9 ms·

"it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts" This is quite the hypocritical statement coming from the FBI. As far as I can tell

by nathanb 15y ago

"it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts" This is quite the hypocritical statement coming from the FBI. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Anonymous, Lulzsec, and the FBI is that the FBI act by executive fiat. I don't support Internet vigilanteism, but I also don't support the concept of the FBI as an untouchable force who are no longer held accountable by the public they are theoretically serving. At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary.

roc 15y ago
> "At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary." There will always be scofflaws and pranksters. Indeed for our way of life to be assured, they must be able to exist. The ever-growing reach of the military-espionage-industrial complex is the only real threat.
- jeremyarussell 15y ago
  I have to find myself agreeing with this, the fact that these individuals (FBI members, govt agencies in general.) are funded beyond the means of normal individuals and given resources that money can't buy. (well I'm sure enough of it can.) Gives them an edge that many people can't fight against. They can do whatever they want with impunity. Now I can't say that opening up a server and releasing all it's users passwords is right, or fair, but there comes a time in war where there must be casualties. In this war of Anon VS govt/corp, Anonymous must use unfair tactics, if only to level out the playing field. That all said, this all reeks of a cold civil war, maybe something will come out of it, maybe nothing will. I'll just keep doing what I do, solving issues of non-freedom the way I can, one person at a time. A lot could be done if people just acted better towards each other. But I think right now that's too much to ask of us(humans).
  - walru 15y ago
    The fact that we're even able to have these thoughtful discussions means that at least we're evolving as a species. For the sake of our survival, may we eventually get to a point where people are judged more for how they treat others, rather than what they are able to purchase.
    - cpeterso 15y ago
      Cory Doctorow's novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, "whuffie" is the ephemeral, reputation-based currency. The book describes a post-scarcity economy: All the necessities (and most of the luxuries) of life are free. Whuffie has replaced money, providing a motivation for people to do useful and creative things. A person's Whuffie is a general measurement of his or her overall reputation and is gained (or lost) according to a person's favorable (or unfavorable) actions. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Whuffie https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Whuffie
      - zer0her0 15y ago
        That's the one book I haven't read by Cory, I wonder if one can modify bitcoins into this(yea i had to bring up bitcoin, it's hacker news req right?)
- nathanb 15y ago
  The scary part isn't that scofflaws and pranksters exist, which (as you say) is practically inevitable. But what if we as a society may some day depend on them to preserve our freedom? Viewing my world in terms of black and white has always been more of a comforting illusion than a reasonable approximation of reality. I realize this. But either these self-styled hacktivists are rationalizing their hooliganism with noble-sounding platitudes or they honestly believe that their way is the best way to fight against corporate corruption and government abuse of its own constituents. If the former, it's becoming less obvious. And the latter is a frightening thought indeed. One day I might have to choose between a government agency whose actions have transcended public accountability (as in the Instapaper raid), corporations who will gladly sacrifice me on the altar of their own convenience (as in the Peter Adekeye case), or a capricious band of anonymous malcontents who might fight for my rights or might hold me up to public mockery and exploitation "for the lulz". But what really scares me is that the choice will be made for me.
- eric-hu 15y ago
  First time I've seen that phrase with the 'espionage' added in there. Makes perfect sense though, espionage should have been part of that term decades ago
ddw 15y ago
Even if Lulzsec gets some of your data, they aren't going to create a huge database of it. The FBI on the other hand...
- ditojim 15y ago
  but the internet is one huge database, and that is where their info is released.
  - ebaysucks 15y ago
    Better a decentralized police state than a centralized one. In fact, a decentralized police state is exactly the only thing a centralized police state has to fear. E.g. see the laws making it illegal to film police in public.
- hankry 15y ago
  why wouldn't they?
  - smallblacksun 15y ago
    Because only governments and big corporations do bad things, of course.
AndyJPartridge 15y ago
Well said. There is no difference between what Lulzsec and Anonymous do, compared with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. None at all. In fact, the FBI did more damage.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. Has it been proven that this is what happened?
  - biturd 15y ago
    It hasn't been unproven either. At least the antisec keeps up posted with full transparency as they go.
  - AndyJPartridge 15y ago
    Having looked back, it seems the Instapaper blog has been redacted. But I ask the questions: Has it been proved the equipment was fairly taken? I thought over the Atlantic pond it was "Innocent until proven guilty." It seems guilt was assumed and equipment taken. No trial.
- tshs33 15y ago
  FBI did not break any federal laws.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Well that only makes it even worse doesn't it?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jackpirate 15y ago
Unfortunately, their definition of "lawful" is that the FBI is doing it. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to call this hypocritical. The FBI at least pretends to have a morally reasonable agenda for its actions.
- nathanb 15y ago
  To me, that's the definition of hypocrisy. They pretend to be acting from a moral (or at least societal) high ground and roundly condemn the actions of anonymous. However, both are engaging in the exact same behavior. Now that's hypocritical!
  - jackpirate 15y ago
    The FBI doesn't normally, and it is not their purpose to engage in the exact same behavior. 95% of the time, they act within bounds I suspect you agree with. I wouldn't consider the 95% hypocrites, only the 5%, and so I can't call the whole agency hypocritical, only parts.
    - thehotdon 15y ago
      Are you allowed to break into other people's property and use weapons to enforce your own system of rules on them? Nope. Are you allowed to lock people in a cage for decades because they do something you disagree with? Of course not. Is the FBI allowed to do this? Well, yes, but only because they're special and you have to do what they say, not what they do. Now what's this word hypocrite you speak of?
- Bud 15y ago
  Aren't you missing something here? LulzSec also claims to have a morally reasonable agenda. Indeed, LulzSec claims to be entirely in the right, morally speaking. Now, reasonable folks can disagree about whether they are actually in the right, but it's false to claim that they are not "pretending" or claiming to have a morally reasonable agenda. They are, quite clearly, making that claim.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
I think that the FBI isn't really the overblown privacy killing big govt overlords that this lil anon skirmish seems to paint them as. The FBI, for the most part, do a mighty fine job of enforcing the law and keeping the peace. Also the FBI operates largely on a case by case basis, they are not an intelligence or defense agency, they are in the justice department. I think the orwellian big govt agency these hacker guys seem to base their doctrine against is the NSA. The 'we can listen to any phone call on the planet, imprison our whistle blowers, collect every bit of data on everybody, consume 1/4 of the power of the baltimore metro area for our data centers, have projects so secret you didnt know you didnt know about' NSA. Either anon knows this, and know they stand NO chance hacking the NSA, or theyve been misguided on who to target. my vote is a bit of both... I'm not gonna give you sources on this, but there is plenty of legitimate and credible reading out there to satidify your curisioty. Also, hi out there to all you intel analysts reading... ;)
jdavid 15y ago
> At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary. Maybe the ones with guns. Today I have not heard of a single case of hackers using guns to make a point, but the government does all of the time. I can live with all of the hysteria in the world if someone does not mame my body, with blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles.
- prawn 15y ago
  Maim. MAME is an arcade machine emulator. ;)
- cek 15y ago
  Is an aircraft crashing into a building not a source of "blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles" that can maim your body? So far the acts of these groups have only been against typical websites. What happens when it escalates to aircraft, air-traffic control systems, nuke plants, dams, and other things where disrupted systems could cause massive loss of life?
  - bwana 15y ago
    and marijuana smoking always leads to heroin abuse... cek...get a grip. sometimes we have to wait for the future and adapt instead of trying to control it. Would you rather struggle/suffer/work for an imaginary possible situation or one that exists?
    - danssig 15y ago
      We already are. It's called "the war on terror".

