syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 yes, true - but again, it isn't a public service as loopy is saying making it out to be. they aren't hacking anybody as a way of saying "here's the way in, now patch that hole up" they're just morons they are making paypal a less reliable service because paypal violated the first amendment of the constitution by banning wikileaks. so it's bad publicity for paypal because people will get nervous about using it and it should increase security for the people who do use it, while also bringing to light moral problems regarding the company and wikileaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest isaki Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 anonymous saves the day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 are you against wikileaks? and if not, what are you doing to assist with this injustice! lol last post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest isaki Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 no i am not against it, but i am against putting 20k+ people's hard earned money at risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 are you against wikileaks? and if not, what are you doing to assist with this injustice! lol last post well personally i hacked into and put a ton of graphic images on a My Little Pony website that gave adspace to paypal.com so...why don't you guys get on the train, charlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 no i am not against it, but i am against putting 20k+ people's hard earned money at risk paypal is liable, we aren't talking about social security information and stuff, just money in people's paypal accounts, which should, correct me if I am wrong, fall under paypals responsibility because it was not the fault of the user. akin to a bank robbery. edit: nice one smetty lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest isaki Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 just money aye? i'm surprised anyone can say that in 2012!! (unless i misunderstood that) paypal's responsibility or not, anonymous are not doing a public service by leaking private info online, therefore putting someone's money at risk. last post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 yes, true - but again, it isn't a public service as loopy is saying making it out to be. they aren't hacking anybody as a way of saying "here's the way in, now patch that hole up" they're just morons they are making paypal a less reliable service because paypal violated the first amendment of the constitution by banning wikileaks. so it's bad publicity for paypal because people will get nervous about using it and it should increase security for the people who do use it, while also bringing to light moral problems regarding the company and wikileaks. Paypal is not a government agency. The first amendment does not apply. Furthermore Paypal does not JUST operate in the US and the first amendment only applies to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 yes, true - but again, it isn't a public service as loopy is saying making it out to be. they aren't hacking anybody as a way of saying "here's the way in, now patch that hole up" they're just morons they are making paypal a less reliable service because paypal violated the first amendment of the constitution by banning wikileaks. so it's bad publicity for paypal because people will get nervous about using it and it should increase security for the people who do use it, while also bringing to light moral problems regarding the company and wikileaks. Paypal is not a government agency. The first amendment does not apply. Furthermore Paypal does not JUST operate in the US and the first amendment only applies to the US. So people should be denied services because of political belief, race, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The term "first amendment" applies specifically to USA. But IMHO freedom of speech is (or should be) a human right, regardless of what country you live in or what your government's stance in on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechDiff Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 yes, true - but again, it isn't a public service as loopy is saying making it out to be. they aren't hacking anybody as a way of saying "here's the way in, now patch that hole up" they're just morons Funnily enough, some people do hack with these exact intentions. we broke your site, here's how we did it, money please. Some people make a very healthy living off such behaviour. they are making paypal a less reliable service because paypal violated the first amendment of the constitution by banning wikileaks. so it's bad publicity for paypal because people will get nervous about using it and it should increase security for the people who do use it, while also bringing to light moral problems regarding the company and wikileaks. This is kinda my problem with Anon, for as many people that may go about their business with a decent degree of responsibility, there will be just as many who are considerably more reckless, There was the whole thing with visa, when they stopped card holders from being able to donate money to wikileaks. IMO this is pretty terrible, people should be able to spend their money pretty much however they wish, not regulated by a service provider. So anonymous launched one of those denial of service attacks, not "hacking" any secure site, just stopping people from using it. Obviously pretty shitty for people who need to use it, but not especially sinister. But leaking PayPal users card data and so on, that really crosses a line IMO. It's one thing to try and highlight a shameful business practice, but another thing entirely when it causes significant problems for innocent users. Ultimately yeah it might be bad publicity