LulzSec Target the Sun After Phone Hacking Scandal 363
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."
Ob. Mr. Burns (Score:5, Funny)
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the Sun."
Re: (Score:3)
Ob. Nik Kershaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqqXMXpyAkE [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think it's just an excuse to leer at women in bikinis.
Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
the actual laws involved (Score:2)
in the US would break down into perhaps the following.
NEWS of the World
actually hurting people
harassment
infliction of emotional distress
invasion of privacy
phone phreaks / lulzsec
tresspassing
tortuous interference
harassment
public nuisance
now, , , then there are the 'evil hacker laws'.
"doing naughty things on computers"
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (same law they tried to use on the Myspace suicide woman)
(also coincidentally the same law being used against Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, NSA Whistleblower Thomas Dr
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's not that they aren't trying to look like the victims [theatlantic.com] instead of the perpetrators [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
For those who had forgotten, LulzSec is also responsible for hacking such monsters as Nintendo, Sega, and Eve Online.
So while there is a kind of poetic justice to NotW getting hacked, forgive me if Im still anticipating LulzSec getting "vanned".
Re: (Score:2)
For those who had forgotten, LulzSec is also responsible for hacking such monsters as [...] Sega [...]
Not true! They said Sega must be defended! [slashdot.org]
That is, if the organization's not a false flag.
how else does one get punished for flagrant illega (Score:2)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Insightful)
. 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.
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a viewer, one can find the whole episode deliciously ironic without needing to take either side of the moral argument.
Anonymous and LulzSec are really funny (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Ethically wrong"? What is that and who gets to define what it is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh my bad, police say the death of the whistleblower wasnt suspicious, he probably died of natural causes....
Revenge is a natural cause of death, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in the US where those rednecks still have barbaric punishments like the death penalty for being retarded [deathpenaltyinfo.org].
Yeah yeah, I know I'm replying to a troll, but...
He isn't on death row for being retarded. Saying that makes me question your mental abilities. He's on death row for murdering a 17-year-old. The fact that his IQ is 68 doesn't make the victim any less dead or his family any less bereaved at having to bury their child.
There are good arguments against the death penalty. The fact that so many people on death row turned out to be innocent (i.e. because of DNA evidence) is one of the most rational. After all, you can release someone who is in prison but you can't raise the dead. The logic here is quite straightforward. However, your emotional rhetoric and willingness to distort truth as you have done is only going to weaken your position.
There are no shortcuts to actually making a solid case about a worthy subject. No, you haven't discovered the first.
Re: (Score:3)
Well argued, and good points. I'm assuming you studied debate? You never really put him down, only told him how to strengthen his position for a rebut. Good post. I like it.
Just about everything I know about argumentation is from paying attention and observing those who were more skilled than I. I have never formally studied it, other than thumbing through the book Art of Deception, but my main interest in that book was to better understand rhetoric and how it is used to deceive. The book is not very useful for those who view argumentation as a way to get closer to truth. The book is written for those who think a debate is a contest that they must win at all costs (I suppos
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:4, Informative)
He's mistaking "elected" with "electrocuted". Yes, they elect retards in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
O rly [nytimes.com]. There's another person executed by the USAsian rednecks for murdering another person.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
My personal feelings on the death penalty aside...
O rly [nytimes.com]. There's another person executed by the USAsian rednecks for torturing and disemboweling another person.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh come on... You issue a life sentence for punishment, you issue the death penalty because the world is a better place without them. Did you read that article. The guy robbed a restaurant, tied up the manager, tortured her with a knife, and then disemboweled her. That is fucked up. Retarded or not, you just don't do shit like that.
People don't deserve the death penalty. Society deserves to rid themselves of people through the death penalty.
The world would be better off without you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain it to me, I'm honestly not getting it. This is a person who cannot function in society, the options are either a lifetime of confinement, or death penalty. Neither of these are a good solution for someone committing acts because of a mental defect, but they're absolutely necessary, because if he's incapable of understanding why this was a bad idea the first time, he'll be incapable of understanding why it's a bad idea the next time.
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the government ceases to mete out justice this is what happens. Get over it. If you don't like it please fix the governments so we don't need to do this ourselves.