by nathanb 15y ago

roc 15y ago

> "At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary." There will always be scofflaws and pranksters. Indeed for our way of life to be assured, they must be able to exist. The ever-growing reach of the military-espionage-industrial complex is the only real threat.

jeremyarussell 15y ago
I have to find myself agreeing with this, the fact that these individuals (FBI members, govt agencies in general.) are funded beyond the means of normal individuals and given resources that money can't buy. (well I'm sure enough of it can.) Gives them an edge that many people can't fight against. They can do whatever they want with impunity. Now I can't say that opening up a server and releasing all it's users passwords is right, or fair, but there comes a time in war where there must be casualties. In this war of Anon VS govt/corp, Anonymous must use unfair tactics, if only to level out the playing field. That all said, this all reeks of a cold civil war, maybe something will come out of it, maybe nothing will. I'll just keep doing what I do, solving issues of non-freedom the way I can, one person at a time. A lot could be done if people just acted better towards each other. But I think right now that's too much to ask of us(humans).
- walru 15y ago
  The fact that we're even able to have these thoughtful discussions means that at least we're evolving as a species. For the sake of our survival, may we eventually get to a point where people are judged more for how they treat others, rather than what they are able to purchase.
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    Cory Doctorow's novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, "whuffie" is the ephemeral, reputation-based currency. The book describes a post-scarcity economy: All the necessities (and most of the luxuries) of life are free. Whuffie has replaced money, providing a motivation for people to do useful and creative things. A person's Whuffie is a general measurement of his or her overall reputation and is gained (or lost) according to a person's favorable (or unfavorable) actions. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Whuffie https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Whuffie
    - zer0her0 15y ago
      That's the one book I haven't read by Cory, I wonder if one can modify bitcoins into this(yea i had to bring up bitcoin, it's hacker news req right?)
nathanb 15y ago
The scary part isn't that scofflaws and pranksters exist, which (as you say) is practically inevitable. But what if we as a society may some day depend on them to preserve our freedom? Viewing my world in terms of black and white has always been more of a comforting illusion than a reasonable approximation of reality. I realize this. But either these self-styled hacktivists are rationalizing their hooliganism with noble-sounding platitudes or they honestly believe that their way is the best way to fight against corporate corruption and government abuse of its own constituents. If the former, it's becoming less obvious. And the latter is a frightening thought indeed. One day I might have to choose between a government agency whose actions have transcended public accountability (as in the Instapaper raid), corporations who will gladly sacrifice me on the altar of their own convenience (as in the Peter Adekeye case), or a capricious band of anonymous malcontents who might fight for my rights or might hold me up to public mockery and exploitation "for the lulz". But what really scares me is that the choice will be made for me.
eric-hu 15y ago
First time I've seen that phrase with the 'espionage' added in there. Makes perfect sense though, espionage should have been part of that term decades ago

ddw 15y ago

Even if Lulzsec gets some of your data, they aren't going to create a huge database of it. The FBI on the other hand...

