What's the betting the same dating engine is used elsewhere, too.
They usually are.
A group claiming to be the re-animated corpse of the LulzSec hacking group is getting its lulz from messing up the love lives of army personnel. The personal details of tens of thousands of servicemen and women may have been exposed following a hack on a US-based military dating website. "LulzSec Reborn" posted a message on …
What's the betting the same dating engine is used elsewhere, too.
They usually are.
Indeed. These twats have a funny idea of rights; in law and morals rights imply duties, and now the queue for payback has been joined by no less a group than hidemyass.com: http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231602248
Regan did indeed say 'message to terrorists everywhere; you can run but you can't hide'. Oh indeed, and the noose has been slowly tightening across the world. This of course applies to freetards too.
Reagan was a dickwipe who made the USA the number 1 sponsor of terrorism in the word - google for "free cuba" sometime - and spoke entirely in soundbites because his IQ was too low to memorize longer sentences.
I don't know what this new group is up to but nothing LulzSec has ever done - including this - can be classified as "terrorism" unless you're congenitally retarded.
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. - wikipedia. None of this is use of "terror". "Mild irritation" possibly but the word for people use mild irritation as a means of coercion is "wives".
I suggest looking up the - current - definition of terrorism in the US. Some of it is a bit too far fetched to my liking, but others make pretty good sense to me.
In this case; what if they got their filthy hands on private data from soldiers who are operating overseas? Worse; soldiers who maybe even working in covert operations? And before anyone goes: "Lame, covert and mentioned on a public dating site?" I have to disagree; if this is a dating site strictly for military personal then there is a sense of privacy. Regular civilians won't be able to access this information "just like that".
So if they put all that data online then it may easily have unforeseen consequences.
So IMO this will easily fall under the terms of (cyber) terrorism.
I could not give a damn what you say; the argumentum ad hominem is the weakest and most vile form of epistemology and argument. Whether or not someone is, according to your likes and dislikes, unpleasant or not is irrelevant; just as the truth is the possession of no individual, institution or other group of individuals, it is the case that they cannot be regarded as incapable of apperceiving the truth. Such argumenta are borne of feeble, weakly opportunistic minds, incapable of thinking for themselves, preferring the 'four legs good, two legs bad' argument so adeptly parodied by Eric Blair in his book, 1984. HTH. HAND
I attacked Reagan, not you. Grow up.
@ShelLuser - I suggest you read the article.
Whilst I agree that the current US definition of terrorism is a bit of stretch, the site was for "single soldiers... and those interested in meeting them" so "regular civilians" are perfectly entitled to sign up to the website.
Its not unlikely at all that a soldier involved in covert ops might sign up to a dating website, but it is almost completely implausible that they would post any kind of classified information on one.
This hack was for the Lulz as they put it. Now, they may have obtained the names and postings and even some other personal information on soldiers, but is it terrorism? No. Its illegal, and immoral, but its not terrorism.
As someone with a "philosophy degree", and a hobby for calling out people using logical fallacies, you sure enjoy bludgeoning people to death with pseudo-intellectual vocabulary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity).
I suggest that you read my remarks, and then return to your primary school./
I suggest that you read; the point is that, just as the truth is not the possession of any individual, organisation or other group, people cannot be said to be bereft of the ability to apperceive it, or to produce 'bent' versions of it. That is a form of argumentum ad hominem, and results in anything said by an individual or group being rejected on grounds of the argumentum ad hominem. One most vile example would be the 1930s phrase 'Jewish science'. Sure, Jewish people were prominent in the sciences and other professions, precisely because they were not accepted as full citizens and thus barred from professions traditionally accorded citizens under the Greek model, including politicians, soldiers and so on. (I think the Austrians, for example, had allowed them into the military). This resulted, in fin de siecle Austria-Hungary, in the flowering of Jewish intellectual development, as they had little else to do in the harsh, repressive climate of the Austrian empire. The ultimate end was presaged in the phrase 'Jewish science', which by dint of argumentum ad hominem accorded a status of perpetual untruth to the 'unter mensch', and it's one that is applied without thought by different categories of people across the world, particularly if they can get away with it. Thus for example, prodromal symptoms of Ronald Regan's Alzheimer's disease could be found in slips of the tongue (the lady David phrase, where speaking of Diana), alongside the often overlooked very practical fear he had of nuclear war; when he became president there was an exchange between him and his top military on the matter of mutually assured destruction that is quite poignant; he was convinced that this was a form of intellectual madness that had to be ended. Thus, with Thatcher, he bolstered conventional defences, and engaged in an economic war that also led down the path of perestroika and glasnost and gave us the uneasy truce that we have with the Russians (uneasy because we did not help them during their initial economic crisis).
