Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security The Media United Kingdom IT

LulzSec Target the Sun After Phone Hacking Scandal 363

Posted by timothy
from the it-was-a-fadeaway-fake dept.
nk497 writes "LulzSec have come out of retirement to target Rupert Murdoch's News International, hacking the website of The Sun, redirecting it first to a spoofed page reporting his death and then to Lulz's Twitter feed. 'The Sun's homepage now redirects to the Murdoch death story on the recently-owned New Times website,' the hackers said via Twitter. 'Can you spell success, gentlemen?' The hackers also started to post email addresses and passwords they claimed were from Sun staff, and said to have accessed a mail server at now-defunct News of the World."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec Target the Sun After Phone Hacking Scandal

Comments Filter:
  • by PCM2 (4486) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:14PM (#36805428) Homepage

    "Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the Sun."

  • by McFortner (881162) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:16PM (#36805474)
    So, because they did something ethically wrong and against the law it's OK to do the same to them? I thought we had gotten beyond the whole "eye for an eye" thing.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:21PM (#36805522)
      They're black hats, it's what they do. When some kid at school is acting like a total dipshit to everyone else and the authorities don't care, the solution is not to ask him politely to stop. The solution is to give him a black eye, then ask, then give him another if he refuses.
      • by causality (777677) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:49PM (#36805806)

        They're black hats, it's what they do. When some kid at school is acting like a total dipshit to everyone else and the authorities don't care, the solution is not to ask him politely to stop. The solution is to give him a black eye, then ask, then give him another if he refuses.

        While I would place emphasis on the "authorities don't care" part, you're absolutely right. There are people with whom you cannot reason. In fact, they hate reason because reason would tell them to change their ways and they're addicted to the gratification and feeling of superiority they obtain from being that way. That kind of egomania is the only sort of (pathetic) life they have.

        It is not your fault if someone will not cherish reason. That is their decision; let them reap what they sow. It does not make you a bad person to do what is necessary (but no more) to handle someone like that. It is in accordance with how they have chosen to live. In the case of a bully like in your example, it may in fact be a turning point in life that will end up being the best thing that ever happened to them. It would amount to giving him, albeit a harder way, the correction and guidance that his parents (or more likely, parent) so thoroughly failed to deliver.

        After doing what needs to be done, then there is opportunity to take the high road and have an attitude of "sorry it came to this, but you had it coming." Gloating and being glad it happened would just make you a bigger bully who will eventually run into one who is bigger still. That path won't reform anyone. So yes, you're absolutely right but it has to come from a certain level of understanding. The real mistake is to coddle a person like that out of some misguided sympathy (what the unwise think is compassion) because they interpret it as weakness, as submission, and they'd be right.

    • by FyRE666 (263011) * on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:21PM (#36805524) Homepage
      I fail to see how adding a redirect to their homepage and posting some phone numbers is on par with hacking a dead girl's phone and deleting her voicemail. Plus all the other reprehensible shenanigans the NotW staff were up to (and if they were doing it, there's a fair chance other areas of the empire were doing the same.)
    • When you have bought your way out of governmental oversight and any possibility of legal repercussions, how else does one get punished for flagrant illegal behaviour. What you are seeing is the people fighting back against a system that has been thoroughly co-opted by those with more resources. It is classic guerrilla warfare, and more power to Lulzsec for doing it.

      It also made me smile, so win/win.

                  -Charlie

    • by causality (777677) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:29PM (#36805600)

      So, because they did something ethically wrong and against the law it's OK to do the same to them? I thought we had gotten beyond the whole "eye for an eye" thing.

      Until we decide that corporations should be second- and third-class citizens compared to breathing human beings, you can expect more of the same.

      It's a serious mistake to blame vigilantes as though they happen in a vacuum. That kind of thinking has been tried for a very long time now and it has gotten us absolutely nowhere. It doesn't solve anything. Vigilanteism is the least of things it fails to address. It doesn't change anything. It provides more of the same problems we've always had.

      Instead you need to look at the conditions of the environment, the steps that were taken to make them that way, and how they bred the desire to do such things. That's if you are actually interested in really working towards a solution for what you perceive as a problem, so interested in fact that you're willing to put aside the gratification of condemnation and try something that might work.

