CIA Web site down; LulzSec claims responsibility

Ah, but you missed a crucial step in that equation:

Fear is news, news is ratings, ratings is money, money is power. Fear is also power btw, so it's double power for a single investment of fear!

As long as we live in a climate of fear, you cannot extract the fear component from the media equation.

I'd love to see if CloudFlare receives a DMCA notice to remove that "Love Boat" theme. It's a clear copyright and trademark violation.

If it stays-up that in itself would be a big tip-off as to who owns it.

I'd love to see what happens...somebody send that information to the media corporation so they can start the DMCA process.

Let's grab our popcorn and see what happens...

Originally posted by TheStev
Ah, but you missed a crucial step in that equation:

Fear is news, news is ratings, ratings is money, money is power. Fear is also power btw, so it's double power for a single investment of fear!

As long as we live in a climate of fear, you cannot extract the fear component from the media equation.

Yes you can...

DATA = UNORGANIZED DATA; USELESS INFORMATION
INFORMATION = ORGANIZED DATA WHICH IS MEANINGFUL
MEDIA = PATHWAY THE DATA TAKES

MEDIA today, is unorganized data which is meaningless, why should you fear it? INFORMATION is organized data and once known, should not be feared, but utilized for the information it contains.

Knowledge is POWER!
and
FEAR is IGNORANCE!

DENY IGNORANCE and you'll have NO FEAR!

Well sure, if you want to look at the word media and its dictionary meaning, then you can ignore the concept of fear. If you want to consider what the word media means, and ignore what the concept of the mainstream media means in our current social climate - then by all means ignore the concept of fear!

reply to post by TheStev


All of this stuff going on with hackers and the like makes it very convenient for the gov't to put down an internet censorship stamp without much retaliation from the people.

I know it might seem that way, but as I keep saying the public will not support control of the internet unless their way of life is at risk. All of the attacks so far have been on government organisations and corporations - 2 things that the public are generally not that sympathetic to. Until someone attacks the public, the public will not support retaliation.

Originally posted by TheStev
I know it might seem that way, but as I keep saying the public will not support control of the internet unless their way of life is at risk. All of the attacks so far have been on government organisations and corporations - 2 things that the public are generally not that sympathetic to. Until someone attacks the public, the public will not support retaliation.

You talking "general public" or "ATS public" because while the latter will ignore it as "oh well, government and corporation, yay hackers!", the former will say "who do these people think they are? If they're attacking our government, they're terrorists trying to affect our way of life"

Me personally? I'm on the fence. Not gonna side with anybody and just sit back and see how it all plays out.

I absolutely agree that 'ATS public' as you say wouldn't support such an act, but personally I don't think the general public would support it either. People are generally lazy and self-centered, and if something doesn't immediately impact their own world they tend not to care.

I also strongly believe that even the general public don't have a whole lot of sympathy for government organisations and corporations. If it was a government organisation that provided a service to the people, and that service was denied to the people - absolutely they'd support a strong reaction. But I assure you there won't be many people crying themselves to sleep over the CIA website being taken down!

reply to post by TheStev


That's what I'm saying though, here in the UK if our security agencies or government had their sites hacked the majority of the public would cry outrage and such. Demand investigations, that sort of thing really.

Now in the US, unless the CIA site being hacked was widely reported I could see how many wouldn't care but only because of the lack of coverage given to it. I wouldn't have known about it unless I'd read about it on ATS.

Really hard to predict what will happen though and how people will react. One person who is strongly against US government could say the public wouldn't care and would be happy, someone else who is more neutral would say it could go either way, a pro-government person would demand action for the hack.

reply to post by TheStev


Ya know, a few hours ago I might have agreed with you. However, I just got a notification from a writers web site that I am a member of that this group hacked the site and stole (and published) the log in user names and passwords of a bunch of writers, bookworms, and such and frankly, I'd point and laugh to watch this group of jackwagons get taken down one by one right now.

So, while I have no great love for the government, I am now a target of these creeps because I am a writer who joined a writers group looking for tips and advice from other writers? I'm a stay-at-home-mom and do not now (and have not ever in the past) work for the government in any way. So, what makes me a fair target? Because I'm good for the lulz?

Take it as anecdotal, but this is one member of the "random public" who would be just fine with seeing the end of these goons. I don't want the government to impose more restrictions and censorship or anything of the sort, but I understand the absolute outrage and anger that these people are generating. I understand why other people might be inclined to agree with restrictions to stop having to live in fear that some piece of crap who is living in his mom's basement might steal their online identity and wreak havoc on their finances "just for the lulz".

With no method to the madness other than just to create random chaos by hacking into whatever slides across their monitor that day, and to steal the online identities of any unfortunate innocent who happens to be a member of the target of the day, you'll see a really big backlash happen really freaking quickly if this keeps up. Random Joe Q. Public doesn't care if these terrorists claim to be targeting the government, he'll care that HIS online life (and potentially his offline life) are being screwed with. Like this one lady who is trying to get about $800.00 of offline damage done by lulzsec reversed and get her finances fixed. Garbage like this starts happening to Joe Q. Public and good old Joe is going to welcome the government intervention so that this crap doesn't continue to happen.

Cheer these goons if you want, but I'm pissed about my experience with them and it seems like a great big smack in the face and a flip of the bird to see people say "too bad about the public, just as long as they get the government, too".

Take care,
Cindi

reply to post by Glencairn


i can see how it bothers you, i was viewing hackforums.net reading a thead talking about lulzsec, tried to view the next page and couldn't, then looked a lulzecs twitter saying they took it down by request, i laughed at finally being collatteral damage in a cyberwar lol, can tell the grandkids about that

you might wonder why i am laughing and treating it as a joke? because collateral damage of civilians usually means missing limbs and greaving loved ones, so i think we should count ourselves lucky that all we have is 10 mins of hitting reffresh

having said that, if the NHS helpline or something gets taken down, that would not be cool and very very stupid

reply to post by DeadpoolPete


It isn't about hitting refresh for 10 minutes. It is the fact that they are taking peoples information and using that to affect them financially. They didn't cause the lady in the article to refresh her page a few times, they caused her almost $1000.00 worth of charges to her credit cards. Should the lady have used the same log in for the writers site as she used for Amazon? No. That is a given, but because she did, these people felt that it was justified to steal her hard earned dollars from her?

Collateral damage like that is what is going to cause the random less informed public to beg the government to get involved on their behalf. I sure don't want to see the government intruding into my life by way of more restrictions, but I sure as heck don't want to see some little crap steal my or anyone else's money because it gives them the giggles.

Take care,
Cindi

I'm starting to believe boon was right about LulzSec now. Why would a bunch of hackers target the CIA unless they were REALLY stupid. If they did this out of fun or something like that, then we shouldn't be encouraging them. I now think they are CIA like boon says, and this was a a hoaxed attack. Just one of the attacks in the current hacking spree we are seeing. This is all part of one huge false flag attack, being engineered to give backbone to their efforts to control the the internet.