3 ms·

Anonymous raises the public's awareness for the weeknesses of internet security. Whether they intend to do so or not: I think it is a good way to educate people

by xmpir 14y ago

Anonymous raises the public's awareness for the weeknesses of internet security. Whether they intend to do so or not: I think it is a good way to educate people...

crusso 14y ago
Just like breaking into peoples' cars raises awareness of automobile security? Thanks a bunch for raising my awareness that my head has a weakness to blunt trauma by hitting me in the skull with a hammer!
- xmpir 14y ago
  Anon has no commercial reasons for their actions. Your head cannot be protected by setting strong passwords - most exploits Anon provides are caused by things that are easy to prevent (e.g. bad passwords, sql injection weaknesses...)...
  - crusso 14y ago
    It doesn't matter whether or not Anon has a commercial interest or they're just being assholes. Their behavior is still unethical. Additionally, it doesn't matter if self-protection is easy as in setting strong passwords or easy as in putting a helmet on my head or locking my door at night. The ethical lapse is in the person breaking into the server, hitting me on the head with the hammer, or opening the door to my unlocked home. Don't blame victims.
- Quarrelsome 14y ago
  and when did someone ever break into a car, steal nothing and add a note that they left their door unlocked? I'm not seeing how this comparison is apt.
  - crusso 14y ago
    It's not a comparison of severity, it's a question of ethics. It's unethical to trespass, regardless of whether or not significant harm was done - although I'd also argue that anon did significantly more than just leave a harmless note. Accounts will need to be wiped. People who were unlikely directly culpable will be punished - perhaps physically and severely by the NK powers who were embarrassed.
prawks 14y ago
I don't think the general public looks at it as much more than a publicity stunt by nerds, to be blunt. People in power view it as an act of cyber terrorism. I can't see how poking the DPRK will result in anything positive, especially given their volatile and often irrational behavior. If they were honestly concerned with the security of Twitter, they should talk to Twitter rather than potentially stirring international relations.

by xmpir 14y ago

Anonymous raises the public's awareness for the weeknesses of internet security. Whether they intend to do so or not: I think it is a good way to educate people...

crusso 14y ago

Just like breaking into peoples' cars raises awareness of automobile security? Thanks a bunch for raising my awareness that my head has a weakness to blunt trauma by hitting me in the skull with a hammer!

xmpir 14y ago
Anon has no commercial reasons for their actions. Your head cannot be protected by setting strong passwords - most exploits Anon provides are caused by things that are easy to prevent (e.g. bad passwords, sql injection weaknesses...)...
- crusso 14y ago
  It doesn't matter whether or not Anon has a commercial interest or they're just being assholes. Their behavior is still unethical. Additionally, it doesn't matter if self-protection is easy as in setting strong passwords or easy as in putting a helmet on my head or locking my door at night. The ethical lapse is in the person breaking into the server, hitting me on the head with the hammer, or opening the door to my unlocked home. Don't blame victims.
Quarrelsome 14y ago
and when did someone ever break into a car, steal nothing and add a note that they left their door unlocked? I'm not seeing how this comparison is apt.
- crusso 14y ago
  It's not a comparison of severity, it's a question of ethics. It's unethical to trespass, regardless of whether or not significant harm was done - although I'd also argue that anon did significantly more than just leave a harmless note. Accounts will need to be wiped. People who were unlikely directly culpable will be punished - perhaps physically and severely by the NK powers who were embarrassed.

prawks 14y ago

I don't think the general public looks at it as much more than a publicity stunt by nerds, to be blunt. People in power view it as an act of cyber terrorism. I can't see how poking the DPRK will result in anything positive, especially given their volatile and often irrational behavior. If they were honestly concerned with the security of Twitter, they should talk to Twitter rather than potentially stirring international relations.