      The root of the problem is that a corporation can do things that would cause any individual person to suffer some serious prison time. The equivalent of "prison time" for a corporation would be to freeze their assets and stop them from doing any business whatsoever for a set period of time. You may say "okay Causality but what about the rank-and-file workers who would be financially harmed by this?" To that I say, maybe that would make people more reluctant to work for known assholes like Rupert Murdoch and maybe that would be a good thing for everyone.

      Just as a loan officer has to charge higher fees for risky loans, let Murdoch pay his employees above the standard rate to compensate them for the risk that his asshattery might get them shut down. That would be more like making corporations pay some of the social costs their tactics inflict on the world around them.

      • by phantomfive (622387) on Monday July 18, 2011 @10:05PM (#36807350) Journal

        . The equivalent of "prison time" for a corporation would be to freeze their assets and stop them from doing any business whatsoever for a set period of time. You may say "okay Causality but what about the rank-and-file workers who would be financially harmed by this?"

        No, I would say, the people responsible should suffer, not a company that is a non-sentient being. You seem to have a weird idea of what a corporation is. People have already been arrested for the hacking scandal, which is good. Rupert himself may not be, but sometimes guilty people go free [wikipedia.org]. It happens.

        Corporations are not first-class citizens in any legal jurisdiction I know of. 'Corporate personhood' is a legal metaphor that you, and others, have vastly misunderstood.

        Imagine if the corporation got punished for all crimes that a person did in the name of the corporation: then I could start a corporation, rob a bank in the name of the corporation, and the corporation would be punished. That would be idiotic. Furthermore, it would be making a corporation more of a person than it is now, which you claim to oppose.

        • by rsborg (111459) on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @01:44AM (#36808524) Homepage

          Corporations are not first-class citizens in any legal jurisdiction I know of. 'Corporate personhood' is a legal metaphor that you, and others, have vastly misunderstood.
           

          Really? Have you not read about the Citizens United case, that effectively gives Corporations the freedom of speech (and by neoliberal accounting, freedom of bribery)?

          Imagine if the corporation got punished for all crimes that a person did in the name of the corporation: then I could start a corporation, rob a bank in the name of the corporation, and the corporation would be punished. That would be idiotic. Furthermore, it would be making a corporation more of a person than it is now, which you claim to oppose.

          Let's extend your metaphor and say that the corporation hired someone to commit some crime. Should the corporation go unpunished? Sure the crimedoer will catch jail time if (s)he is caught, but the one who made the decision to go ahead with the theft should also get punished. Right now, with the corporate veil this hardly ever pursued... plus given Corporations often have lots of money and live forever, they could literally buy their freedom or push the punishment far enough in the future to avoid real consequences.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Remember that mine explosion that killed two dozen men last year in Virginia after the mine company was repeatedly cited for the very violations that caused the explosion?

          Why isn't anyone in prison for negligent homicide for all those deaths? Corporations can and do get away with murder.

        • by T.E.D. (34228)

          No, I would say, the people responsible should suffer, not a company that is a non-sentient being. You seem to have a weird idea of what a corporation is.

          Actually, I'd say the same about you. The entire point of corporations is that the people responsible for the corporation's actions are not personally liable in civil court for the corporation's actions. This is why one of the first things a person does when they get rich (and start getting good financial/legal advice) is incorporate [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lattyware (934246)
      This is because of the phone hacking thing? I just thought this was because reading The Sun is roughly equivalent to torture.
    • by CheShACat (999169) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:40PM (#36806326) Homepage Journal
      Well, no, firstly Lulzsec will have done it "for the lulz" not for "an eye for an eye". They also had beef against The Sun after the Ryan Cleary arrest, and The Sun's appaling coverage of it. Any other reason one might throw into the mix is just gravy.

      As a viewer, one can find the whole episode deliciously ironic without needing to take either side of the moral argument.
    • until it happens to you. Righteous lawlessness stinks out loud.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by datsa (1951424)

        Righteous lawlessness stinks out loud.

        I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Murdoch's righteous lawlessness is far more damaging than LulzSec's, and a lot less amusing.

    • First, who is we? Second, when did we (see previous) get over the whole Eye for an Eye thing? US courts are chock full of "eye for an eye". Not just in lawsuits, but in the law itself. For all intents and purposes, vast tracks of US law essentially say "If ACTOR does ACTION then YOUGETMONEYX" Sorry if my pseudo code sucks. Obviously that's a gross over simplification, but we all know if I start quoting ACTUAL law people will get bored and wander off. tl:dr I'm not trying to say that LulzSec (or anyo
    • "Ethically wrong"? What is that and who gets to define what it is?

