Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Mo-

Cyber-terrorists

Recommended Posts

In recent times, groups such as Anonymous, LulzSec, etc., have been identified by various media outlets and governments as 'cyber-terrorists'. These groups have taken down websites, servers, you name it. Many of these people however are in fact only young teenagers aged at around fifteen to twenty years old, many are also facing serious charges from the authorities they reside under. It begs the question, should such prosecutions be carried out, when these 'cyber-terrorists' do not harm civilians with violence, attack only targets who oppress freedom (Organisations such as Sony who do not allow their customers to alter their products, even after the products have been bought, dictatorships such as the former Egyptian government, etc.) and do not operate as an organised group with a hierarchy, therefore not truly posing more than an individual threat to society from each member of the group? Is it the right of organisations to call them 'terrorists' and should the police and intelligence agencies be wasting time trying to prevent young people from trying to secure freedom, as opposed to catching drug rings such as the cartels in Mexico which promote severe violence on a global scale?

What are your opinions on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting question. It's a slippery slope really, in my opinion. How would any business model survive if consumers just got up whenever and said "this is oppressive, damnit!" and hacked your servers? Who is vigilant against the vigilantes? Like the argument that PSN deserved to get hacked because of the last firmware update... there's no way of justifying that, given that the games publishers rely on Sony keeping their games safe and profitable. There was nothing noble about taking down their system.

 

However, taking down oppressive organisations must be a good thing, right? Civil disobedience was used by prophet Ibrahim when he hacked the shirk network of his community and left an anonymous sign on the main server:

 

So he made them pieces except a large of them, so that they may return to it. 21:58

 

Intention and judgement is the key I guess. Are these cyber-terrorists really going for legitimate targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recent times, groups such as Anonymous, LulzSec, etc., have been identified by various media outlets and governments as 'cyber-terrorists'. These groups have taken down websites, servers, you name it. Many of these people however are in fact only young teenagers aged at around fifteen to twenty years old, many are also facing serious charges from the authorities they reside under. It begs the question, should such prosecutions be carried out, when these 'cyber-terrorists' do not harm civilians with violence, attack only targets who oppress freedom (Organisations such as Sony who do not allow their customers to alter their products, even after the products have been bought, dictatorships such as the former Egyptian government, etc.) and do not operate as an organised group with a hierarchy, therefore not truly posing more than an individual threat to society from each member of the group? Is it the right of organisations to call them 'terrorists' and should the police and intelligence agencies be wasting time trying to prevent young people from trying to secure freedom, as opposed to catching drug rings such as the cartels in Mexico which promote severe violence on a global scale?

What are your opinions on this.

Are all terrorists today persecuted or just the "bad ones"(aka the ones fighting your nation state). Same rule.

 

Cyber attack have the potential to harm the nation state's abilities to function for ideological reasons(absolute freedom of speech/information)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you might support something, while also understanding why it is illegal. This is one of those situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recent times, groups such as Anonymous, LulzSec, etc., have been identified by various media outlets and governments as 'cyber-terrorists'. These groups have taken down websites, servers, you name it. Many of these people however are in fact only young teenagers aged at around fifteen to twenty years old, many are also facing serious charges from the authorities they reside under. It begs the question, should such prosecutions be carried out, when these 'cyber-terrorists' do not harm civilians with violence, attack only targets who oppress freedom (Organisations such as Sony who do not allow their customers to alter their products, even after the products have been bought, dictatorships such as the former Egyptian government, etc.) and do not operate as an organised group with a hierarchy, therefore not truly posing more than an individual threat to society from each member of the group? Is it the right of organisations to call them 'terrorists' and should the police and intelligence agencies be wasting time trying to prevent young people from trying to secure freedom, as opposed to catching drug rings such as the cartels in Mexico which promote severe violence on a global scale?

What are your opinions on this.

They(LulzSec) are also purported to have hacked the census database and stolen details of PlayStation Customers. When you are stealing data you do it for two reasons. Either to use it yourself, or more likely, to sell it on. If you gather significant data about a person you can start stealing their money - or their identity. Identity theft is a real crime in the real world. Although this all may start online, it can cross over into the 'real' world too. It should be treated as a real crime. Especially if the rumours about the Census are true.

