If you have "no place to go," come here!

I suppose I should work up some outrage ....


Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

when a developer cracked their paywall over his lunch break. Not quite the same thing, but funny.

On the main topic -- I'm not really on board with hacks like this, or many of the DDOSes, independent of the target. It strikes me as much closer to vandalism, vigilantism, and petulant teenage revenge/showing off scenarios than anything which can be termed protest or civil disobedience. (excuse me -- no one here is claiming these folks are heroes, actually, I'm just arguing back against a friend who admires them, and Anonymous, et al). There's got to be better ways of fighting back -- and in fact, there are.

It's hard to get real riled up over it, when the target is an org like PBS, which retains a considerably greater amount of credibility than they deserve (to say the least). But it may not always be, almost certainly won't always be, PBS or its ilk which are the targets. There are plenty of targets which would get me riled up.

Tactically it's just stupid (posting email and passwords isn't really going to endear them to anyone).

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Hack like this pile lawlessness on top of lawlessness.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

I don't get it. These hackers could hit the reset switch on the whole economy and they're going after PBS? Are they Republicans?

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

Besides, it's a bit multi-headed; what do you go after? To say nothing of the fact that if you bilk the elite they fly into a frothing rage. And what to do with all that money? Mail it out to random social security numbers?

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

And, thus, is even more dangerous than ads. They now peddle the BS of the corporatcracy (see the Frontline oil spill documentary) making excuses for whole industries. It has become captured by the corporate dollars now "sponsoring" the shows. The Wikileaks doc that caused the hackster outrage was more of the same, "fair and balanced" with a soupcon of personal attacks. BTW, using "Wired" as any source WRT Wikileaks, and especially Manning , will get you a slanted and self-referential view, since Poulsen is deeply involved in providing cover for Lamo, and possibly being the cause of Manning's arrest in the first place.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

I don't approve of cracking sites like this, but somehow it still feels like karma coming home to roost. I stopped watching PBS' news shows years ago, when Jim Lehrer refused to call the torture that was being administered to our "terrorist" prisoners torture, instead referring to it as "tough interrogation".

They're sellouts, and whether they continue broadcasting or not makes no difference to me.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

unobtainable, that are, IMO, a valuable service, providing greater transparency. (And, as for DDOS attacks, which are the equivalent of "sit-ins", they block traffic, not greatly harmful, so, I can't get too worked up about those either way). If in this digital age, the secret plans and organized power of corporations and governments that are conspiring to take away civil rights, commit fraud,smear honest journalists, spread false information, etc., are not obtained by hackers, then by whom? NV will not open those doors. In addition Anonymous has helped keep the ME protestors connected to each other, and the world, which was critical to the success, for example, in Egypt, and they are still working to keep the info flowing. The PBS hack, if it happened to, for example, reveal a corporation openly affecting, or even censoring programming, well....might have been worthwhile, but as it is, the "lulz" group didn't go for that, it seems, so yes, rather a wasted effort.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

They're not ACT-UP blocking access to HHS to draw attention to an important cause, or activists flooding a server (or, say, a politician's constitutents flooding the phone lines) with calls and requests. They're hacks, cracks, bots and exploits, often by a single person or a small number of people which monkeywrench domains, servers, and so on. (one early DDOS was literally a 15-year old boy, although no word on whether he was operating from his parents' basement).

Sitins are a public expression of (usually) political sentiment by people who have some skin in the game. People flooding phone lines, email servers, or a domain is activism & protest; some random person programming a bot to attack some server, not so much. Many DDOSes are against orgs which, like PBS, it's hard to have any sympathy for. But the "good guys" suffer them as well.

Hacking to retrieve info on crimes, or government info being hidden which should be public is a different thing. Although that's less frequent probably because that information is usually better protected than websites.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

I was specifically referring to Anonymous's DDOS's, which were targeted, short-lived, and performed by actual members. If that wasn't clear, my bad. And yes, other DDOS's CAN be very malignant (like the ones by our government?, in any event, for example the very sophisticated attack, against Wikileaks, and perhaps Stuxnet?), especially the ones performed by the US and other countries against their perceived interests. However, I certainly don't think that the Anon DDOS's are in that classification, rather more like, as I described, a "sit-in", a "denial of service" (at a lunch counter, for example?), vs Mastercard, BMI, Scientology, (and my fave, the Westboro church) etc., and if you think they don't have "skin in the game", please check what laws and punishments the FBI, the State Dept., Congress, and Homeland Security are pushing for any number of what they term "cybercrimes".
Edit: correction, "stuxnet" was a worm, not a DDOS, had stux on the brain this morning.