• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sidepocket

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/23/1987

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA, NJ
  1. Please tell me, their existence confuses me. @,@;
  2. I'm going this year. I have to go. Even though I have not gotten a return if my talk has been accepted I am involved in other HOPE projects so I have to go. Wow, that sentence was a nightmare to read. XD Anyhow, I wanted to start a list a head of time of who is going and once we know the schedule where and when we should all hang out. As a reminder, The Next HOPE is going to be in NYC at the Hotel Pennsylvania on July 16-18th and it's going to ROCK this year. for more info.
  3. And I happen to think that's ridiculous. But that's only what you typed. The implication was that: In other words, important Government and/or military information - unless the person divulging it really fucking knows what they're doing. Hey, man, it's hard enough trying to guess how much of what Poulson and Lamo are saying is true, and what their motivations were, and if those motivations were independent of each other, and whether or not this was a set-up to begin with, etc., for me to sit around and ponder just who might be cognizant of what effects and who might be a bit funny in the head. You are probably 100% correct that Manning had no clue what he was doing and that he probably shouldn't have even been given the opportunity to pull these shenanigans in the first place. But that is not the subject at hand. What we're talking about here is whether or not it's cool to drop a dime on some jerk who thinks he's talking to a journalist, and whether or not Lamo has adequately explained himself. Whether intended or not, this ended up seeming a lot like an attack on Wikileaks. And while I don't think it was an intentional attack by Lamo, Wikileaks does. For whatever that's worth (probably not much). How, exactly, is that a defense of Adrian Lamo's actions? This story is now - for better or worse - a story and a discussion about Adrian Lamo, his actions and his motivations and not Bradley Manning or his actions. And what the fuck was with Hakim Bey? I agree that not everyone needs to know everything - but I don't agree with fucking little boys or that the Moors were black, or that African Spacemen colonized America B.C. (Before Columbus), along with many other things that Hakim Bey asserts, or theorizes, or mindfucks us with. Shit, for a while, I thought Hakim Bey was Robert Anton Wilson. I also thought Thomas Pynchon was Robert Anton Wilson until RAW died nearly penniless. Sometimes I still think those things, and honestly this whole discussion is convoluted enough without quoting anarchist, pedophile, Sufi mystics. Informants don't get the benefit of the doubt. Adrian Lamo has given his reasons for his actions, and his defenders are merely inventing scenarios which may or may not be accurate in order to justify those actions. I'm simply dealing with the information provided, not what if's and maybe's. As far as me doing "a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive", I acknowledged that Adrian may have had motives unknown (higher or otherwise) in my very first post in this thread: And, interestingly enough, I don't think that apologists inventing maybe's and excuses is a "disservice to the discussion"; I just don't happen to agree, that's all. EDIT, I missed this: So, what you're saying is that in this case, the flow of information should have some constraints (i.e. for "ethical" reasons, it should have come from someone other than the source). Nope. I'm saying that the whole situation seems really fishy, that's pretty much it. Well, that and the fact that this may have been a serious violation of journalistic ethics. But mostly that I smell a rat - figuratively. My musings earlier about free information were more of a commentary on "hacker" ethics and values, regarding the description of Lamo as an "ex-hacker", than anything else. Define "important"? It's important that we practice foreign policy to avoid getting the world blown up or the very least, getting soldiers and/or civilians hurt. I'd say that is substantially important. I'm curious why the folks who are so vehemently against what Lamo did never have a response to the issue of foreign diplomacy and security. Those people, including yourself, tend to gloss over it. Yes, absolutely, the person divulging better have a fucking clue what it is that they're doing. Manning was not in the mental state nor did he have the experience to know what he was doing. Yes, we *do* have to be stop idiots from ruining it for everyone else. I'll avoid mixing analogies too much, but it's like the douchebags burning stuff in Toronto right now. They *ruin* it for the people working hard to change the system (including those underground). That is dangerous. Dangerous needs to be stopped if there is a greater cause. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: THIS STORY IS ABOUT MANNING. Manning's mental state, previous actions and proposed actions. He was threatening to do stupid shit that could have serious consequences. Threats need to be neutralized. The only reason that this is in any way about Lamo is because he happened to be the person who had enough common sense to stop it. People need to define "informant". You (and every other critic) have never called the police on something you thought was a threat to human life? About Poulson and Lamo relationship: Every journalist has an "inside" guy/gal. That's nothing new. If you follow the timeline outlined since the original article, it's clear that Poulson didn't get involved until after the shit had hit the fan. Anytime someone throws out comments about "meds", my attention starts to wane because it's more about personal attacks and easy-write-offs than looking at facts over time. Everyone seems to have rushed to judgement before even getting the entire story. Another thing that "hackers" don't want to touch is that if Manning continued he would have given an even worse name to the hacker scene. Ruining diplomacy and putting people's lives at risk is not something that will garner a lot of love. Here is the thing about diplomacy...the documents that were leaked implies that we are doing fucked up shit behind our allies and enemies backs. Like secretly poisoning the Queen of England and actively helping slaughtering Middle Eastern people for oil and land. Guess what...WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS KIND OF DIRT IN THE FIRST PLACE! If our government ran well we would be like Sweden or Canada: A mouse. A non threat because we don't do anything to piss people off. So if we are doing secret evil shit behind innocent people's backs and we elected such people in to represent ourselves, then we NEED to deal with the consequences with that. Much like how we had to deal with the consequences that we did not give a fuck about Al Quada even though the Russians warned us about their 9/11 plot years in advanced and our TSA system has huge loop holes pre-9/11 that you could drive a fleet of Mac Trucks in. Also, here is the other thing: If you have bad news, you might as well say it now. Because here is the golden rule of secrets: Eventually they get out. And even though it's going to catch you shit right now, you are going to catch more ungodly shit when they find out that you had the audacity to HIDE it for such a period of time maintaining a sham before they found out.
