because people are dumb panicky animals. Increase in awareness that cyber security is needed will mean increased business for any cyber security company that can stay afloat, regardless of how capable they actually are at stopping the hackersdanhere said:
Security Analyst Explains Why We Love Lulzsec
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So basically what your saying is that security people love them because they are showing that security people are impotent?
I'm no sure what this is supposed to tell us. No security is perfect, thanks for that, but its not like you can run something like the PSN without any information at all. Its not about not getting hacked its about stopping it as best as possible since its a necessity to have information. So your saying that it points out security is not good but all that means is throw more money at it. Its not like we've come to some big epiphany where were not going to use servers anymore or something.
I'm no sure what this is supposed to tell us. No security is perfect, thanks for that, but its not like you can run something like the PSN without any information at all. Its not about not getting hacked its about stopping it as best as possible since its a necessity to have information. So your saying that it points out security is not good but all that means is throw more money at it. Its not like we've come to some big epiphany where were not going to use servers anymore or something.
Wow that freaked me out a little more than this whole article. I thought the government would be pretty lock downed with internet security.Andy Chalk said:
I guess this is sort of true. I am sort of glad that companies will learn from this. A huge fuck up now may mean better security in the future. But I don't respect these people. Doing heinous crimes "for the lulz" or whatever contrived reason makes me lose faith in humanity.
It is because if companies see how bad sony got messed up by hackers other companies will want to invest in a lot of security (probably not from some douche bag guy) so it doesn't happen to them.Twilight_guy said:
Which means that they are urged to fix the vulnerabilities as soon as possible. Is it more likely that a company would act on a private e-mail, or something gaining news attention?Souplex said:
You mean to tell me that most major companies and organizations have piss poor network security??? 
I don't know whether to be dismayed or outraged or both.
I don't know whether to be dismayed or outraged or both.
Meh, any hackers who are worth their salt already know that there are all these loopholes in the systems. Although I'm still not sold on the idea that lulzsec's intentions are good (not that they are necessarily evil or anything like that either). I literally just see them as a bunch of people who are running around doing this for kicks, or for the challenge of doing it. Ya, like the article gets into, they are helping to raise awareness for the issues in the system but that seems to be more of a side effect as opposed to the intent. But that's just how I tend to interpret it.Souplex said:
I would love Lulzsec if they were called something else. Not a big fan of the interent meme branding, personally.
Seriously? Yes, indeed.Googooguru said:
If you can break into my house, I'd rather have it that you wait for me, don't do any harm and inform me on my state of security.
And, to put your argument in perspective:
If I ran a bank, and someone just walked in and grabbed some bags o' money which he dumps on my desk the next morning to show me how piss poor my security assets are, I'd rather thank them, too.
After all, this money is my business asset, so I'd rather have it secured.
Same goes for online companies. Their data is their biggest asset. And most of the time they do jack shit in securing it.
That doesn't change the fact that the expert here is saying that you can't stop hackers no matter what so he's basically undermining his own business which is founded on "we stop hackers". So he's saying hackers make people buy security even though he admits it wont fix the problem. There is a something screwy about his presented logic.commodore96 said:
God, why are these idiots defending these people! They're hackers! It doesn't matter if they do it "for the lulz" they're still screwing over a lot of innocent people. I don't give a shit about these big companies they can take the it - it's the innocents getting caught in the crossfire that I care about. When people finally up their security and catch these guys I hope they get what's coming to them.
Cool time for some Logic .. i recognise i was not clear enough in my original limited posting and so offer the below thesis.. sorry for the long post btwWhoracle said:
Why are people so easily taken in with the fact that reprehensible conduct can be masked by euphemistic language ie: The term "hacker" does not have the same negative connotations that "criminal" does, and as such it is useful when attempting to justify or make more palatable, certain Criminal behaviors such as Violating the rights of Consumers and Corporations. We have idolized and misrepresented "hackers" Moral Disengagement and as such have given hackers permission to engage in moral ambiguity on our perceived behalf without Self Censure.. and that my friends is a land mine..
To Quote "People do not usually engage in reprehensible conduct unless they have justified to themselves the rightness of their actions.The process of moral justification allows for the detrimental conduct to be made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service of valued social or moral purposes" (Bandura et. al., 1996; Bandura, 1990).. and so the first act.. the magician comes on Stage to our ignorant applause and pulls the Wool over our eyes with "valued social or moral purposes" everything is done in our own interests we are told... we wont harm you the individual we only want to draw attention to (insert corporation name here)notice the trick of dehumanization, be quick or you will miss it.
The recap tricks on display are :
1)that information should be freely available to everyone (Chantler, 1996; Taylor, 1997). We Cheer because we know that everyone is Morally and intellectually capable of digesting and reacting rationally to freedom of information oh wait... no they are not.. ok next point
2)that they never intentionally damage any files, and that besides companies have or should have backups of their data and systems(Chantler, 1996; Parker, 1998).The crowd goes wild ... phew at least we know when they are publishing our user info online its in its complete and original state i would hate for my personal email to be missing a few characters and so miss out on some quality viagra spam
3)"hackers" dehumanize the victim and refer to them in terms such as multi-national corporations, or just networks and systems. (Chantler, 1996; Parker, 1998). oh those evil corporations ... wait if there were so evil why did i give them all my personal details.. oh damn flummoxed again im one of there customers and am being affected by these actions
(sad face)(Please note They usually do not comment on the impact to the end users and system administrators, the cost to potential consumers, or the long term effects of there actions. In contrast Consequences are routinely misconstrued)
4)Attribution of blame to the victim .The majority of research which have used interviews, and self-report surveys, quote the hacker subjects as blaming the system administrators or programmers for lax security, and stating the victims deserved to be attacked (Chantler, 1996; Parker, 1998).
Applause yeah they were asking for it with the way the dress and the fact that didnt carry pepper spray ..Sorry no thats something else..
And yet here we sit justifying the dissociative practices of "hacking" a process that operates by distorting the relationship between the agent's actions and the effects of the actions.
Now the Meta question at play: Is the community support of Hackers an outlet for our own displacement of responsibility and are the "hackers" unknowingly misrepresenting our displacement of responsibility as supporting and justify their self serving personal actions while misconstruing there actions as being moral Justified, due to misinterpreted Moral feedback ?.. arghhh my brain
Please remember that With displacement of responsibility, individuals view their actions as arising from social pressures and are, therefore, not responsible for their actions . Self-censure is reduced because the individual is no longer an actual agent of their actions and as such The action can also be ascribed to compelling circumstances and therefore not a personal decision. ie: Anonymous (light bulb moment for me i tell ya)
Manslaughter can be described as violence without moral restraint.. do we applaud it NO
Should we applaud Moral disengagement NO... Beware the monster you create it WILL bite the hand that feeds
Good Link for further reading is listed below
ishonest Deed,Clear Conscience, Self Preservation Through Moral Disengagement and Motivated Forgetting. While it is not in reference to "hackers" it offers some insightful reading into how we manipulate ourselves and allow others to manipulate us through Disassociation of Consequences, Dehumanization and the processes of Moral Justificationhttp://harvard.academia.edu/LisaShu/Papers/216416/Dishonest_Deed_Clear_Conscience_Self-Preservation_Through_Moral_Disengagement_and_Motivated_Forgetting
hands up everyone who loves Moral ambiguity perpetrated under the illusion of protecting your rights