    • Your logic is wrong its not "So, because they did something ethically wrong and against the law it's OK to do the same to them? " its ... " Because they did something ethically wrong and against the law it's OK to punish them if they law failed to do so" If someone does something unspeakably horrible to a member of your family and legally gets away with it, it is more than morally justifiable to extract your pound of flesh. Now I certainty am not recommending killing anyone in this situation, however for t
  • All down (Score:5, Interesting)

    by norriefc (1998536) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:17PM (#36805478)
    AFAICT every single NI UK based website is currently offline.
  • Is It Wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by causality (777677) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:17PM (#36805480)
    Is it wrong that I'm amused to see this?

    It's not like government was going to do anything to the corporation other than a slap-on-the-wrist fine that's certain to be less than the profits made by the act. That they may throw low-level employees under the bus doesn't change this. At least someone somewhere is trying to make sure that corporate malfeasance actually does have some kind of consequence.

    I have always believed that a properly-functioning government, not owned by monied interests and willing to take effective and severe action against misbehaving corporations and their executives would have prevented both Anonymous and LulzSec from ever getting started. As I see it, they are only stepping in where the government has grotesquely failed. Everything that is bad about vigilanteism is caused by failing governments.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by Normal Dan (1053064)
      No, no it isn't.
    • Re:Is It Wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Stormthirst (66538) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:52PM (#36805826)

      Rebecca Brooks: Arrested - former News International chief executive - hardly a low level employee
      Les Hinton: Arrested - chief executive of Dow Jones - again hardly a low level employee

      News International's share price has dropped 6%, which whilst isn't a fine, but will certainly hammer the profits of the organisation as a whole.

      You have to bear in mind, most of this is going on in England, where there isn't nearly the obvious corruption you get in American politics. There is corruption - it's government and comes with the territory - but its no where near as blatant. Even the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police have resigned, even though they had nothing to do with it, nor any knowledge of it going on.

      • by causality (777677)

        Rebecca Brooks: Arrested - former News International chief executive - hardly a low level employee Les Hinton: Arrested - chief executive of Dow Jones - again hardly a low level employee

        News International's share price has dropped 6%, which whilst isn't a fine, but will certainly hammer the profits of the organisation as a whole.

        You have to bear in mind, most of this is going on in England, where there isn't nearly the obvious corruption you get in American politics. There is corruption - it's government and comes with the territory - but its no where near as blatant. Even the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police have resigned, even though they had nothing to do with it, nor any knowledge of it going on.

        The real question is whether the top-level executives at News Corp were looking the other way. The other real question is whether we will acknowledge that the shareholders soundly deserve to feel the effects of what they have chosen to invest in. If assholes like those who run News Corp have a hard time attracting investors while more ethical companies have no such difficulties, that's a win for everyone.

        Still, what you say is at least something positive and it is good to hear. I'm happy to discover I

        • by scubamage (727538)
          I'm hoping they do. I set an alert with my brokerage so I should be getting a text when their stock gets to 50 cents a share. There is money to be made off of NI's misery; rather poetic I think.
      • Re:Is It Wrong? (Score:5, Informative)

        by digitig (1056110) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:48PM (#36806388)

        Even the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police have resigned, even though they had nothing to do with it, nor any knowledge of it going on.

        Er -- Rebekah Brooks admitted to paying the police for information -- a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of £10000 or two years in prison -- in front of a select committee hearing in March 2003. If they had no knowledge of it going on that was either incompetence or a willful turning of a blind eye. Given the perks that the Commissioner got from from NI (which might be considered bribery in themselves) then their position was untenable.

      • by delinear (991444)

        Our Prime Minister is close personal friends with Rebecca Brooks. He gave a job (despite a lot of advice to stay clear, and backed him even after the original allegations came out) to Andy Coulson, former editor of NoW who was arrested last week. You say corruption in the UK isn't blatant, and maybe this is all just innocent coincidence, but I tend to think if it looks like corruption and it smells like corruption, it's probably not a huge leap to assume it's corruption.

        On the Rebecca Brooks front - she's b

    • by drb226 (1938360)

      ...would have prevented both Anonymous and LulzSec from ever getting started

      Disagree. Some people simply want to "stick it to the man", defy authority, be rebellious, and work for "justice" in their own way. Or they just want to screw around with people. AnonyLulzSecWhatever is bound to form, regardless of the governmental circumstances.

    • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Monday July 18, 2011 @11:18PM (#36807818) Homepage Journal

      Just a historical reminder. Both the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis (before they came to power) used the same language for taking the law into their own hands. The only thing that keeps similar groups from using the same tactics to terrorize their targets and even, possibly, gain power is the rule of law. Yes, this time, the target of the vigilantes is a reprehensible dirt bag. Just remember that not all vigilantes are the good guys.

      Cheers,
      Dave

  • by zcomuto (1700174) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:17PM (#36805484)

    It's not like the Sun ever posts anything remotely approaching actual news or something with a factual grounding, so what difference does it make if the homepage redirects to the actual Sun homepage or a spoof? Neither is actually news.

    • It's not like Slashdot ever posts anything remotely approaching actual news or something with a factual grounding, so what difference does it make if the homepage redirects to the actual Slashdot homepage or to Digg? Neither is actually news.

  • Yes it was very bad of the News of the World to hack these people's phones/voicemail. But how come we haven't heard anyone go after the cell phone providers for a shitty security setup. Sure the people's passwords might have been easy, but I remember when that guy hacked Paris Hilton's T-Mobile account. Everyone was slagging the shit out of T-Mobile as well as the hacker. And if the people who's accounts were violated because of poor passwords, why hasn't anyone commented in the news about this either? Are
    • Because the people reporting on the stories know nothing of security...
    • by scubamage (727538) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:13PM (#36806054)
      The hackers of Paris Hilton's phone weren't being employed by a massive multinational corporation to hack the phones. The people who did hack the phones saw jail time - something that will never happen to anyone who actually ordered the crimes to be committed in the case of News Corp. Until we start instituting nuremburg style trials for large corporations where there are serious consequences for malfeasance, this is going to get worse. At least in China the executives get executed when this shit happens.
  • Guess they haven't figured out how to retire without working. It's a common problem from what I've heard. :)

  • by SpazmodeusG (1334705) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:30PM (#36805622)

    Link [google.com]

    News Corp was already pushing this storey as if they are victims, I see no good from actually giving them something to claim victimisation over.

    • Did you expect anything different. News corp has been trying to make everyone believe there is a LiBrAl CoNsPeRcY going on. When you have a bunch of hackers directing their attacts at conservative sources, it proves their point and strengthens their resolve.
      This type hacking crap helps no one, and makes the problem worse.

    • by steelfood (895457)

      I fail to see how this is different from their usual "news". It's not as if their normal every-day reporting is any less objective.

  • IMPORTANT (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:32PM (#36805640)

    They got all the news international emails as well, to be posted tomorrow.

    That includes wade and co.

    People, this could be massive ^^

  • by t00le (136364) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:43PM (#36805768)

    Karma is a bitch

  • by bmo (77928) on Monday July 18, 2011 @06:51PM (#36805824)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1P6KUyOhBc [youtube.com]

    And why they never buy the Sun:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4258455.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    Basically the Sun isn't even fit to line a birdcage.

    --
    BMO

  • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Monday July 18, 2011 @07:15PM (#36806092) Homepage Journal

    News International I understand. The Sun, too, I guess. But why in the name of all that is holy would they take down Page 3?

    Cheers,
    Dave

    • by digitig (1056110)

      News International I understand. The Sun, too, I guess. But why in the name of all that is holy would they take down Page 3?

      Well, duh! This is the internet. Do you really think that taking down page 3 would have any measurable impact on the amount of porn available?

      • Not the point. Page 3 == really nice, high class boobies.

        (And, no, I don't need to talk to Dr. Phil about my mammary fixation)

        Cheers,
        Dave

  • Apparently

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG7IURgryjA

    For non-UK readers, Sky News is part of News International's UK TV operation.

  • Hopefully there was nothing on those servers that could have help prosecute a case against them. I doubt any court would let the evidence in, with a record of unauthorized intrusions that may or may not have made changes. Certainly it would be a bitch for the prosecution to try.

  • From the headline, I was expecting to read "This morning's unprecedented solar eclipse is no cause for alarm."

    And that would have been followed by some fiend ordering, "Dispatch War Rocket Ajax, to bring back their bodies."

The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.

Working...