  4. 1Well the fact that they have just been found guilty of a crime by the court means that what they did was a crime. Just because you don't feel it's a morally wrong does not mean it is not a crime. They broke the law (we know this because they were found guilty) and have been given a sentence based on the crimes they committed. 2I assume the point of your quote (a quote you appear to have made up) is that the provider of some technology is not responsible for the users actions -- which is clearly not how the law sees the situation since these people were found guilty. It also doesn't relate in the Mitnick case because none of the companies he admitted to hacking were providing a service. He broke in. 3As for being out of touch with technology, in TPB case it isn't strictly true. Copyright law in the digital domain is still being worked out and the place it's being worked out is the court room. This doesn't mean that the people in power are out of touch, it just means that technology has progressed at a faster pace than the courts were able to create new bodies of case law to clarify the boundaries between legal and illegal activities. It's lawsuits like this one that set those boundaries. Again, whether the decision of the court is right or wrong is up for debate. 4As for the last point about it being corporate interests trying to make an example of someone then yes, perhaps, but at the same time it was TPB who publicised the case so heavily. It's quite possible that the companies just wanted to shut TPB down because they think it's doing something illegal and is the biggest torrent site on the net, which makes it an obvious target. 1) This quote: "Well the fact that they have just been found guilty of a crime by the court means that what they did was a crime. Just because you don't feel it's a morally wrong does not mean it is not a crime. They broke the law (we know this because they were found guilty) and have been given a sentence based on the crimes they committed." Can be EXACTLY used for Mitnick, or anyone tried under any countries' law for the good of humanity or for the bad. The courts also found Mitnick guilty, so I have no idea how you can use this as your point. 2) First off, I think you are confusing your English. The telecoms companies were providing the service of accessing the phone and making it work. Also, many of the software companies were providing services along with their goods. So yes, the companies he was breaking into were providing services. Second, if you try to argue it the other way, not only could you argue that Mitnick was servicing himself, but also how do you know he did not share this info? In fact, because we have logs and BBS posts about his hacks by him, it can be assumed that he publicity showed to the public how to preform the hacks and those various BBS's linked to such data. This is actually worse than Pirate Bay IMO because Pirate Bay was just linking to the info and not showing people how to pirate their stuff. 3) Humans are defined and surrounded by their technology. We would not be the way we are without it, it's vital to our evolution and survival of the species. Every part of humanity should and has kept up to the technological rate. If you lag behind, you remain...key word...OUT OF TOUCH WITH TECHNOLOGY. DING! DING! DING! DING! Thus comes the question: How can you be put in charge of correctly regulate technology if you don't understand it and can't keep up with it to understand it? Search Ted Stephens on the Daily Show for that answer! P.S. What debate. You sound like George W. Bush on evolution. "The jury is still out." "...what jury, where!?!" -- Lewis Black 4) And how do you not know that they publicized it because they, like myself, knew exactly what the court was going to do and thus show as an example of what the big wigs do AKA punish anyone they do not like weather they are breaking the law or not? I think they knew well into this that they were going to be an obvious huge target, duh. P.S. A good start about understanding the issue, this include for "it's not hacking unless it's code"-livinded out there:
  5. The first question you have to bring yourself to when arresting/trialing someone is weather what they did is a crime or not. Hence the link. It's not about the magnitude it's the whole source of the incident in the first place. It reminds me of this quote. "When a drooling psychopath decides to buy a gun and murder a fuck ton of people, you don't sue Smith & Weston!" It also shows once again how out of touch all the people in power are with technology. Which is kind of ironic considering half of them are on pacemakers. Finally, once again, like Mitnick and many others, this is just another attempt at a message from the corporate and legal powers that be saying "LOOK! DON'T DO THIS! OTHERWISE, WE'LL DO THIS TO YOU! MUWAAAHHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!"
  6. As someone who is a constant PLA person, let me explain to you what happened to confs: Morons. Invaded.
  7. Hay, guess what, I obviously can't go! It's a blessing in disguise though, because I get to do work I have been meaning to do here and catch up with my studies. Oh and if you are at Notacon and see Mitch Altman, punch him dead in the face. I kid! I?
  8. *cue funeral music* P.S. I did a search and I did not find this topic on the boards, if I posted in the wrong place then I am sorry and please let me know!
  9. Sorry I am an idiot, let me clarify. I have heard that the magazine pays you for the articles unlike 2600, but they do a piss poor job at it to the point that people start asking why even bother. I think that is one of the few advantages of 2600, you are not getting paid for it but at least you know up front that it's pure exposure. I think there is nothing worse than saying "you will get payed by so and so date" and it turns out way longer than that, screwing up your financial planning. Overall, hakin9 is an ok magazine that people should pick up (or even though I do not condone it, snatch) the LINUX example CD inside with sample programs from the issue. The cool part is, you only really need to do that once a year if you are really into it.
  10. *raises hand*
  11. Sorry to reply to an old topic but wow is this place outdated. Funny reading all the praises in hackin9 when now they have been accused of multiple times of printing articles without giving credit due and the like.
  12. [2 cents] I hate this thing because it's another excuse to limit a fairly obvious system flaw that has been going on for ages now while allowing the police and military to exploit that system flaw and not go to jail like the rest of us. AKA for freedom! [/2 cents]
  13. And claiming to be the underdog...has left the lexicon...
  14. I think this shows that even if Americans want "change", that in our society and population size it comes very, very, VERY slow.
  15. Holy shit, you found the missing link to Attack of the Show and Hak.5! Great find! I shall now do my own search to find this how.