boris feinbrand said:Who is supporting them?
A few people were taking up for anonymous
boris feinbrand said:Who is supporting them?
True, I forgot to mention that these resumes might be not up to date. But they potentially are up to date.Steve Youngblood said:It has biographical data, yes, and contact information that may or may not be up to date. For instance, if people hacked into my office's database system that contained or résumés (the one that we don't have), they'd have my name, previous work experience, education, and a mailing address, email address, and phone number that are no longer accurate. I mean, it's something, sure, but I'm far more paranoid about financial getting out than some random schmuck getting their hands on my résumé. After all, when I was on the job hunt, I was quite liberal with making sure that it got out there for any and all companies that were hiring to see.
Well, one other thing worth noting in regards to résumés is that they are not generally parsed in some universal format where a computer can read them all so that all 9000 of these individuals' data is at the ready. Meaning, you can't easily programmatically cull data from all of them to get at what you want. Sure, I guess a human being could pull one out and target that person, armed with greater knowledge. But the data doesn't come ready on a silver plate in the form of a database or easily parsed, delimited text files. "I want to spam all of these individuals with solicitation emails!" Well, yes, you can. But someone's going to have to do some good, old fashioned manual data entry first.boris feinbrand said:For one, the amount of data on a resume is more than enough to track people on the net, and potentially get their financial information in the end. Sure there is no immediate reason to be paranoid about it, I'll give you that, but the potential danger is there.
Typographenia said:This is getting really tiresome. What is wrong with people?
Are they really that bored or is there an actual reason behind doing something like this?
Londa said:A few people were taking up for anonymous
Good point. And to many the trouble to get at all the information in those resumes might be too much of a hassle to care about. So it is potentially 9000 peoples information that is at risk, with a reasonable doubt that most of them are indeed at risk, due to a lot of factors that you have mentioned. It is possible that someone is going over these files manually (doing searches for emails isn't that big of a deal, but it is unlikely as there are a lot better and faster ways of getting email adresses and profile data online, thanks to so many people not caring, and corporations not giving a fuck either.Steve Youngblood said:Well, one other thing worth noting in regards to résumés is that they are not generally parsed in some universal format where a computer can parse them all so that all 9000 of these individuals' data is at the ready. Meaning, you can't easily programmatically cull data from all of them to get at what you want. Sure, I guess a human being could pull one out and target that person, armed with greater knowledge. But the data doesn't come ready on a silver plate in the form of a database or easily parsed, delimited text files. "I want to spam all of these individuals with solicitation emails!" Well, yes, you can. But someone's going to have to do some good, old fashioned manual data entry first.
Jack Random said:i'm not blaming the victim here, but they really should be securing their shit better. The company I work for performs IT services for some companies with very high security requirements on their data. If one of them gets hacked, its not the hackers fault for invading, its our fault for not protecting.
boris feinbrand said:And even more do blame anonymous for AIDS by now.
Honestly, i bet a lot of anonymous "members" are laughing their ass off, by the sheer fact that so many (pro or contra) do not understand what Anonymous is.
If you want to blame someone, blame the people who did it, because blaming anonymous is as usefull as blaming some superstitious concept of evil like the devil for all the shit that is happening in the world.
People need to realize that these are unrelated events that are carried out by individuals, not some organized structure or mastermind. Anonymous has become a narrative element at this point.
His point is that, for the most part, saying "Anonymous sucks" is pretty much equivalent to just stating "malicious hackers suck." Unless you've narrowed it down to one of the slightly more cohesive and organized groups operating under the Anonymous banner, just knowing that "the hacker identified him/herself as a member of the Anonymous group" really only serves to obfuscate the real point that it's just a random hacker.Londa said:The article says anonymous. Its not me saying anonymous. lol
Steve Youngblood said:His point is that, for the most part, saying "Anonymous sucks" is pretty much equivalent to just stating "malicious hackers suck." Unless you've narrowed it down to one of the slightly more cohesive and organized groups operating under the Anonymous banner, just knowing that "the hacker identified him/herself as a member of the Anonymous group" really only serves to obfuscate the real point that it's just a random hacker.
Although, I guess one could make the point that the proliferation of the movement via the more politically motivated and dubiously altruistic groups (i.e. Chanology, AnonOps) has emboldened douche bags to operate with impunity and think that they are actually doing something good in this world. However, that still doesn't really accomplish much. You still need real figureheads in the movement, of which there are currently none.
Londa said:The article says anonymous. Its not me saying anonymous. lol
Why do you need to white knight for anonymous?
Anon are a collective with a unified mindset. Why did they say Anon didn't do the PSN hack? If anyone can be Anon, then they can't say Anon aren't responsible for the hack, but they did. They said Anon don't support personal detail theft, that means no one who does steal personal data can possibly be a member of Anon etc.boris feinbrand said:It is hilarious to see so many people not grasping the concept of anonymous, yet framing them as some sort of collective with a unified mindset and goals.
