censored, due to the Streisand effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) Do you have any ideas for a solution?

Sadly, I doubt they can be stopped.

by gasull 15y ago

Sadly, I doubt they can be stopped.

Wickk 15y ago

No one is infallible, it's only a matter of time until they slip up. They're making a rather large footprint

madmaze 15y ago
I think calling it a "large" footprint is an understatement. My conspiracy buddies are going nuts with the idea that its the government trying to convince us to hand over our internet freedom to them. I wish i could laugh at them with confidence
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Well said. I'm not completely convinced this isn't the government, and I'm definitely not normally a tinfoil-hatter. I think the most likely scenario is that, like the ATF's blind eye toward gun-runners on the Mexico border, an agency or agencies have been ordered to turn a blind eye for now. The chickens are coming home to roost on the ATF thing and I sincerely hope that, if my suspicions are true, they do the same on this.
- Wickk 15y ago
  Agreed @ the understatement. I'm not sold on this being one gigantic government conspiracy. I wouldn't doubt the existence of this being one giant social engineering tactic, but something in the back of my head tells me otherwise. I stand by the belief however that this group is just further enabling the US and other nations to take actions against internet freedom by their tactics against it.

palish 15y ago

Their twitter account needs to be suspended. It's being used to distribute the proceeds of criminal activity.

mattdeboard 15y ago
To what end? So they can create another? And another? And another? I'm quite sure they can create new accounts faster than Twitter can delete them, and the last thing Twitter wants to deal with is MORE spam. Smarter to contain the issue.
- palish 15y ago
  Surely they could red-flag the term "LulzSec"? Yes, I'm advocating some well-thought-out censorship in this case. Anonymity + audience = lulzsec. If we remove the audience, we remove LulzSec.
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    This is a profoundly short-sighted and ignorant position for many reasons. 1. You will give far more publicity to LulzSec than they are already getting by acknowledging them as such a severe concern you've pulled your engineers off other more valuable tasks to enact draconian and totally meaningless interdiction efforts 2. It won't actually shut them up. LulzSec is an example the ultimate asymmetrical enemy. They have fewer numbers, fewer financial resources and less technology, but have a mastery of the terrain. You don't defeat a guerrilla by pretending they don't exist. You do not attack them where they are strongest. 3. You're not actually achieveing anything here. Twitter isn't exposing itself to legal vulnerability here, and you certainly wouldn't shut up LulzSec for even a split second by just taking away their Twitter account. I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? This kind of short-sighted feel-good finger-in-the-dyke measure is exactly why we're all sitting here screaming into the wind about copyright and piracy. What a shame that there are so many people who think this is the way to handle serious issues on the Internet.
    - palish 15y ago
      I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? Nope. You're correct. When I'm presented with a problem, I tend to point out the first solution that comes to mind. If there are secondary problems, I refine the solution until the problem is solved. In this case, the secondary problems would be that LulzSec would gain more audience, rather than be effectively censored, due to the Streisand effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) Do you have any ideas for a solution?