So, to return to the point; read what I said; whereas no one can claim to own the truth, no one can claim that another is incapable of apperceiving it. Read a fucking dictionary if you cannot understand the words. This is a forum in which a given level of intellectual development is regarded as normal, and the ability to use search engines and other devices to inform you of the meaning of technical terminology are easily available.
None of this changes the fact that Reagan was a massive hypocrite who funded terrorism in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Cuba and Nicaragua (for certain, and probably others), was incapable of understanding even basic economics (let alone economic warfare) who destroyed the economy of his own country in the long term via deregulation and impoverished his own people.
I don't actually think the man was evil. I think he was functionally stupid and was used a sock-puppet by those with financial interests.
However, I do think you're pompous, overbearing, arrogant and wrong.
You are correct in that a certain level of intellectual understanding is required for a technical forum like this one. What you seem to forget, however, is that nothing you say matters if you come across as an intellectual douche-bag.
I called you out on using needlessly-elevated vocabulary to sound "smart" and discourage others from replying to you. Childish tactics, especially for someone with a "philosophy degree". Nowhere in my post do I claim to not understand the vocabulary you use. Is it just in your nature to assume that others are not as intelligent as you are?
None of which is relevant, as it is merely an example of what I have already pointed out; the argumentum ad hominem. Your ratings of his intellectual and other capacities are further examples of the argumentum ad hominem, and highlight another point; that diagnosis by distance (especially by laymen) is very unwise.
As to your ad hominem comments about me, I think that I smell furious projecting. This is merely a loser's attempt to 'win' an argument (that is, in the Greek sense of the meaning), and it smells no more obnoxious than any other example of the argumentum ad hominem, whether from a politician's mouth or from the fingers of an internet poster.
Once more, just as the truth is not the possession of any individual, institution or other group of individuals, an individual, institution or group of individuals cannot in principle be designated as incapable of apperceving, holding or articulating truths, to suggest otherwise - as you did in your last line - is arrogant, over weaning and wrong.
I'm ambivalent about Lulzsec and Anonymous most days. They're illegal hackers yes. However, so many of their targets are LEGALLY doing stupid things against which we common folk have no recourse. Popular story plot to have The Evil Man taken down by the plucky little guys.
But hacking a DATING site for the uniformed??? That's just asinine. Kick Congressmen in their virtual balls if you like. Lulzsec isn't going to right any wrongs by harassing servicemen/women.
Couldn't agree more. ACS:Law was art...this is just being dicks for the sake of it.
As name implies, they're not hardcore hacktivists. It's for the lulz. Thus, it was a fair target, as it's bound to provide LOTS of pissed up people and proportional amount of lulz.
While the attitude might fall in better with the usual trolls, they both operate on the same basic principle. Pissing you off. And guess what. They scored again, by the amount of "i took the piss" comments.
I'd go for the "nasty" dating sites next. Boy, i'm sure THAT would get MILLIONS of pissed people worth of lulz worldwide :)
I think part of this is jealousy. Soldiers are generally respected today (unlike when I was growing up). Lulz kids aren't. The soldiers are finding relationships. Lulz kids aren't. Some soldiers, we might assume, are having sex. Lulz kids aren't. Soldiers are generally useful members of society. Lulz kids aren't.