Wasn't the initial denial from AnonOps?StuBurns said:Anon are a collective with a unified mindset. Why did they say Anon didn't do the PSN hack? If anyone can be Anon, then they can't say Anon aren't responsible for the hack, but they did. They said Anon don't support personal detail theft, that means no one who does steal personal data can possibly be a member of Anon etc.
certainly not, but the issue is that there are people out there who exploit lapses in security, and if you consider your data to be important, there's no excuse for not locking it down and keeping on top of that shit.boris feinbrand said:Well it is actually not that one sided. A breach is your fault yes, but the malign intent is on the hackers side, so it doesn't make him innocent.
boris feinbrand said:Am I? I think you find that I'm not defending the hacks that individuals hiding behind the anonymous cloud perform. Quite the contrary.
If you think that being a white knight for anonymous amounts to putting the events into a context that makes it harder for people to put their general uninformed distain for hackers onto an acronym that defies traditional group mentality then yes, I guess I do play white knight for anonymous.
Let me put it this way: Playing white knight for anonymous would be a waste of time as there literally is no group to defend. Everyone is anonymous. Hell I've written quite a few articles for various publications and blogs under the label anonymous. Does that make me a hacker?
It is hilarious to see so many people not grasping the concept of anonymous, yet framing them as some sort of collective with a unified mindset and goals. No not hilarious, scary. Because it actually moves the discussion away from the actual deeds. It creates a narrative about a malign hive mind instead of focusing on the real culprits.
Hackers might use anonymous as an excuse for their deeds, but in the end they performed and executed their actions. Blaming anonymous is as usefull as blaming religion for the acts of some bigots.
StuBurns said:Anon are a collective with a unified mindset. Why did they say Anon didn't do the PSN hack? If anyone can be Anon, then they can't say Anon aren't responsible for the hack, but they did. They said Anon don't support personal detail theft, that means no one who does steal personal data can possibly be a member of Anon etc.
The whole 'no one is a member' thing is bullshit.
boris feinbrand said:I guess it's not that far fetched when a pretentious twat, bragging about his hack with signed chippy1337 can do it.
BroHuffman said:What purpose does this serve? I'm just baffled.
The crux of the matter is that if you concede that point, then what's the point of trying to refer to them as some sort of cohesive group or movement when they clearly aren't? The argument is that it obfuscates the situation when the goal is to try and pin down a nebulous, undefined group as the archvillains simply because blaming a group that has a capitalized first letter that makes it sound official makes for a sexier story than "Eidos attacked by random internet miscreants."Londa said:Why is it you can say they aren't anonymous, but then say everyone is anonymous? If they identify with being part of a group, they are that group.
That's incorrect, though - this is the act of a random script kiddie and his skiddie chums, and has not been claimed or attributed to Anon by anyone involved (except the article, which is clearly doing it for theLonda said:We do not know the back story of the hacker/cracker. So its all pure speculation atm. Until we know, I will stick with calling it anonymous because that is what the article says.
Jack Random said:certainly not, but the issue is that there are people out there who exploit lapses in security, and if you consider your data to be important, there's no excuse for not locking it down and keeping on top of that shit.
True I guess. Still, it leaves enough ground to make educated guesses about the hackers mindset and to an extend his skills.-Amon- said:Manners are often not so directly related to skills.
Steve Youngblood said:The crux of the matter is that if you concede that point, then what's the point of trying to refer to them as some sort of cohesive group or movement when they clearly aren't? The argument is that it obfuscates the situation when the goal is to try and pin down a nebulous, undefined group as the archvillains simply because blaming a group that has a capitalized first letter that makes it sound official makes for a sexier story than "Eidos attacked by random internet miscreants."
infinityBCRT said:First thing that jumped out at me was Gerstmann gate. Yes it's old but it's the only thing that I can think of.
User33 said:Official statement from Square Enix:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1612156&postcount=79
I don't really know how I can clarify the situation. You admit to understanding that any random schmuck can state "I'm part of Anonymous" and, due to the nebulous nature of the "group," it's fair to say they're part of Anonymous. Given that, what's the point of pinning the crime to them and acting like you have any idea as to who did it? "I hate those Anonymous bastards!" Again, we keep taking about taking down Anonymous, but that seems to obfuscate that the Anonymous label doesn't inform us at all as to whether or not it was carried out by an organized, talented group. We're essentially back to square one: "Hackers sure do suck, am I right?"Londa said:were is it that its proven that these hackers are not anonymous? Is it really my fault to think its anonymous because I read a article saying the individual identifies as anonymous? I don't know the internet politics of anonymous and I frankly don't care to know.