 

Also with regards to altering Sony products, if you are talking about them removing the OtherOS feature that is within their rights and I don't see how it is oppressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LulSec consists of a bunch of socially retarded melons who think they're cool. Amrite?

 

People clearly don't understand what buying a console that has an internet connection entails. It's not your canvas to do what you please, especially when it entails piracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting question. It's a slippery slope really, in my opinion. How would any business model survive if consumers just got up whenever and said "this is oppressive, damnit!" and hacked your servers? Who is vigilant against the vigilantes? Like the argument that PSN deserved to get hacked because of the last firmware update... there's no way of justifying that, given that the games publishers rely on Sony keeping their games safe and profitable. There was nothing noble about taking down their system.

 

However, taking down oppressive organisations must be a good thing, right? Civil disobedience was used by prophet Ibrahim when he hacked the shirk network of his community and left an anonymous sign on the main server:

 

So he made them pieces except a large of them, so that they may return to it. 21:58

 

Intention and judgement is the key I guess. Are these cyber-terrorists really going for legitimate targets?

 

They hacked PSN because they launched a case against George Hotz for jailbreaking and reverse engineering the PS3, enabling him to use the OtherOS feature again. There is of course a point where there will be vigilantes against these people, who will be other hackers protecting certain things and hacking into the hackers computers, etc., but I don't think that will be anywhere in the near future. Allahu 3alem.

 

So far they have been yes, Scientology, Sony, CIA, oppressive governments websites, promoting real life activism in countries that are corrupt such as India and Iran, etc.

 

Are all terrorists today persecuted or just the "bad ones"(aka the ones fighting your nation state). Same rule.

 

Cyber attack have the potential to harm the nation state's abilities to function for ideological reasons(absolute freedom of speech/information)

 

Yes but is it right to equate them to organisations such as Jaysh al-Mahdi, al-Qaeda, etc.?

 

Sometimes you might support something, while also understanding why it is illegal. This is one of those situations

 

The question is though, should such a thing be illegal?

 

They(LulzSec) are also purported to have hacked the census database and stolen details of PlayStation Customers. When you are stealing data you do it for two reasons. Either to use it yourself, or more likely, to sell it on. If you gather significant data about a person you can start stealing their money - or their identity. Identity theft is a real crime in the real world. Although this all may start online, it can cross over into the 'real' world too. It should be treated as a real crime. Especially if the rumours about the Census are true.

 

Also with regards to altering Sony products, if you are talking about them removing the OtherOS feature that is within their rights and I don't see how it is oppressive.

 

They haven't 'stolen' as per say, more like gained access and showed the flaw in Sonys systems to act as a serious detterent to possible customers. I highly doubt they plan to sell credit card data, if they wished to profit they could have hacked an online banking system.

Also, the oppressive thing they were against was the case of George Hotz.

 

LulSec consists of a bunch of socially retarded melons who think they're cool. Amrite?

 

People clearly don't understand what buying a console that has an internet connection entails. It's not your canvas to do what you please, especially when it entails piracy.

 

Not really, they are just very bored teenagers who got inspired by films such as "V for Vendetta".

The charges George Hotz is facing has nothing to with piracy, LulzSec hacked Sony because they infringed his rights and used their corporate power in order to hire expensive lawyers to sue him for reverse-engineering a console he had bought. It's like saying you should not install another OS on your computer and remain with the default one that comes with it, even though its your right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back an Australian film festival was showing a film about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebiya_Kadeer and the film festival's website was hacked and a Chinese flag was left on the website. That along with the CCP "requesting" that Chinese students in Australia forward letters of complaint to the film organisers made it quite obvious who was behind it.

 

So yeah it should be outlawed otherwise states will use it.

 

Yes but is it right to equate them to organisations such as Jaysh al-Mahdi, al-Qaeda, etc.?

They can do real damage. for example you know how Egypt shut down 97% of internet providers during the protests? Hackers can easily do that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They deserve to be punished. I was PSN-less for like a month!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...