Westboro "church" funeral protests = protected speech

Derick Freese wrote: If you don't have your website hard to hack, then it's your fault when someone hacks it. Sure, it may be "illegal," but it's like someone putting a sign on your front door that keeps you from opening the door before you take it down. If you don't have backups and better security, then you deserve to have your site hacked. If you call someone "pimply faced hackers" and basically say "come at me, bro," then you are basically going to get hacked, and you should consider yourself lucky if you get your site back.

So, if I don't have a high security lock on my front door, then it's my fault when someone breaks in??

I call BS.

It's illegal.

I have never heard anyone say anything that vaguely resembles "pimply faced hackers". In fact, I think it's a chicken and egg argument, and you've got it backwards.

The more likely stereotype is that people who choose to become hackers FIRST start off as recluses (their choice), struggle with who they are, make more choices to alienate themselves over time as they become adept at their skill, then take their anger to the world and take it out on who ever they choose, claiming a high moral ground while blaming the world for calling them "pimply faced hackers".

BS.

You are failing to recognize that the vast majority of people do not have the resources to pursue high tech solutions to security, and are just trying to live their lives. Hackers are stealing from them, and taking their freedoms and opportunities.

Plus, fitting in is a struggle that everyone has, not just "pimply faced hackers". I have spent plenty of time as an outcast- that doesn't justify illegal activity. That particular form of snobbishness (my hurts are worse than your hurts so I have a right to take it out on however I choose) is both self serving and insulting to everyone else.

It's illegal. Hackers are not heroes.

Okay, for one, Anonymous never actually targeted the WBC. To do so is directly against their nature.

See their response to their supposed call-out:

Dear Phred Phelps and WBC Phriends, So we've been hearing a lot about some letter that we supposedly sent you this morning. Problem is, we're a bit groggy and don't remember sending it. Our best guess is that you heard about us on that newfangled TV of yours and thought we might be some good money for your little church. You thought you could play with Anonymous. You observed our rising notoriety and thought you would exploit our paradigm for your own gain. And then, you thought you could lure some idiots into a honeypot for more IPs to sue. This is not so foreign to us; as you may have heard, we trade in Lulz. You just do not have enough to offer right now. While Anonymous thanks you for your interest, and would certainly like to take a break and have some fun with you guys, we have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment. But, we will keep this application on file, and will certainly contact you if any openings become available in future. Next time, don't call us. We'll call you. Additionally, as your "Press Release" failed to understand: When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Do some among our number hate you and your cynical exploitation of your human rights for monetary gain? Of course. But the MoralFags are also the first to admit that they are, in fact, your rights to exploit. In closing, let us assure you: We are not BAWWWING sissies, nor are we afraid of your false god; we're just really busy. Stay tuned, and we'll come back to play another day. We promise. To the Media: Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement. Next time, if you could give us a few minutes to put all our paperwork in order, we'll be sure to let you know what we're up to. (LOL) To Anonymous: It's a trap. They've got their ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue. Don't DDoS, and boycott Operation Westboro. If you really want to continue messing with them, just send them a few male prostitutes and faxes of goatse. Nothing more. (Note: This letter was written by more than 20 Anons, at the same time, and none of them were inbred family members. Unlike that other, E36 M3ty "Press Release".) We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Or see it in it's unmangled glory here: Anonymous Press Release

SVreX wrote:

Derick Freese wrote: If you don't have your website hard to hack, then it's your fault when someone hacks it.

So, if I don't have a high security lock on my front door, then it's my fault when someone breaks in?? I call BS. It's illegal.

You guys both have points. I however took Dericks point to be more like... "If you leave $100 on the dashboard of a convertible with the top down in the middle of Compton, Have some personal responsibility to realize you probably shouldn't have done such a thing."