The simple facts are these: nobody has implicated Anonymous in this affair, neither the perpetrators, who called themselves by their handles, nor the victim, who made no mention of Anon anywhere in their press releases on the matter. In fact, the only implication that this was an act perpetrated by Anonymous as a group comes from the article writer themselves, probably in an effort to increase page views on the website it originates from.Londa said:where is it that its proven that these hackers are not anonymous? Is it really my fault to think its anonymous because I read a article saying the individual identifies as anonymous? I don't know the internet politics of anonymous and I frankly don't care to know.
Which kinda makes your argument carrying little weight. If you don't grasp the concept of anonymous (which exists in more places than just the internet) why not read up on it and then think about why people have a problem with putting the blame on a construct that does not entail an actual agreed upon structure or mindset.Londa said:where is it that its proven that these hackers are not anonymous? Is it really my fault to think its anonymous because I read a article saying the individual identifies as anonymous? I don't know the internet politics of anonymous and I frankly don't care to know.
don't think too hard on itlegacyzero said:But WHY?!
Why Deus Ex of all things? And what message is this shit supposed to send?
Fucking frustrating.
if you don't know their identity they are anonymous hackers yesLonda said:where is it that its proven that these hackers are not anonymous? Is it really my fault to think its anonymous because I read a article saying the individual identifies as anonymous? I don't know the internet politics of anonymous and I frankly don't care to know.
Dambrosi said:The simple facts are these: nobody has implicated Anonymous in this affair, neither the perpetrators, who called themselves by their handles, nor the victim, who made no mention of Anon anywhere in their press releases on the matter. In fact, the only implication that this was an act perpetrated by Anonymous as a group comes from the article writer themselves, probably in an effort to increase page views on the website it originates from.
Replace "bring them to court" with "kick them to death" and I agree.V_Arnold said:Therefore there needs to be a method to track down these people and bring them to court.
Goodbye.stuminus3 said:Replace "bring them to court" with "kick them to death" and I agree.
boris feinbrand said:Yeah, as well as upping the penalty for corporations being careless and irresponsible with sensible data.
I know you kind of address this, but I really, really wish people would stop making the disingenuous comparison between companies with tons of user data/money/possessions and the expectations therein to protect that, and random citizens' with their personal belongings and the expectations therein to protect those.VisanidethDM said:That's apologistic BS, sorry. If someone enters my house and robs me because I didn't lock the door, I can be labeled stupid, but I can't be lumped with the criminals.
VisanidethDM said:That's apologistic BS, sorry. If someone enters my house and robs me because I didn't lock the door, I can be labeled stupid, but I can't be lumped with the criminals.
Now, Sony/etc could be accused of having the responsability of the data they were holding, but before throwing blanket statements like "their fault for not having enough security" (which is something that only an accurate investigation will discover) you should understand that requiring something to be safe or else the holder is responsible means reducing your freedom.
If that was the correct approach, what Sony should do is requiring you to input your details and your card data at each operation on the store, and pay for home billing. And banks should be allowed to deploy tanks and snipers, because who knows what people could think of!
No, the people making us unsafe is the criminals. And neither us nor the people who provide us with services should alter their lifestyle to accomodate the needs of the criminals. It's much fairer to just eradicate the criminals and let the honest people life an ordinary, not-paranoid life. This demented idea that hacking is a primary right and should be defended is wrong at the roots. We outlaw plenty of activities that people could partake in safely because someone could abuse them to do wrong. Hackers have proved time and again their inability (as a collective, not individuals, who are often without fault and a positive contribution to the scientific community) to respect the basic rights of their fellow internauts.
Seeing people claim it's time to strike back at them and limit their activities isn't exactly shocking. Hackers had freedom and a largely unique approach from the public in terms of countering or punishing their illegal acts; they abused this special treatment, and if something now changes, they will only have themselves to blame.
And of course, we will also have them to blame for having to face a future of the web that isn't as user friendly as it could be if every website didn't need to be Fort Knox because if some scum wants to steal your data, he's justified if your security isn't tight enough.
boris feinbrand said:I am not talking about putting the blame entirely on corporations, the malign intent and the punishment for the actual breach lies squarely on the hacker(s) that carried out the attack, but the idea that corporations can simply get away with clear violations of securing private user data is proposterous.
stuminus3 said:There's a big difference between "Dear Eidos, we have breached your security, please get your house in order or we'll take this public" and "lol we stole all ur usernames and passwords wouldn't it be funny to break ppl's computers".
scy said:While I agree to a point, I don't think you'll see me ever thanking these hackers for championing the cause when they're still stealing data in the process. If they left a note of "chippy1337 was here, fix your shit bro" then alright, whatever. But not if it also has a "ps, thx 4 teh inf0z," to go with it.
GavinGT said:How do you call hackers that give explicit aliases "anonymous"? Fucking stupid.