ditojim 15y ago
but the internet is one huge database, and that is where their info is released.
- ebaysucks 15y ago
  Better a decentralized police state than a centralized one. In fact, a decentralized police state is exactly the only thing a centralized police state has to fear. E.g. see the laws making it illegal to film police in public.
hankry 15y ago
why wouldn't they?
- smallblacksun 15y ago
  Because only governments and big corporations do bad things, of course.

AndyJPartridge 15y ago

Well said. There is no difference between what Lulzsec and Anonymous do, compared with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. None at all. In fact, the FBI did more damage.

brown9-2 15y ago
with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware. Has it been proven that this is what happened?
- biturd 15y ago
  It hasn't been unproven either. At least the antisec keeps up posted with full transparency as they go.
- AndyJPartridge 15y ago
  Having looked back, it seems the Instapaper blog has been redacted. But I ask the questions: Has it been proved the equipment was fairly taken? I thought over the Atlantic pond it was "Innocent until proven guilty." It seems guilt was assumed and equipment taken. No trial.
tshs33 15y ago
FBI did not break any federal laws.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Well that only makes it even worse doesn't it?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jackpirate 15y ago

Unfortunately, their definition of "lawful" is that the FBI is doing it. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to call this hypocritical. The FBI at least pretends to have a morally reasonable agenda for its actions.

nathanb 15y ago
To me, that's the definition of hypocrisy. They pretend to be acting from a moral (or at least societal) high ground and roundly condemn the actions of anonymous. However, both are engaging in the exact same behavior. Now that's hypocritical!
- jackpirate 15y ago
  The FBI doesn't normally, and it is not their purpose to engage in the exact same behavior. 95% of the time, they act within bounds I suspect you agree with. I wouldn't consider the 95% hypocrites, only the 5%, and so I can't call the whole agency hypocritical, only parts.
  - thehotdon 15y ago
    Are you allowed to break into other people's property and use weapons to enforce your own system of rules on them? Nope. Are you allowed to lock people in a cage for decades because they do something you disagree with? Of course not. Is the FBI allowed to do this? Well, yes, but only because they're special and you have to do what they say, not what they do. Now what's this word hypocrite you speak of?
Bud 15y ago
Aren't you missing something here? LulzSec also claims to have a morally reasonable agenda. Indeed, LulzSec claims to be entirely in the right, morally speaking. Now, reasonable folks can disagree about whether they are actually in the right, but it's false to claim that they are not "pretending" or claiming to have a morally reasonable agenda. They are, quite clearly, making that claim.

ImprovedSilence 15y ago

I think that the FBI isn't really the overblown privacy killing big govt overlords that this lil anon skirmish seems to paint them as. The FBI, for the most part, do a mighty fine job of enforcing the law and keeping the peace. Also the FBI operates largely on a case by case basis, they are not an intelligence or defense agency, they are in the justice department. I think the orwellian big govt agency these hacker guys seem to base their doctrine against is the NSA. The 'we can listen to any phone call on the planet, imprison our whistle blowers, collect every bit of data on everybody, consume 1/4 of the power of the baltimore metro area for our data centers, have projects so secret you didnt know you didnt know about' NSA. Either anon knows this, and know they stand NO chance hacking the NSA, or theyve been misguided on who to target. my vote is a bit of both... I'm not gonna give you sources on this, but there is plenty of legitimate and credible reading out there to satidify your curisioty. Also, hi out there to all you intel analysts reading... ;)

jdavid 15y ago

> At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary. Maybe the ones with guns. Today I have not heard of a single case of hackers using guns to make a point, but the government does all of the time. I can live with all of the hysteria in the world if someone does not mame my body, with blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles.

prawn 15y ago
Maim. MAME is an arcade machine emulator. ;)
cek 15y ago
Is an aircraft crashing into a building not a source of "blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles" that can maim your body? So far the acts of these groups have only been against typical websites. What happens when it escalates to aircraft, air-traffic control systems, nuke plants, dams, and other things where disrupted systems could cause massive loss of life?
- bwana 15y ago
  and marijuana smoking always leads to heroin abuse... cek...get a grip. sometimes we have to wait for the future and adapt instead of trying to control it. Would you rather struggle/suffer/work for an imaginary possible situation or one that exists?
  - danssig 15y ago
    We already are. It's called "the war on terror".