It doesn't matter whose worse. I'm sure you can dredge up people (a lot of people, actually) who are worse than just about anyone. Morality is not actually relative. What matters is whether you're seen doing right or wrong things by a group of people, and in this age of information everything will be seen.

That's why I think LulzSec is doomed, regardless of whether or not they get caught. This was a damned reckless stunt, and people are starting to recognize that. On the larger scale, though, somebody is going to strike the right balance unless you clean up your act first. You can never eliminate leaks, no more than you can eliminate crime or "terrorism" or child marriage, but you can choose whether to act in a way that will only inflame the crazies, or in a way that will tick off some very serious people.

@ DrJBHL

Maybe if you took the time to respond to my points in the manner I did yours I'd know what exactly you're responding to but as it stands you didn't reply to or even remotely refute anything I actually said in my reply to you (reply #37).

I never mention religion, I don't ever mention terrorism or the like, I never talk about anything that could be construed as "US envy", and I most certainly never allude to the fact that someone could say "you made me do it".  I'm all about EVERYONE accepting responsibility (which also includes all world nations collectively).  No one gets an exemption.

Again, try responding in to my reply #37 if you're going to respond to my "points".  Anything less doesn't deserve any further consideration or response from me.

the Monk

1. No one said you did. "If the shoe fits..." no? So why do you raise it? 

2. Who cares what you consider worthy of response?

3. Don't come on my thread and presume to dictate terms to me or anyone else. Your presence is not required here. Good manners are.

4. You seem to think one has to "refute you". I said "We don't agree." That's enough for me. Again, if that doesn't satisfy you, that doesn't matter to me.

Usually I'd agree about a lot of conspiracy theorist poping up in these kind of threads, but I don't really see any from the Monk or myfists #43. I recommend we all get back to talking about computer hackers. Perhaps take bets on the next likely target?

My bet is on targets they deem "PC". They seem to need an acceptable "reason" they chose one or another. I wonder how they finance themselves? Motives for this type of crime seem to run around "Political" - Right wing hackers seem to be under-represented in this area (although I have no tangible proof of this), and "Financial" - selling info or blackmail. I wouldn't term their actions "Idealistic" since they've seriously endangered lives. As for "conspiracies", hard to know, except this is a group (apparently if only because 'they' claim to be, again not proven) and that concerted illegal action by a group implies a plan and therefore a conspiracy.

As for motive for the "why" of the group, this is interesting:  http://www.neowin.net/news/lulzsec-hacking-suspect-has-aspergers-syndrome

but again, not proven in court of being one of this "group", if indeed there is one. Incidentally, he's British and located there. lulSec denies he's part of their group, but one of their chat rooms was hosted on his server.

If one enters into discussion around or states points to a discussion the expected response from anyone would be to receive "counter arguments" / points with which to continue discussion.  A courtesy which was afforded to you in my reply (reply #37).  While it of course is entirely your choice to respond effectively or not, simply saying "we don't agree" is not that (an effective response) and is most certainly not one that could encourage further discussion.

If encouraging further discussion was not your agenda then your intial point-form post (the one I replied to) wasn't much more than a "statement" which seems counter-intuitive when seemingly opening a thread for the purposes of discussion.

You want me to accept your "we don't agree", sure I can accept that for what it is.  A non-response to my valid counter points.  Leave it at that?  Done.

My choice of not responding to you is neither an acknowlegement of your statements' validity nor non-validity.

It means I do not wish to discuss further anything with you.

Just read a report that lulzSec has folded its tent.  It's reported to be a group of 6 individuals, one of whom has made some sort of public statement.  I suspect the heat was getting pretty intense.

As long as I'm here, what does the false meme that anyone but Richard Armitage 'outed' Valerie Plame have to do with anything?

Friends around the globe, We are Lulz Security, and this is our final release, as today marks something meaningful to us. 50 days ago, we set sail with our humble ship on an uneasy and brutal ocean: the Internet. The hate machine, the love machine, the machine powered by many machines. We are all part of it, helping it grow, and helping it grow on us.

 

For the past 50 days we've been disrupting and exposing corporations, governments, often the general population itself, and quite possibly everything in between, just because we could. All to selflessly entertain others - vanity, fame, recognition, all of these things are shadowed by our desire for that which we all love. The raw, uninterrupted, chaotic thrill of entertainment and anarchy. It's what we all crave, even the seemingly lifeless politicians and emotionless, middle-aged self-titled failures. You are not failures. You have not blown away. You can get what you want and you are worth having it, believe in yourself.

I never did hear about that. Thanks for the update. No matter, same result, absolutely nothin'.

All I wanted to do was show the people calling for vigilante justice in this thread how it sounds when you put the same rules or standards to there leaders. So this guy made the leak, should we lobotomize, slit nostrils, execute and hang his goonies and scalp on the wall? I for one am damn glad their only power is yaking in this forum.

I remember another one of Docs threads where someone posted an article about some evil doer and also recommended vigilante justice and someone else had a royal freak out. Is that not what hypocrite means?

