5 ms·

Am I the only one who doesn't find this all that positive? I already think scientology is bad/evil/dangerous, and I think that illegally getting access to their

Am I the only one who doesn't find this all that positive? I already think scientology is bad/evil/dangerous, and I think that illegally getting access to their secrets might make the opposition (us) look worse in the public eye. Everybody has dirty secrets, both sides, and it's a bit low to go after the other side's private emails. It'd be much easier to fight/debate against their public image, which is easy enough, without having to resort to intrusive attacks. We have the warrant system in the states for a reason, and if this were to happen in court the evidence would just get tossed right out. Idk, am I alone here? Am I wrong? I'm open to contrary opinions.

evertonfuller 14y ago
Right with you. This is illegal, plain and simple. Acts like this should not be celebrated. No matter if it's against the 'bad' guys.
- icebraining 14y ago
  This is illegal, plain and simple. Who cares? The question is whether it's wrong.
  - far-I 14y ago
    or "Does it serve a greater goal"? Does it enlighten the masses or does it just bring more useless information like a lot of leaks.
- rondon1 14y ago
  Gay Marriage is also illegal in many places, but that doesn't make it wrong.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Oh. I see. We have unjust laws, therefore, everyone should be entitled to use coercion to enforce their personal morals and ethics. Good plan. What could possibly go wrong with it? After all, everyone capable of coercing us of anything must share our morals and ethics.
    - pyre 14y ago
      I think the post you were responding to was just nit-picking the logic that illegal == immoral (or wrong). I don't see anything in that post that states what you are railing against here.
    - benwan 14y ago
      To enforce the obviously right ones, sure. A la Rosa Parks.
    - tripzilch 14y ago
      No, definitely not everyone. For starters, it should be obvious the GP would exclude "those who believe gay marriage is morally wrong". But in particular, I am especially wary of the "personal morals and ethics" of people making broad generalizations like you just did. Fortunately, I know somebody who's perfectly entitled to enforce his personal morals right back at you. And yeah, I am aware that you could do the same thing, but you also appear to believe that to do so would make you a bad person. So it's your choice, really: Submit, Be Good, or Be Bad.
  - wmil 14y ago
    Gay marriages aren't recognized -- that's different than being illegal. This kind of hacking is a serious felony in all OECD Annex-1 countries. That's a very different thing.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- shellox 14y ago
  Scientology should be illegal too in my opinion.
morsch 14y ago
I doubt you're alone in that, and I don't think you're wrong. I can't help but feel a little glee at this and the dirty laundry that undoubtedly will be uncovered in the next couple of days. But it's a guilty pleasure. Behaviour like this just conflicts with the categorical imperative. However I might change my tone if something really serious is uncovered here. I think whistle blowing is a good thing, and this seems like the next best equivalent. Of course, that is a ridiculous position to take, essentially giving any random hacker the license to read through random personal email and blow the whistle on demand.[0] So I guess that position isn't tenable, either. But I know it'd be hard to be critical of a hypothetical hack that revealed or delivered proof about illegal activities by certain groups, be it Scientology, large-scale financial stuff or neo-nazis. A more responsible release would probably only include incriminating or otherwise extraordinary emails, preserving (sort of) the privacy of most people. But arguably that's so difficult and personally dangerous in case of large data hacks or leaks that it's equivalent of saying a responsible release isn't viable. [0] As determined by them, but that problem applies to all kinds of whistle blowing.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  Categorical Imperative? Wow. Did you take a Philosophy of Ethics class and stop listening halfway or something? It's almost ironic to use that to argue against this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquirin... Shedding a bit more light on the ethics of the action of leaking this data, the reason why a lot of people feel conflicted about the right- or wrongness of the action, is because it is perfectly acceptable from a Virtue Ethics point of view: The fact that leaking private data would be wrong in the vast majority of cases is inconsequential because the data being that of a (generally agreed upon to be) evil organisation ascertains the moral character of the actor (in some sense). A strict moral code like the C.I. is pretty dangerous when it forces you to disclose you're hiding Jews in your attic (sorry for the "Godwin", but that's the counterexample I was taught). It's even worse if done half-assed "well obviously you don't need to take it that strict if it leads to bad things" because then you can argue your way around everything--without even having to consider "does this make me a good person?". And from that point of view, for me, the real question to ask: Would this person (or persons) have done the same thing if the emails did not belong to Scientology or neo-nazis or similar?
fjh 14y ago
> and it's a bit low to go after the other side's private emails. I think that calling them "private" is a bit misleading here. As far as I can see, they all seem to be about Scientology business / logistics. That by itself obviously does not excuse leaking them, but (again, as far as I can see) the emails do not contain much personal information. > It'd be much easier to fight/debate against their public image, which is easy enough, without having to resort to intrusive attacks. I would probably agree with you if this was about any other organisation, but the CoS has a long, long history of suppressing information about them by any means, both legally and illegally. People who leave the church are routinely harassed and threatened to prevent them from talking about it. Judging from the past, they also do a lot of dirty business that, in my opinion, needs be be widely known. Considering this, I think this might be a good thing. At the very least, I find it hard to blame the person leaking this. > We have the warrant system in the states for a reason, and if this were to happen in court the evidence would just get tossed right out. Even though US law probably doesn't apply here, you're almost certainly right about the legality of this. But, honestly, I'm not sure why we should care, we're not the part of the Austrian judicial system. I'm still somewhat ambivalent about the ethical status of this, but I think we should not conflate legality and morality here.
- crntaylor 14y ago
  > I think that calling them "private" is a bit misleading here. As far as I can see, they all seem to be about Scientology business / logistics. That doesn't make them not-private. My email is private no matter what the subject is. More to the point - you seem to be saying that it's okay to read someone's email, and then just release the parts that don't contain much personal information. That is clearly shady. Maybe you can make the case that the CoS is so evil that the normal rules for what you should/shouldn't do with someone's email account don't apply here. But you certainly can't pretend that this is anything other than leaking private information.
  - fjh 14y ago
    Calling them private is certainly technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the term is sufficiently overloaded that I thought it would be worth pointing out that they don't seem to contain personal information (e.g. people talking about their children or their marriage trouble). I don't think that this is the result of someone reading all their emails and releasing the ones without personal information (which I don't think would be okay, I'm not sure how you got that impression), but a result of everyone using @scientology.co.at email addresses. As I said above, I do not think that the lack of personal information by itself makes releasing them okay, but I do think that the combination of the CoS being secretive and "evil" gives this particular hack some (moral, not legal) legitimacy, because it is difficult to get this information using less dodgy methods.
Produce 14y ago
Slight assumption but I bet you're for having a police force, justice system and prisons. Consider that the police use oppression to fight oppression. The justice system uses professional liars to decide on people's life paths. Prisons are essentially cages for human beings. You likely already support fighting fire with fire.
planetguy 14y ago
I think you're right to be concerned. I think that in general it's not right to illegally access and distribute the secrets of "the other side", even if you're totally convinced of your own moral superiority to them. I don't think it's right for Democrats to hack into Republicans' emails, nor vice versa, and I don't think it's even okay when it's a group that most people find detestable (e.g. the British National Party, who got their emails hacked recently). On the other hand, in this particular case I'm inclined to say "Fuck it, they're Scientology". But I'm aware that I'm on pretty darn thin ice, ethically speaking.
tptacek 14y ago
You're not the only one. The "hacktivism" trend is not going to work out the way Internet activists want it to; instead, it's just going to associate legitimate advocacy with criminality (and, for what it's worth: advocating against a criminal conspiracy wearing the garb of a religion is a legit target for adversary). What exactly is gained by targeting an organization already famously good at playing the victim game with pointlessly malicious Internet pranks? Nothing.
- rsanchez1 14y ago
  They're just adding fuel to the fire.
rsanchez1 14y ago
I just think it was a waste of time. I guess they had to find an easy target, and they probably did it for the lulz (which is a douche move, but it's their MO).

