Wow, I criticize hacking douchebags, I get censored. I'm so surprised. Pathetic.
28 posts • joined 12 Jul 2011
Is Teh Greedz!
You do know that Julian Assange tried to extort $700,000 from Amnesty International in exchange for redacting, "damage reduction" or whatever the smeg he calls it? He also views stolen data as intellectual property and has told journalists that they are not allowed to publish "his" material. That's fine and almost reasonable - after all he's gone to the effort to collect it, why shouldn't he consider it his?
Now that is certainly funny and contrary to to the views of people who hero worship Assange but it makes no difference to me whether theft of private information is done for a purpose (money for Assange, journalism for the Guardian or both for the News of the World) or just for the sake of causing harm ("lulz" to borrow their cretinous language, which I don't find quite as charming as you do) it's still wrong.
In other words motives are besides the point: if a group of people hacked, stole data and used it to exorcise banana spirits it's still wrong and two people are still carrying out the same actions and facing different verdicts. That doesn't belong under a rights respecting system like our own.
Force of habit
I've said it several times now (and received about 50 thumbs down for doing so) but doesn't anybody recognize the fantastic irony and hypocrisy of howling for Murdoch's blood for hacking (or whoever beneath him was doing the hacking) and stealing private data on the one hand while praising (and I'll quote myself verbatim - thanks for 16 thumbs down) "Anonymous and various psychopathic, cretinous splinter groups" for doing the exact same thing on the other?
Why the double standard? I understand the need to get one of our pathetic, babyish and embarrassing fits of morality out of the way and "walnut faced Murdoch" and anyone else we can associate with him is as good a target as any (those poor pedophiles need a break), but why will nobody laugh at the irony? I know those in a fit of false moral outrage temporarily lose their sense of humour but I hope you all laugh with me when this is all over.
Nice one Jim, you almost sounded like you believed yourself
No, there is a big difference between the force of a gun pointed at your head and the force of seeing images saying "buy this" in a supermarket and you're not capable of kidding yourself that you don't understand the difference. And don't be so pedantic. The government extorts money from us and passes it out to its various branches whether that be obscure public special interest groups that nobody has heard of, nationalized banks that should have been allowed to fail or a broadcast television system that a government has no business maintaining.
And private networks produce shit and quality programming just like the Beeb, the only difference is nobody will drag me from my home and throw me into one of those things called a jail if I refuse to pay those evil profit seekers to watch the shit they make. Calling it "the law" does not change the fact.
I'm always impressed by the power of self delusion though, as well as the rationalizations that people come up with to support their delusional beliefs. You're almost as funny as creationists who prove evolution never occurred by opening a jar of peanut butter revealing that a new lifeform hasn't evolved in the ten days since it was sealed. And in case you think I'm taking the piss, watch and stare in disbelief:
Also Mr. AC above me what evidence have you that NI is controlling our or any other government? If I understand the news correctly our government has said it will use it privilege to break up NI. If I ever form my own government controlling conspiracy I'll make sure I don't install politicians who do my bidding by destroying me and violating my rights. Kind of reminds me of when people accuse Jew, excuse me "Zionists" of controlling a media that is constantly demonizing them and calling for their destruction.
Shape of shit
Just out of interest do you believe there's a big BBC shaped pile of shit that needs to be cleaned up too? If you don't like the god only knows how many programs that NI produces from the Simpsons to (Darth Vader's dramatic theme) Fox News just don't watch it. I've noticed that only the BBC has the power to compel us to give them money.
People who spend their lives bitching about the big bad businessmen and all their "power" forget that government has a monopoly on force and force is power, not money. Politicians can have Brooks (or anyone else) forcefully removed from their homes at a whim, not vice versa.
Who's really paying me
Only the Zionist Committee For World Domination and the Miscellaneous Evil Conspiracy Organization (a group of Shinto shrine maidens planning to take over the world). I removed myself from Murdoch's payroll when he promised me a mere 1% of the world once we conquered it. What a tightarse.
Also that Grauniad journalist did have a bit of a falling out with Assange; people with narcissistic personality disorder and no sense of irony don't make great friends and apparently dumping massive amounts of classified data into the public domain without regard for consequences is not cool (something about, 'sit called again, "ethics" is it?):
Christ, I'm agreeing with a Grauniad journalist. I need to take a bath.
I was wrong, it can get more pathetic
"At least he's not passing judgment on "people who murder their fellow citizens"... Which was nice of him, I thought. That's the trouble with people, these days, you see? Too judgmental."