for PayPal, but it's far worse publicity for anonymous. Not only are such actions pretty shameful, but it's added incentive and ammunition for those who would like to shame anon as much as possible. it's effective already when you read diliberately misleading articles, like the "gained access to.." from earlier, but when it's genuinely illegal and sinister behaviour, that does little more than fuel the already negative views on this kinda "hacktivism" Ugh.. Can't believe I just used that word... Yuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Once again, Anonymous probably wasn't behind the Paypal thing. It was probably just random kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 yes, true - but again, it isn't a public service as loopy is saying making it out to be. they aren't hacking anybody as a way of saying "here's the way in, now patch that hole up" they're just morons Funnily enough, some people do hack with these exact intentions. we broke your site, here's how we did it, money please. Some people make a very healthy living off such behaviour. they are making paypal a less reliable service because paypal violated the first amendment of the constitution by banning wikileaks. so it's bad publicity for paypal because people will get nervous about using it and it should increase security for the people who do use it, while also bringing to light moral problems regarding the company and wikileaks. This is kinda my problem with Anon, for as many people that may go about their business with a decent degree of responsibility, there will be just as many who are considerably more reckless, There was the whole thing with visa, when they stopped card holders from being able to donate money to wikileaks. IMO this is pretty terrible, people should be able to spend their money pretty much however they wish, not regulated by a service provider. So anonymous launched one of those denial of service attacks, not "hacking" any secure site, just stopping people from using it. Obviously pretty shitty for people who need to use it, but not especially sinister. But leaking PayPal users card data and so on, that really crosses a line IMO. It's one thing to try and highlight a shameful business practice, but another thing entirely when it causes significant problems for innocent users. Ultimately yeah it might be bad publicity for PayPal, but it's far worse publicity for anonymous. Not only are such actions pretty shameful, but it's added incentive and ammunition for those who would like to shame anon as much as possible. it's effective already when you read diliberately misleading articles, like the "gained access to.." from earlier, but when it's genuinely illegal and sinister behaviour, that does little more than fuel the already negative views on this kinda "hacktivism" Ugh.. Can't believe I just used that word... Yuk Well said, I would agree, but if Paypal is liable what other problems would it cause for users? I mean do people really lose their identity with info on this account? Seems inconvenient to deal with more than potential identity theft. But I don't know how that stuff works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechDiff Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Once again, Anonymous probably wasn't behind the Paypal thing. It was probably just random kids. I agree, I think it is different people too. problem is, when people act and claim to be part of/linked with/anonymous then for better or worse they will be considered as such, and in a way rightly so... Heh, tough to explain what I mean without writing loads, and it's too late for that now, film and bed for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechDiff Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 yes, true - but again, it isn't a public service as loopy is saying making it out to be. they aren't hacking anybody as a way of saying "here's the way in, now patch that hole up" they're just morons Funnily enough, some people do hack with these exact intentions. we broke your site, here's how we did it, money please. Some people make a very healthy living off such behaviour. they are making paypal a less reliable service because paypal violated the first amendment of the constitution by banning wikileaks. so it's bad publicity for paypal because people will get nervous about using it and it should increase security for the people who do use it, while also bringing to light moral problems regarding the company and wikileaks. This is kinda my problem with Anon, for as many people that may go about their business with a decent degree of responsibility, there will be just as many who are considerably more reckless, There was the whole thing with visa, when they stopped card holders from being able to donate money to wikileaks. IMO this is pretty terrible, people should be able to spend their money pretty much however they wish, not regulated by a service provider. So anonymous launched one of those denial of service attacks, not "hacking" any secure site, just stopping people from using it. Obviously pretty shitty for people who need to use it, but not especially sinister. But leaking PayPal users card data and so on, that really crosses a line IMO. It's one thing to try and highlight a shameful business practice, but another thing entirely when it causes significant problems for innocent users. Ultimately yeah it might be bad publicity for PayPal, but it's far worse publicity for anonymous. Not only are such actions pretty shameful, but it's added incentive and ammunition for those who would like to shame anon as much as possible. it's effective already when you read diliberately misleading articles, like the "gained access to.." from earlier, but when it's genuinely illegal and sinister behaviour, that does little more than fuel the already negative views on