Hm, they may want to take that and see what a pattern matching algorithm might tell them.
But whatever one thinks of soldiers, just how wise is it picking on soldiers? They're trained to fight, with or without weaponry, and they've been in VERY stressful situations recently, and given the unemployment rate amongst recent members of the military, they might have time on their hands to track down the Lulz kids. Not the wisest move I've seen.
"...Soldiers are generally respected today..."
Yeah. I've no end of respect for anyone who will unquestioningly kill someone they don't even know, because some scumbag politician orders them to.
Soldiers are generally respected today - by other soldiers from their own country.
The soldiers are finding relationships - but those who do don't need dating sites.
Soldiers are generally useful members of society - order-follower welfare queens who kill civilians for the lulz in other countries (Kandahar, Iraq, etc.). Very constructive. When kids are killed for the lulz in other countries by US soldiers we seem to forget about the "think of the children" mentality we need for accepting censorship.
I take it you think anyone who takes a salary from the government is a welfare queen, then? Does that include police, firefighters, doctors and nurses? Have you said this to their faces ... or do you hide as anonymous coward on the internet? Bear in mind that all of these "welfare queens" have signed up to protect YOU. Even if you don't like that.
If civilians are killed by a soldier, then the soldier is prosecuted. The latest case in Kandahar should, hopefully, see the perpetrator sentenced to death. It is a disgrace and a mark of shame to everyone who wears a uniform.
If said civilians are guerillas, they can be killed legitimately by the soldier under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions ... then, well, that's legal and an act of war.
If at first you are in denial, the judicial system will remove all doubt.
you know it won't stop anything. Kids/young adults will go on thinking they are indestructible no matter how many serve time. If anything that will only stir up moar activists. The US is all too happy to hand out death sentences to murderers, but that hasn't put a stop to murder.
...nope the death sentence can't stop other criminals from commiting murder but it can sure as Hell guarantee the dead ones don't commit any more crimes.
For those who don't understand - you can't fix stupid but you can kill them and help cleanse the gene pool. Not all young people are dumb. Many chose a better life. The ones that make bad choices are punished. If they don't learn after the first major mistake they usually get another one or two chances before they end up dead.
If there's anything that's going to invoke national pride and piss off a lot of people it's something directed against the service men and women of the country on a personal level, who are getting paid pretty badly to do a fairly crappy job*. It's a pretty stupid thing for LuLSec or people claiming to carry on their work to do from a publicity point of view.
However labeling it "terrorism" is silly, I think childish and stupid is more appropriate.
Regards the security risk - I suspect this sort of website counts as 'low hanging fruit' in the cyber espionage game, and they either already have the data, are incompetent or most likely don't care.
You can bet people are going to stand up for the military who risk their lives so these young punks can hack their personal files. There will be Hell to pay.
The media seems to have forgotten but before the term 'hactivism' was coined, before twitter users could claim credit for revolutions in far off countries, before one man decided he should be in charge of all leaks everywhere, before neckbeards still living with their parents appointed themselves Guardians Of The Internet, before the anonymous legions became the personal army of an Anonymous spokesperson(s) with a moral agenda there was this little thing called 'the lulz'. Acquisition of it was placed above all other concerns and those pursuant of it were relentless, remorseless and unpredictable. How short memories are...
I'm sure theses hackers that go to prison will keep Lulz in mind during their lengthy stay. Bubba certainly will.
I'm sure the Chinese are very grateful for the information on the relationship preferences of US military personnel, along with passwords they can try on other sites. It will save them a lot of work setting up fake Facebook accounts.
I don't suppose that since the original Lulzsec was infiltrated by the FBI who commenced with trying to setup stings by offering cash for cracks - that anyone has considered this is the FBI trying to setup a net and a false sense of security (no pun intended) for the ones that got away?
Now where did I put my tinfoil hat?
These clowns keep getting arrested almost weekly. They really ain't very bright.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017