ReverendDexter wrote: Okay, for one, Anonymous never actually targeted the WBC. To do so is directly against their nature. See their response to their supposed call-out:

Dear Phred Phelps and WBC Phriends, So we've been hearing a lot about some letter that we supposedly sent you this morning. Problem is, we're a bit groggy and don't remember sending it. Our best guess is that you heard about us on that newfangled TV of yours and thought we might be some good money for your little church. You thought you could play with Anonymous. You observed our rising notoriety and thought you would exploit our paradigm for your own gain. And then, you thought you could lure some idiots into a honeypot for more IPs to sue. This is not so foreign to us; as you may have heard, we trade in Lulz. You just do not have enough to offer right now. While Anonymous thanks you for your interest, and would certainly like to take a break and have some fun with you guys, we have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment. But, we will keep this application on file, and will certainly contact you if any openings become available in future. Next time, don't call us. We'll call you. Additionally, as your "Press Release" failed to understand: When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Do some among our number hate you and your cynical exploitation of your human rights for monetary gain? Of course. But the MoralFags are also the first to admit that they are, in fact, your rights to exploit. In closing, let us assure you: We are not BAWWWING sissies, nor are we afraid of your false god; we're just really busy. Stay tuned, and we'll come back to play another day. We promise. To the Media: Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement. Next time, if you could give us a few minutes to put all our paperwork in order, we'll be sure to let you know what we're up to. (LOL) To Anonymous: It's a trap. They've got their ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue. Don't DDoS, and boycott Operation Westboro. If you really want to continue messing with them, just send them a few male prostitutes and faxes of goatse. Nothing more. (Note: This letter was written by more than 20 Anons, at the same time, and none of them were inbred family members. Unlike that other, E36 M3ty "Press Release".) We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Or see it in it's unmangled glory here: Anonymous Press Release

OK.. Very interesting. We were all taken by a hoax by WBC..

Very Interesting.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/220218/its_a_hoax_anonymous_did_not_threaten_westboro_baptist_church.html

Ignorant wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Derick Freese wrote: If you don't have your website hard to hack, then it's your fault when someone hacks it.

So, if I don't have a high security lock on my front door, then it's my fault when someone breaks in?? I call BS. It's illegal.

You guys both have points. I however took Dericks point to be more like... "If you leave $100 on the dashboard of a convertible with the top down in the middle of Compton, Have some personal responsibility to realize you probably shouldn't have done such a thing."

That's one of my view points, Iggy. I also think if you wear a sign that says "God hates ~expletive for black people~" in the bad part of town, you're likely to not survive.

In response to SV: No, I don't expect everyone to install high security locks. Lockpicking is more of an art than most criminals will be able to pick up. While it's true that most cylinder designs have flaws, it's also true that picking or bumping even a Kwikset lock can be a pain and take longer than expected.

I also don't compare computer security to locks on a door. You're not protecting vital assets that you cannot copy, like you are with a building with a locked door. I don't feel that ANYTHING stored on an internet-connected computer is safe. If you're putting stuff out there that most people consider offensive, then you should expect it to be hacked. See my "God hates..." comment above.

A lot of good hackers (I don't mean script kiddies) are college educated people with good jobs. The ones that aren't college educated have skills equivalent to those that did go to college. I have a couple of friends that now have IT jobs because they were hackers. Heck, all of the hackers I know are gainfully employed.

I love the sign-off...
We are Anonymous.
We are legion. We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

Derick Freese wrote: In response to SV: No, I don't expect everyone to install high security locks. Lockpicking is more of an art than most criminals will be able to pick up. While it's true that most cylinder designs have flaws, it's also true that picking or bumping even a Kwikset lock can be a pain and take longer than expected.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. You are familiar with computers, and not so with locks, so you are assuming locks are safe. I am a carpenter (not a locksmith). I do not know how to pick a lock. But I can get into my own house with a credit card faster than I can using the key, and I have never seen a residential grade lock/ door/ window that I couldn't get into in 10 minutes or less without doing any significant damage.

Derick Freese wrote: I also don't compare computer security to locks on a door. You're not protecting vital assets that you cannot copy, like you are with a building with a locked door. I don't feel that ANYTHING stored on an internet-connected computer is safe. If you're putting stuff out there that most people consider offensive, then you should expect it to be hacked. See my "God hates..." comment above.

Again, I would disagree. The vast majority of computers have WAAY more information of great value on them then do people's homes. And when it comes to a business, the sticks and bricks are not the value of the business. Heck, they frequently don't even show as a assets on a balance sheet. The value of a business is in it's information, customer base, vendor list, proprietary information, and ABILITY TO CONDUCT business. The computer information is of ABSOLUTE VITAL importance. The desks, conference rooms, and corner offices are not.

I can conduct business anywhere I can get to a computer. I do NOT need a building.