EDIT:

a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker>b : calm, temperate

This thread has none 

Here are a few things why this thread misses the mark.

DrJBHL seeks to dehumanize these hackers with little to no information about who they actually are.  The intensity at which he writes about this reminds me of the "god wills it!" mantra of the priests shouting on the troops during the crusades.  Religious zeal is bad for the mind, shame on you for intentionally trying to sway public opinion DrJBHL.  Anyone who dehumanizes another living human being isn't worth listening to.  You would be amazed at what a little empathy can do for people, even the "worst" among us instead of spreading your hate.

The irony would be that if one of these hackers was in fact someone that he was close to, I think he would eat his words, but then it is easy to have little empathy for someone you think you do not know. After all, you are only a few people removed from almost every human being on the planet.

The real meat of the discussion: the purpose of law and why the revealed immigration officials have to worry.

Quite simply, the practice of law is to allow redress of grievances in such a manner to assuage the murderous/harmful intentions of the harmed party.  Experiencing murderous emotions isn't beyond the scope of any human being to experience, no matter how much you might delude yourself into believing that you could never truly kill anyone.

Now, our immigration laws have little to no justice and are quite harsh, and so we get as a retaliation groups of people who create the counter force to this poor legislation and legal culture. The bias that there is a "side" and that we are on one "side" and that there is a "they" who are despicable and on the opposing "side" is utter baloney.  There is no side, there are humans with human problems.

The border already is a warzone, this give an opportunity for people who have serious grievances with the migration officials the chance to mete out their own justice.  This is the natural breakdown when law is not working for the good of the people.  The question to ask, since uncle sam has some very smart people running this country, is why are the laws set in place to NOT allow people a redress of their grievances in the first place?  

Support for criminals is only that.

No, Daiwa... The libel of the late Richard Armitage has nothing to do with this thread. It's just an effort by conspiracy types to troll or to sound "in the know".

However, as predicted: They po'd all the wrong folks. They're on the run, one probably caught. The rest of them will be as well.

sareth01:

Incidentally, they haven't been "dehumanized". They are still human and no one doubts that, but they are criminal scum. They have performed illegal acts for whatever reason. They have endangered people's lives for who knows how long a period to come. You don't like that? Too bad.

I don't like being compared to Templars who murdered my people, and I won't tolerate it.

Ah, "To understand is to forgive."  Not my place to forgive them. My life and well being was not directly endangered by their actions. I wonder if your life (or your family's) were so endangered how understanding and forgiving you'd be. Society (and participating in it) requires less tolerance for those who would seek or allow harm to come to those who protect us. Too bad you don't extend your "understanding" to those officers (and their families) who are now endangered by the violent drug cartels.

As for myfist0, trolling will not be tolerated either.

On a happier note:

http://gizmodo.com/5815546/lulzsec-calls-it-quits

The criminals cut and run... but, I hope the tether is short.

 Ah hah. The 1st time in over 10 years of posting on forums I finally been called a troll. I finally looked it up as it references the internet, ROFL. While I do not agree with the statement I still think that is better than being part of the mob carrying pitchforks and torches.

Ok ok, you got me. Obviously I am a libelous beast here for stating

Lock me up in a rubber room and stamp me insane. Hehehaha 

In 1 post and you managed conspiracy nut, defamer and a troll. When shall I expect the mob at my door?
Do others agree with Docs assessment?

I think that Bush said it best, "you're either with us or against us". it would appear that some believe that if you have a divergent or opposite opinion/view that you are a degenerate individual with no redeemable worth.

Not so. Has nothing to do with opinion. Has to do with actions. A criminal act which (no matter how intended) results in the endangerment of others and their families by violent drug gangs (among others) is and should be regarded as severely as possible, which is what's happening/will happen to them. In this case, their 'redeemability', 'worth', etc. was not discussed. I referred to them as 'criminal scum' because of the aforementioned act.

You're perfectly free to disagree with me, each other or anyone. How you do it is different.

Well one thing I can not understand is why the government is allowing that web site of theirs to stay online. I would have thought it would have been taken down within hours!

As far as the comment made earlier about "dehumanizing them", let me just say that these people are not even human to begin with, they are total and undeniable scum of the earth that deserve to be literally shot on site! I hope that if they do not get caught that they suffer a life of total misery, because they deserve it as does every other criminal scum on this planet. They had no right to do what they did, none whatsoever! Putting sensitive government information, peoples financial accounts and personal information, company information and especially information that could cause other people their lives or the lives of their family is beyond criminal, and I hope they truly suffer for it. I would absolutely love to be there and see their faces when they get caught! Do they really think that ending what they are doing is going to stop them from being caught? If so then they are not only low life scum, they are stupid low life scum just like that other idiot over at that stupid WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. I hope he rots in hell too.

Dehumanizing them, hah!  What a laugh!

Rant for the day all done....

... and I totally agree with Doc's philosophy on this, there is right and there is wrong, there is no "what if".