4 ms·

Might want to change the title to something like "LulzSec actually had a point after all." They do, too, an even better one than I expected. Not only are they m

by saulrh 15y ago

Might want to change the title to something like "LulzSec actually had a point after all." They do, too, an even better one than I expected. Not only are they making a point about how terrible security is ("Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked?"), but they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd had this written on day zero.

patrickod 15y ago
Part of me feels that the publicity side of their argument is a little overblown. Many people do publicly disclose exploits, it's just that LulzSec has made a huge deal in the media about each one. Another part of me is happy to see them call people out on their abysmal security practices. Sony would not have upgraded/redone their security practices had there not been attacks. The only thing worse than poor security is having a false assurance that it's good.
hollerith 15y ago
That's not the most important thing I took away from the submitted link. To me, the important thing is that LulzSec says that it derives pleasure from causing harm to people -- like the people who used to add poison to bottles of Tylenol, package the Tylenol back up again and place it back on the supermarket shelf. Although they could be saying that to cover up their real agenda, most writers (and especially most writers who have the tech skills needed to do what LulzSec has done) could not fake an admission of this sort as well as this text would have to have been faked. Since it is natural human behavior to rationalize an antisocial motivation with a more socially-acceptable cover story, you would expect LulzSec to say things like, "We are doing this to bring public attention to how terrible security is." But if it is a rationalization, and it sure seems that way to me, surely it would be a mistake to focus on it and not the true motivations. >they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. What an surprizing interpretation! I interpreted the parts about boredom as a continuation of the author's honestly disclosing his own motivations, not anything about internet users in general.
- thomasz 15y ago
  Lets not overblow things. They don't kill random people, they carry out pranks which can cause emotional and maybe financial distress, that's all.
achompas 15y ago
Not only are they making a point about how terrible security is ("Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked?"), but they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd had this written on day zero. Neither of these are novel concepts: we've heard about abysmal internet security (FireSheep) and low attention spans (Nicholas Carr[0, 1] and Jonah Lehrer[2]) repeatedly over the last couple of years. This release may seem profound to you, but LulzSec proposes no solutions to the problems they're creating. They're too nihilistic to put on white hats, and they deserve none of your praise as a result. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-googl... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750/ http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/attention_and_intelligence.php http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/attention_and_intelli...
- saulrh 15y ago
  The difference is that LulzSec managed to get their word on every tech blog in the world. They also managed to get their basic message - nothing is safe, and here's proof - onto nearly every single major news site in existence, and they made their message immediately and personally important to millions of people. That's why I'm praising them. They don't need to propose a solution; that's already been done. They don't need to have a new message; extant messages are good enough. What they bring to the party is visibility.
  - achompas 15y ago
    What they bring to the party is visibility. Do published books and articles in The Atlantic, Wired, and NYT not work for you? Those are a few of the news sites that have covered declining attention spans. As for internet security--anyone who can do something about it already knew there was a problem. On the consumer end, what are users supposed to do? Add symbols to their passwords? That would delay GPU- or SSD-based brute force techniques by, what, 10 seconds?
    - 15y ago

by saulrh 15y ago

patrickod 15y ago

Part of me feels that the publicity side of their argument is a little overblown. Many people do publicly disclose exploits, it's just that LulzSec has made a huge deal in the media about each one. Another part of me is happy to see them call people out on their abysmal security practices. Sony would not have upgraded/redone their security practices had there not been attacks. The only thing worse than poor security is having a false assurance that it's good.

hollerith 15y ago

That's not the most important thing I took away from the submitted link. To me, the important thing is that LulzSec says that it derives pleasure from causing harm to people -- like the people who used to add poison to bottles of Tylenol, package the Tylenol back up again and place it back on the supermarket shelf. Although they could be saying that to cover up their real agenda, most writers (and especially most writers who have the tech skills needed to do what LulzSec has done) could not fake an admission of this sort as well as this text would have to have been faked. Since it is natural human behavior to rationalize an antisocial motivation with a more socially-acceptable cover story, you would expect LulzSec to say things like, "We are doing this to bring public attention to how terrible security is." But if it is a rationalization, and it sure seems that way to me, surely it would be a mistake to focus on it and not the true motivations. >they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. What an surprizing interpretation! I interpreted the parts about boredom as a continuation of the author's honestly disclosing his own motivations, not anything about internet users in general.

thomasz 15y ago
Lets not overblow things. They don't kill random people, they carry out pranks which can cause emotional and maybe financial distress, that's all.

achompas 15y ago

Not only are they making a point about how terrible security is ("Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked?"), but they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd had this written on day zero. Neither of these are novel concepts: we've heard about abysmal internet security (FireSheep) and low attention spans (Nicholas Carr[0, 1] and Jonah Lehrer[2]) repeatedly over the last couple of years. This release may seem profound to you, but LulzSec proposes no solutions to the problems they're creating. They're too nihilistic to put on white hats, and they deserve none of your praise as a result. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-googl... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750/ http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/attention_and_intelligence.php http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/attention_and_intelli...

saulrh 15y ago
The difference is that LulzSec managed to get their word on every tech blog in the world. They also managed to get their basic message - nothing is safe, and here's proof - onto nearly every single major news site in existence, and they made their message immediately and personally important to millions of people. That's why I'm praising them. They don't need to propose a solution; that's already been done. They don't need to have a new message; extant messages are good enough. What they bring to the party is visibility.
- achompas 15y ago
  What they bring to the party is visibility. Do published books and articles in The Atlantic, Wired, and NYT not work for you? Those are a few of the news sites that have covered declining attention spans. As for internet security--anyone who can do something about it already knew there was a problem. On the consumer end, what are users supposed to do? Add symbols to their passwords? That would delay GPU- or SSD-based brute force techniques by, what, 10 seconds?
  - 15y ago