evertonfuller 14y ago

Right with you. This is illegal, plain and simple. Acts like this should not be celebrated. No matter if it's against the 'bad' guys.

icebraining 14y ago
This is illegal, plain and simple. Who cares? The question is whether it's wrong.
- far-I 14y ago
  or "Does it serve a greater goal"? Does it enlighten the masses or does it just bring more useless information like a lot of leaks.
rondon1 14y ago
Gay Marriage is also illegal in many places, but that doesn't make it wrong.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Oh. I see. We have unjust laws, therefore, everyone should be entitled to use coercion to enforce their personal morals and ethics. Good plan. What could possibly go wrong with it? After all, everyone capable of coercing us of anything must share our morals and ethics.
  - pyre 14y ago
    I think the post you were responding to was just nit-picking the logic that illegal == immoral (or wrong). I don't see anything in that post that states what you are railing against here.
  - benwan 14y ago
    To enforce the obviously right ones, sure. A la Rosa Parks.
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    No, definitely not everyone. For starters, it should be obvious the GP would exclude "those who believe gay marriage is morally wrong". But in particular, I am especially wary of the "personal morals and ethics" of people making broad generalizations like you just did. Fortunately, I know somebody who's perfectly entitled to enforce his personal morals right back at you. And yeah, I am aware that you could do the same thing, but you also appear to believe that to do so would make you a bad person. So it's your choice, really: Submit, Be Good, or Be Bad.
- wmil 14y ago
  Gay marriages aren't recognized -- that's different than being illegal. This kind of hacking is a serious felony in all OECD Annex-1 countries. That's a very different thing.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
shellox 14y ago
Scientology should be illegal too in my opinion.

morsch 14y ago

I doubt you're alone in that, and I don't think you're wrong. I can't help but feel a little glee at this and the dirty laundry that undoubtedly will be uncovered in the next couple of days. But it's a guilty pleasure. Behaviour like this just conflicts with the categorical imperative. However I might change my tone if something really serious is uncovered here. I think whistle blowing is a good thing, and this seems like the next best equivalent. Of course, that is a ridiculous position to take, essentially giving any random hacker the license to read through random personal email and blow the whistle on demand.[0] So I guess that position isn't tenable, either. But I know it'd be hard to be critical of a hypothetical hack that revealed or delivered proof about illegal activities by certain groups, be it Scientology, large-scale financial stuff or neo-nazis. A more responsible release would probably only include incriminating or otherwise extraordinary emails, preserving (sort of) the privacy of most people. But arguably that's so difficult and personally dangerous in case of large data hacks or leaks that it's equivalent of saying a responsible release isn't viable. [0] As determined by them, but that problem applies to all kinds of whistle blowing.