Well since somebody here thinks they are "freedom fighters" I don't want to get into a political row. If you want me to get judgmental then no, no I don't believe people that blow up children using IEDs are freedom fighters. I guess your smartarse comment inadvertently puts you on the side of the big bad imperialists now. Sorry about that.
And if you're too god damned thick to understand what I'm saying I'll say it as simply as possibly:
People not criticize Assange/Anon when steal data. People criticize News of World when do. Me not know why. You do know why?
Do you understand that?
I'm guessing that a highly regarded Guardian journalist wouldn't lie solely for the purpose of discrediting Assange, especially since the same journalist wrote a fawning tribute to him (WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy) . Besides it sounds like something many people of his political persuasion would say.
It's also worth noting the term that the One uses in place of redacting: damage reduction. So how much damage were you intending to cause in the first place Mr. Assange?
Causing harm for lulz
Nope, if I had an honest cretin on one side who caused harm with some particular goal in mind (I wonder if you can point to any evidence that the big bad Murdoch was planning to blackmail anybody) versus a person who causes harm and discomfort because he gets pleasure from it then give me the thug any day of the week.
And I'm not making any moral judgment on whether people who murder their fellow citizens are "freedom fighters" but the people who are being murdered sure are. that is why they are "collaborating" with Teh Big Bad Imperialists. And Assange has openly and honestly admitted that they should be killed. Real collateral murder in Iraq much?
Vlad the Nerve Impaler
Wooh seven thumbs down, you're almost as good at telling people what they don't want to hear as I am. Let's see if I can get 9 thumbs down again:
The world, his dog and especially the good commenters at El Reg have been praising Wikileaks, Anonymous and various psychopathic, cretinous splinter groups who admit they cause damage for "the lulz" - if that isn't psychotic behavior I don't know what is - and everybody has been making absurd excuses from "they're white-hat hackers highlighting security flaws" to "they're fighting for openness and transparency" (by destroying personal privacy) as they openly admit they only want to cause harm to people they feel have the wrong opinions. Sir Assflange The Great (PBUH) admitted before a cabal of journalists that "collaborators" in Afghanistan and Iraq (read: people who are fighting for freedom from rule by Theocrats and fascists) deserve to be killed and that's why he dumped their private details in the public domain.
Well now it's been revealed that people associated with Rupert Murdoch have being doing the exact same thing, sans dumping all the information they steal straight into the public domain in the hope of causing as much harm to their victims as possible and now the sky is falling! The sky is falling! Yes, Vlad the Nerve Impaler is right: you're all a bunch of hypocrites and those who prattle on about Teh Big Bad Merikan Guvmunt's secret torture chambers are manchild versions of Alex Jones and you need to grow up and grow a brain.
Is it just me
Or is anyone else sick to the back teeth of hearing about this "hacking" scandal yet? Yahoo "News" (crap, I've just laughed my drink all over my keyboard) has a text service where you can keep up to date with it as each tiny bit of minutiae comes out. I mean for fucks sake people.
Excuse, excuses, excuses
(Perhaps a hundred of them)
Maybe Miss. Brooks should claim that they had no intention of misusing the data, they merely wanted to show the flaws in the security of the phone network? Works when certain other people do it. And people even believe it too.
"Rupert Murdoch's cronies are the canary in the coalmine and not the explosive gas."
Who gets what?
"The Daily Mail and the Telegraph keeps telling us that public sector employees earn more than private sector ones..."
I think they mean that the zeroes in the public sector are paid obscene salaries and talented people are given a pittance. The private sector is always willing to pay for talent.
"Hacks into police organizations designed to steal private and sensitive data are ten a penny these days and we've never gone to the effort of tracking the people down in the past, why break the habit?"
But then again that only applies to heroic "canaries" of Anonymous and LulzSec; when RM's cronies do it it's baaaad, mkay.
Lingo and BS check
Just out of interest how does publishing e-mail addresses and password hashes from military personnel count as "hacitvism"?
Also does anybody really believe their own cute bromides and rationalizations that try to excuse this behavior?
"LulzSec are the canary in the coalmine and not the explosive gas."
The man on the street who allowed himself to be mugged needs to be charged with gross negligence. Doesn't he know that he needs to carry a concealed weapon in that rough neighborhood? I salute these heroic muggers for showing the security holes that must be patched.
Honestly, can you really make yourself swallow such bullshit?