[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Hackers: Coming Soon to a PC Near You here

[deepsand]

These puerile crackers had best watch their backs; there are more than a few good hackers both able and willing to cut them down to size if need be.

[nonseq]

deepsand, on 02 June 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

These puerile crackers had best watch their backs; there are more than a few good hackers both able and willing to cut them down to size if need be.

With the news today that LulzSecurity hacked SonyPictures and got a million names and sensitive data, those crackers need to be brought to book sooner rather than later and do some hard time.

When the net is locked down tight, look to hackers like Anonymous and LulzSecurity as the justification for government intervention. They're not taking a principled stance at all, they're contributing to the arguments that the internet should be limited.

Thanks punks. Cowardly swine. (My apologies pigs everywhere for the comparison)

This post has been edited by nonseq: 02 June 2011 - 02:25 PM

[davidboulton84zo]

I think this article is nonsense. The majority of hackers in recent times have proven themselves to be 'hactivists' and not 'black hats' in any way. When news organizations and governments do stupid things that threaten the free internet, they respond. They won't hack you for releasing a bad movie, cutting off traffic, or wearing plaid shorts, unless of course you're a pirate hunter with a censorship agenda.

I have not seen one case reported of 'civilians' getting truly hacked. I sincerely believe the general public has absolutely nothing to fear.

[oldschoolh4ck3r]

The cybersecurity enforcement will be more devastating than the hacker 'attacks'. We don't need more government involvement - we need better programming. Plain and simple.

[deepsand]

davidboulton84zo, on 02 June 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

I think this article is nonsense. The majority of hackers in recent times have proven themselves to be 'hactivists' and not 'black hats' in any way. When news organizations and governments do stupid things that threaten the free internet, they respond. They won't hack you for releasing a bad movie, cutting off traffic, or wearing plaid shorts, unless of course you're a pirate hunter with a censorship agenda.

I have not seen one case reported of 'civilians' getting truly hacked. I sincerely believe the general public has absolutely nothing to fear.

That's no more than a feeble attempt to justify vigilantism on the part of those who would stand as the arbiter of all.

Did it escape your attention that, for example, in the case of PBS said "activists" seek, not to promote free speech, but to stifle that which they disagree with? Or, do you simply chose to ignore that inconvenient truth?

[deepsand]

oldschoolh4ck3r, on 02 June 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

The cybersecurity enforcement will be more devastating than the hacker 'attacks'. We don't need more government involvement - we need better programming. Plain and simple.

What we need even more is for those who refuse to accept the Rule of Law to be brought to their knees, before they incite responses that will harm all.

And, please stop calling these childish creatures "hackers;" they are script kiddies acting out their temper tantrums.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 02 June 2011 - 05:49 PM

[waldojim]

davidboulton84zo, on 02 June 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

I have not seen one case reported of 'civilians' getting truly hacked. I sincerely believe the general public has absolutely nothing to fear.

Know any worth hacking? For that matter, do you know any that are worth it, and you have a chance of getting away with it?

[nonseq]

davidboulton84zo, on 02 June 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

I think this article is nonsense. The majority of hackers in recent times have proven themselves to be 'hactivists' and not 'black hats' in any way. When news organizations and governments do stupid things that threaten the free internet, they respond. They won't hack you for releasing a bad movie, cutting off traffic, or wearing plaid shorts, unless of course you're a pirate hunter with a censorship agenda.

I have not seen one case reported of 'civilians' getting truly hacked. I sincerely believe the general public has absolutely nothing to fear.

Black hats or hacktivists. Still cowards who hide in the dark. I don't want them forcing their sense of justice on me or anyone else for that matter. They're just thugs and bullies. Who will watch the watchers?

[xvMATTLEEvx]

99% of people who get hacked are just stupid. They click on hijack links, open emails that send them to hack sites, don't use Antimalware apps and other stupid stuff like use simple passwords and make stuff like bank account numbers easily accessible. I'm not saying hackers can't hack the most secure computer or it doesn't happen. It's just rare for a hacker to hack someone that's a challenge and may get nothing out of it over hacking someone whom is so stupid they can get all their data with little effort.

[deepsand]

xvMATTLEEvx, on 02 June 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

99% of people who get hacked are just stupid. They click on hijack links, open emails that send them to hack sites, don't use Antimalware apps and other stupid stuff like use simple passwords and make stuff like bank account numbers easily accessible. I'm not saying hackers can't hack the most secure computer or it doesn't happen. It's just rare for a hacker to hack someone that's a challenge and may get nothing out of it over hacking someone whom is so stupid they can get all their data with little effort.

Yeah, that's right; blame the victim.

And, these are not hackers, but script kiddies throwing temper tantrums.

[xvMATTLEEvx]

deepsand, on 02 June 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

xvMATTLEEvx, on 02 June 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

99% of people who get hacked are just stupid. They click on hijack links, open emails that send them to hack sites, don't use Antimalware apps and other stupid stuff like use simple passwords and make stuff like bank account numbers easily accessible. I'm not saying hackers can't hack the most secure computer or it doesn't happen. It's just rare for a hacker to hack someone that's a challenge and may get nothing out of it over hacking someone whom is so stupid they can get all their data with little effort.

Yeah, that's right; blame the victim.

And, these are not hackers, but script kiddies throwing temper tantrums.

Yes at times you gotta blame the victim at least to an extent. Bad people are always gonna be around but if you can stop a bad situation and choose not to then yes it's partially your fault.

Here's an example. Girl and guy are having consensual sex, the girl decides not to take birth control and is not making the guy wear a condom, then she ends up pregnant. Are you gonna place 100% of the blame on the guy? The woman could've prevented it by either taking birth control or making the guy wear a condom but chose not to. It would be a different story if it was something beyond your control like the girl was forced into sex or you took every precaution to prevent being hacked and got hacked anyways. But if you can do something to prevent something bad from happening at the very least your somewhat at fault because you could've prevented it but didn't.

[deepsand]

xvMATTLEEvx, on 03 June 2011 - 02:26 AM, said:

deepsand, on 02 June 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

xvMATTLEEvx, on 02 June 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

99% of people who get hacked are just stupid. They click on hijack links, open emails that send them to hack sites, don't use Antimalware apps and other stupid stuff like use simple passwords and make stuff like bank account numbers easily accessible. I'm not saying hackers can't hack the most secure computer or it doesn't happen. It's just rare for a hacker to hack someone that's a challenge and may get nothing out of it over hacking someone whom is so stupid they can get all their data with little effort.

Yeah, that's right; blame the victim.

And, these are not hackers, but script kiddies throwing temper tantrums.

Yes at times you gotta blame the victim at least to an extent. Bad people are always gonna be around but if you can stop a bad situation and choose not to then yes it's partially your fault.

Here's an example. Girl and guy are having consensual sex, the girl decides not to take birth control and is not making the guy wear a condom, then she ends up pregnant. Are you gonna place 100% of the blame on the guy? The woman could've prevented it by either taking birth control or making the guy wear a condom but chose not to. It would be a different story if it was something beyond your control like the girl was forced into sex or you took every precaution to prevent being hacked and got hacked anyways. But if you can do something to prevent something bad from happening at the very least your somewhat at fault because you could've prevented it but didn't.

That is wholly non sequitur.

There is nothing about the acts here under discussion that is of a consensual nature.

Stop blaming the victims of criminal acts.