1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hacktivism(Anonymous, Jeremy Hammond)

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by AngelOfAvalon, May 7, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AngelOfAvalon

    AngelOfAvalon Well-Known Member

    Hacktivism is a form of civil disobedience in which citizens who feel as if the government or corporations are taking away their human rights(i.e. the rights promised in the U.S. Constitution.) hack into websites and take information and leak it, or attack the websites of the target.

    The most well known hacktivist group is the collective Anonymous. Anonymous is a group of individuals who exchange ideas via IRC chat rooms(internet relay chat) and perform DDOS(distributed denial of service) attacks on the websites of the target. Anonymous has hacked FOX News, the FBI, NSA, DHS, and many other organizations. Information such as what goes into our food without our knowledge, who is spying on us, when, where, and to what extent, drones, bills and laws passed restricting the rights of the people are just some of the things that have been leaked. Hacktivists like Jeremy Hammond(http://freejeremy.net/) who exposed the company Stratfor(google for more details), are being imprisoned for utilizing the right to free speech and freedom of the press.

    Books such as Little Brother and Homeland by Cory Doctorow cover the subject with intense and realistic detail.

    What is your opinion on hacktivism? Should we be exposing these secrets, or is what these hacktivists doing wrong? Should people like Jeremy Hammond be free, or should they be imprisoned?
  2. Freya

    Freya Loves SF Staff Member ADMIN SF Author

    The fact is that attacking a website is little different from attacking a car or a business or a home. A violation of someone's property. No I do not think it is okay. The right to free speech is fine, but would you be saying that if someone hacked into your life or business and splashed information around indiscriminately?

    The fact is that stealing information that does not belong to you and spreading it around, endangering people in the process by leaking information about the people investigating criminals and terrorists, is not a heroic act - its theft. Jeremy Hammond did not "utilise his right to free speech" he BROKE IN to a property - albeit a virtual property - that DID NOT BELONG TO HIM to STEAL information he had only a self professed right to and threw it around without knowledge of the reasons the information was protected/classified or who he may be harming in the process.

    If someone hacked SF, stole all the data and distributed it to members' families - would that be okay? Do those family members have a "right to know"? No. Information is not implicitly "free" - it does not "belong to everyone" in any circumstance.

    And this kind of cockeyed hyped up anti-government propaganda is no better than the stuff the government churns out from the other end. Who is checking these facts? Who is verifying this stolen information? Thieves? Why are they so suddenly trustworthy? Organisations with an agenda... no different than any government with an agenda or terrorist organisation with an agenda.

    Hacking is an attack on privately owned property. It is illegal. People should go to prison for it.
  3. JmpMster

    JmpMster Have a question? Message Me Staff Member Forum Owner ADMIN

    Free speech and freedom of the press have nothing to do with disruptions of services that cost taxpayers and consumers millions of dollars and in the case of hacking government and police website endangers lives and delays emergency services to those in need in an emergency. If you which to call basic hooliganism and irresponsible behavior "civil disobedience" instead of crime that is your choice. I personally hope he remain sin jail for a very long time and that the government continues to track down and prosecute all that engage in this childish ridiculous thrill seeking behavior that makes things cost more for all the rest of us.
  4. AnaNg

    AnaNg Antiquities Friend

    Hacking a government or police website because you feel your rights are being trampled over is a particularly heinous kind of vigilante justice because it winds up affecting not just the targeted group of rights violators, but, as Ben said, lots of other people too. To be honest, vigilante justice is, IMHO, wrong in every situation because it ignores the law and in the end, rarely really resolves the anger, fear/anxiety, or grief of those who take it upon themselves to mete it out. Yes, it means that a person who has done evil is dead or a government organization is given a massive headache trying to rein in the chaos that follows hacking and being exposed, but after that, then what? Is the person who was murdered (whose murder was "avenged" by a loved one left behind) suddenly alive again? Has the wrong that the government did to someone suddenly vanished or been erased by hacking and exposing that government organization? Of course, the answer to both of these is no.

    One of my favorite movies is The Princess Bride because it is a great story and has so many great lines. Most people are very familiar with the line that Inigo says throughout the movie ("Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."),but one of my favorite lines is the one he says after he's finally avenged his father's death. He says, "Is very strange. I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it's over, I don't know what to do with the rest of my life." To me, that speaks to the very nature of how vigilante justice works. It consumes a person and doesn't bring any real peace or purpose once it's done because it doesn't change what happened in the first place.

    Just my two cents.

  5. Forget2Trust

    Forget2Trust Active Member

    I don't think anyone should ever hack into the FBI, DHS or NSA websites. Secrets are secrets for a reason. The food thing? I don't know what website they hacked into in order to obtain that kind of information, but oh well...Any website dealing with national security and law enforcement should never be hacked into. Anonymous can go suck Snowden's di@k in Russia. Whoever hacked my phone should have their head(s) chopped off. I literally have been to the hospital twice, and jail three times since this hacking started . They've not only
    hacked all of my phones/computers, but tthey've thrown it in my face. It's ridiculous. I want to decapitate them myself and send their heads to Snowden in Russia as a token for all his work. Anonymous are pretty much Snowden worshippers.
  6. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Guest

    I agree with all these positions. Governments and corporations are often greedy reptiles, sure. But the hacking underground can do little about it since the big players also have their own professional hackers. No major computer attack has ever succeeding in creating more than temporary but expensive problems for otherwise legitimate systems. A lot of hacking is just vandalism or attempted fraud.

    Freedom of speech applies to the press—which admittedly must obtain unsavory sources in order to report in the first place—but this constitutional guarantee doesn’t protect hackers and spies.

    Perhaps the secret diplomatic discussions between the USA and South Korea about undermining North Korea, reunifying the Korean peninsula in China's face, needed to break out in public, in order to allow fair public criticism of a democratic government, over a policy that could start a war. Note here that both China and North Korea knew long before the public did.

    The NY Times responsibly consulted with the state department before publishing any WikiLeaks material because a lot of it had serious potential to harm the USA. Pfc Bradley Manning hardly showed such courtesy when stealing the files for profit. As a military person, he was under oath not to betray.

    Let us recall when Vladimir Putin eliminated his critic Alexander Litvinenko by sending a minion to England with a vial of Polonium-210 for tea time. How will Putin treat Edward Snowden once Russia needs a bargaining chip to trade with the Americans for some favor? Although I do not believe that Russia and Russians are inherently evil, the system currently operating there is pretty bad compared with western regimes, and geopolitical reality makes the USA and Russia enemies right now.

    Thanks to screen name AngelOfAvalon for the delightful topic. Fear no controversy. ,... :cheer2:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.