Derick Freese wrote: A lot of good hackers (I don't mean script kiddies) are college educated people with good jobs. The ones that aren't college educated have skills equivalent to those that did go to college. I have a couple of friends that now have IT jobs because they were hackers. Heck, all of the hackers I know are gainfully employed.

That's probably true, but completely irrelevant.

Apparently quite a few pedophiles are priests. College and seminary trained people with good jobs, gainfully employed. I don't think any of us would excuse the crimes they have committed because some people think they are respectable.

Regarding the "wallet on the dash with the top down" argument... I agree, it is dumb, and asking for trouble (and I am guilty). It doesn't change the fact that whoever reaches in and grabs the wallet has committed a crime.

Ignorant wrote: OK.. Very interesting. We were all taken by a hoax by WBC.. Very Interesting. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/220218/its_a_hoax_anonymous_did_not_threaten_westboro_baptist_church.html

Iggy:

Your link does not say that. It offers it as one option along with others, including the option that it may have actually been Anonymous.

Actually, I'm fairly familiar with locks (and picking them). If you can shove a lock in your house, then you need to install dead bolts. You simply cannot shove a dead bolt. You can bump them, you can pick them, but you cannot shove one.

In the end, home security is pretty useless. Windows break easily and alarms can be defeated. If I really want in, I'm going to get in. After I'm gone, it matters little if you can tell that I was there or not.

If you have trade secrets stored on an internet connected computer that's not truly secure, then you probably shouldn't consider them secrets. When I worked at the computer shop, all of our customer records were stored on a computer that had no internet connection at all.

Having your information connected to the internet is like giving the information to anyone that asks nicely. All someone has to do is know a little about you and they're likely able to get through your security. Computers can't tell the difference between someone that knows your credentials and the real you logging in for a full backup.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding wise practices in the storage of confidential information.

What about crashing someone's website? Taking from someone the ABILITY to do business is still theft.

SVreX wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you regarding wise practices in the storage of confidential information. What about crashing someone's website? Taking from someone the ABILITY to do business is still theft.

I think it is closer to vandalism than theft.

SVreX wrote:

Ignorant wrote: OK.. Very interesting. We were all taken by a hoax by WBC.. Very Interesting. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/220218/its_a_hoax_anonymous_did_not_threaten_westboro_baptist_church.html

Iggy: Your link does not say that. It offers it as one option along with others, including the option that it may have actually been Anonymous.

I know that dude.. Why do you think I repeated.. "Very Interesting"

I don't get it.

You said "We were all taken by a hoax by WBC".

Your link doesn't say it was a hoax by WBC.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I think it is closer to vandalism than theft.

It REALLY doesn't matter, but if a business looses a day's worth of sales because they did not have access to their website, or has to pay to repair something someone took from them (even if it WAS an act of vandalism) it is theft. It is taking property from someone (if only for a time) they invested in and had a right to use.

If someone is convicted of vandalism, the conviction will include monetary restitution for the financial loss.

As a game of semantics, it's tiresome. Both theft and vandalism are crimes, so I really don't care.

SV, in this case, Westboro is on the same field with anon. They are not a business, but a group doing things for publicity. What happened was Westboro called someone out and when the entity they called out attacked them, they cried like little babies. Westboro does stuff like this all the time to make the news. Anon should have said nothing at all and done nothing at all in response to Westboro.

The original letter was either planted by Westboro or by someone that was doing it to piss them off. Please do remember that there is no central power among anon.

Do also take note of the disclaimer at the top of the anonnews.org site. It states: "AnonNews uses an open-posting concept. Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place!"

It very well could have been planted by Westboro, or it could have been some troll doing it for the lulz.

SVreX wrote: I don't get it. You said "We were all taken by a hoax by WBC". Your link doesn't say it was a hoax by WBC.

"WBC accepted the challenge and told its faceless attackers to "bring it". On February 20, however, an open letter posted on AnonNews claimed the threat was not sent by Anonymous in the first place. It asserts that the threat is a hoax, and even goes so far as to suggest WBC is behind the hoax just to make headlines. If so, it worked"

It says it's possible.. hence the dual very interesting..

If you go down further and read some of the comments, some of them allude to the fact that WBC wanted to find out who would attack them and then sue the IP's for money.. Interesting to say the least.

BTW, the leak in the internet really needs to be fixed.

In reply to Derick Freese:

I disagree. I think the leak needs to be ripped wide open.

Do not taunt happy funball.