tripzilch 14y ago
Categorical Imperative? Wow. Did you take a Philosophy of Ethics class and stop listening halfway or something? It's almost ironic to use that to argue against this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquirin... Shedding a bit more light on the ethics of the action of leaking this data, the reason why a lot of people feel conflicted about the right- or wrongness of the action, is because it is perfectly acceptable from a Virtue Ethics point of view: The fact that leaking private data would be wrong in the vast majority of cases is inconsequential because the data being that of a (generally agreed upon to be) evil organisation ascertains the moral character of the actor (in some sense). A strict moral code like the C.I. is pretty dangerous when it forces you to disclose you're hiding Jews in your attic (sorry for the "Godwin", but that's the counterexample I was taught). It's even worse if done half-assed "well obviously you don't need to take it that strict if it leads to bad things" because then you can argue your way around everything--without even having to consider "does this make me a good person?". And from that point of view, for me, the real question to ask: Would this person (or persons) have done the same thing if the emails did not belong to Scientology or neo-nazis or similar?

fjh 14y ago

> and it's a bit low to go after the other side's private emails. I think that calling them "private" is a bit misleading here. As far as I can see, they all seem to be about Scientology business / logistics. That by itself obviously does not excuse leaking them, but (again, as far as I can see) the emails do not contain much personal information. > It'd be much easier to fight/debate against their public image, which is easy enough, without having to resort to intrusive attacks. I would probably agree with you if this was about any other organisation, but the CoS has a long, long history of suppressing information about them by any means, both legally and illegally. People who leave the church are routinely harassed and threatened to prevent them from talking about it. Judging from the past, they also do a lot of dirty business that, in my opinion, needs be be widely known. Considering this, I think this might be a good thing. At the very least, I find it hard to blame the person leaking this. > We have the warrant system in the states for a reason, and if this were to happen in court the evidence would just get tossed right out. Even though US law probably doesn't apply here, you're almost certainly right about the legality of this. But, honestly, I'm not sure why we should care, we're not the part of the Austrian judicial system. I'm still somewhat ambivalent about the ethical status of this, but I think we should not conflate legality and morality here.

crntaylor 14y ago
> I think that calling them "private" is a bit misleading here. As far as I can see, they all seem to be about Scientology business / logistics. That doesn't make them not-private. My email is private no matter what the subject is. More to the point - you seem to be saying that it's okay to read someone's email, and then just release the parts that don't contain much personal information. That is clearly shady. Maybe you can make the case that the CoS is so evil that the normal rules for what you should/shouldn't do with someone's email account don't apply here. But you certainly can't pretend that this is anything other than leaking private information.
- fjh 14y ago
  Calling them private is certainly technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the term is sufficiently overloaded that I thought it would be worth pointing out that they don't seem to contain personal information (e.g. people talking about their children or their marriage trouble). I don't think that this is the result of someone reading all their emails and releasing the ones without personal information (which I don't think would be okay, I'm not sure how you got that impression), but a result of everyone using @scientology.co.at email addresses. As I said above, I do not think that the lack of personal information by itself makes releasing them okay, but I do think that the combination of the CoS being secretive and "evil" gives this particular hack some (moral, not legal) legitimacy, because it is difficult to get this information using less dodgy methods.

Produce 14y ago

Slight assumption but I bet you're for having a police force, justice system and prisons. Consider that the police use oppression to fight oppression. The justice system uses professional liars to decide on people's life paths. Prisons are essentially cages for human beings. You likely already support fighting fire with fire.

planetguy 14y ago

I think you're right to be concerned. I think that in general it's not right to illegally access and distribute the secrets of "the other side", even if you're totally convinced of your own moral superiority to them. I don't think it's right for Democrats to hack into Republicans' emails, nor vice versa, and I don't think it's even okay when it's a group that most people find detestable (e.g. the British National Party, who got their emails hacked recently). On the other hand, in this particular case I'm inclined to say "Fuck it, they're Scientology". But I'm aware that I'm on pretty darn thin ice, ethically speaking.

tptacek 14y ago

You're not the only one. The "hacktivism" trend is not going to work out the way Internet activists want it to; instead, it's just going to associate legitimate advocacy with criminality (and, for what it's worth: advocating against a criminal conspiracy wearing the garb of a religion is a legit target for adversary). What exactly is gained by targeting an organization already famously good at playing the victim game with pointlessly malicious Internet pranks? Nothing.

rsanchez1 14y ago
They're just adding fuel to the fire.

rsanchez1 14y ago

I just think it was a waste of time. I guess they had to find an easy target, and they probably did it for the lulz (which is a douche move, but it's their MO).