Thank you, kind sir or madam, whoever the anonymous figure may be. To me, what you say is the most intuitive thing in the world but for some it is a hard doctrine. They are stuck in a crime-and-punishment model that fails to account for why certain crimes happen in the first place. It's the same reason we have a War on Drugs instead of an expectation of responsible use.
I'm trying to model and expound this kind of understanding. I'm trying to contribute such that the conversation addresses the higher levels of how and why these things manifest, rather than the low level of how undesirable they might be. Therefore, it's nice to hear from someone else who understands this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's intuitive to those who possess no self control. There's no reason to model and expound it (and everything else you pontificated on in your pretentious nonsense); it's perfectly well understood under the simple term "vigilantism".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this what it has come down to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the ends do not justify the means (Score:2)
Re:the ends do not justify the means (Score:5, Insightful)
i'd agree with that except it's clear that there is NO rule of law here: the police have shown themselves to be incompetent/complicit in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mpu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then when they get rid of him, they will find everything is just the same as it was, because the problem isn't Murdoch, it's the system that rewards him for doing what he does.
Oh, the problem very definitely is Murdoch, in this case. And he very definitely does deserve to be punished, whether by the authorities or by society at large or by some vigilantistic element thereof - or all of the above, for that matter. Ignoring the law for the moment, there is such a concept as justice, and this is one man who deserves a large helping of it.
The fact that society tends to reward sociopathic behaviour is, I agree, a relevant and abiding issue, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of
there is nothing irrational about fearing Murdoch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks more like employees in his company are pirates, maybe possibly. Not him. Gee this is the pretty a-typical left wing 'guilt by association' thing that they go on about.
All down (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like their DNS servers are offline. (Score:2)
Maybe News International threw in the towel and pulled the plug on them.
Re:All down (Score:4, Informative)
Is It Wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Is It Wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is It Wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Very definitely wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Very definitely wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Underground Railroad was made in defiance of rule of law, as well. Law is not always a good thing. Sometimes it punishes innocent and protects crooks on a scale so large that it is not worth defending.
Not saying that this is that case...
Re:Is It Wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
If enforcing the law when an individual breaks it isn't socialism, then neither is enforcing the law when a corporation breaks it.
In fact you could even say it's less of an "overstep" or "socialist" when the law is enforced against corporations. I mean, supposedly we have government by the consent of the goverened, meaning individual people have a type of sovereignty that they have willingly surrendered as part of a social contract. Corporations, however, are entirely creations of the state. Since the state created them, it makes perfect sense for the state to regulate them with no need for recourse to any "social contract" type of argument.
Not that I disagree with your assessment of what would happen. The average American really has no idea what kind of vast, powerful interests are arrayed against them. Propaganda and demagoguery are their tools of choice because when the manipulations are successful, the victims think they are defending their own ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
enron?
Is there really a problem here? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why Isn't Anyone Slagging Cell Carrier's Security? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Isn't Anyone Slagging Cell Carrier's Securi (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So much for retiring (Score:2)
Guess they haven't figured out how to retire without working. It's a common problem from what I've heard. :)
News Corp is making themselves out as victims (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
By "less," I meant more objective. Their everyday reporting isn't any more objective.
IMPORTANT (Score:5, Interesting)
They got all the news international emails as well, to be posted tomorrow.
That includes wade and co.
People, this could be massive ^^
Karma (Score:3)
Karma is a bitch
Scousers never buy the Sun. (Score:3)
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
They have gone too far!!! (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
It was all the work of Anonymous and 'Louise Boat' (Score:2)
Apparently
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG7IURgryjA
For non-UK readers, Sky News is part of News International's UK TV operation.
tampering with evidence? (Score:2)
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.
Re:tampering with evidence? (Score:4, Informative)
Dispatch War Rocket Ajax (Score:2)
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."
Re:Way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see hacking, I only noticed the domain won't resolve. So its back to ddos again, as always. Lame; guess the only "inteligence" here is that they seem to have targeted the DNS server.
Totally not impressed here.
That's only because NI went scorched earth and took down all their NI UK based websites. There are screenshots and videos floating about the net
Re: (Score:2)
Buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo Buffalo.
Re: (Score:3)
The Sun Also Rises (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find she's the one in whose name it all happens. I was taking a little literary license by inserting her bodily into the scene. If you wish to best enjoy the theatricality of it, read the Queen's lines in Miranda Richardson's voice.
Re: (Score:2)
oh no? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)