this kinda "hacktivism" Ugh.. Can't believe I just used that word... Yuk Well said, I would agree, but if Paypal is liable what other problems would it cause for users? I mean do people really lose their identity with info on this account? Seems inconvenient to deal with more than potential identity theft. But I don't know how that stuff works well all your account details are logged with PayPal, I would imagine enough for others to use your banking accounts away from PayPal. Whether responsibility would fall solely onto PayPal, I guess so.. But thousands of people having to deal with the stresses of identity theft.. I've had a couple friends get their bank accounts broken in to, and it's a fkn nightmare, unable to pay rent/bills because of insuiffient funds, having to sort through your account history to trace illegal payments, all the fucking about with your bank to get the money back etc. A bucket load of hastle, pretty undeservedly dumped onto innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 the inherent problem with anonymous to me is that it's going to give the US government an easy excuse for the inevitable internet crackdown in response to 'cyber terrorism'. The obama administration for the past 4 years has been planting the seeds of the new frontier of the war on terror, and cyber terrorism is the new 'target'. At the same time though it's not like i would blame anonymous, the government if they do use it will simply use them as a scapegoat and a pretext. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skotosa Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 no i am not against it, but i am against putting 20k+ people's hard earned money at risk paypal is liable, we aren't talking about social security information and stuff, just money in people's paypal accounts, which should, correct me if I am wrong, fall under paypals responsibility because it was not the fault of the user. akin to a bank robbery. edit: nice one smetty lol So what you are saying is. If I have a castle with 100 feet high walls and someone decides to breech them. Its my fault for having insufficient walls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 no i am not against it, but i am against putting 20k+ people's hard earned money at risk paypal is liable, we aren't talking about social security information and stuff, just money in people's paypal accounts, which should, correct me if I am wrong, fall under paypals responsibility because it was not the fault of the user. akin to a bank robbery. edit: nice one smetty lol So what you are saying is. If I have a castle with 100 feet high walls and someone decides to breech them. Its my fault for having insufficient walls? If people are paying you money to keep their information secure and you fail at this, then contractually yes you are liable. Happened to Sony with their PSN issue, yet hasn't happened with Xbox Live because Microsoft spends more money on security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 compson do you realise that PayPal hasn't been hacked at all? you're being a knee jerk reactionist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Breaking news: Anonymous just killed 20 nuns. Okay, now talk about that for 3 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 compson do you realise that PayPal hasn't been hacked at all? you're being a knee jerk reactionist thread title says its been hacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 the inherent problem with anonymous to me is that it's going to give the US government an easy excuse for the inevitable internet crackdown in response to 'cyber terrorism'. That sounds more like a problem with the government than Anonymous. That's like saying "the problem with wearing that pink shirt to school is that it will encourage bullies to pick on you." The part of that equation that is cause for concern is the bully part, not the pink shirt part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 It has become strange to even think about anonymous. as mentioned in the earlier in the thread it's not even a singular entity, however, whenever you think about it you are almost forced to think of them that way and assign them some kind of personality and purpose. Weirder even, with the notoriety 'they' have gained there are actual groups of people claiming to be anonymous, as if they had some sort of certification that made them more anonymous than others. Over here it's particularly stupid, young adults here actually think the 'local branch' of anonymous are some cyber punk rebels that can turn the system upside down, and they don't realize it's only a bunch of immature kids acting cool and who can't do more harm than making a website with no visitors unreachable for a couple of hours. anyway, it pisses me off to even hear the name mentioned in mainstream media or by my friends who are not from the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 compson do you realise that PayPal hasn't been hacked at all? you're being a knee jerk reactionist thread title says its been hacked? thread title is wrong. also do you realise what you've just said? the thread title says PayPal was hacked, so according to you, that means that it must be true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 compson do you realise that PayPal hasn't been hacked at all? you're being a knee jerk reactionist thread title says its been hacked? thread title is wrong. also do you realise what you've just said? the thread title says PayPal was hacked, so according to you, that means that it must be true so does the article... are you saying it was fabricated by someone to incite hatred towards anon? that's possible, i was just responding to the discussion earlier if this was true. not sure what else to do in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.