Anonymous is on hacking spree: Paypal and Symantec already hacked

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:30 AM, isaki said:

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.

anonymous saves the day!

are you against wikileaks? and if not, what are you doing to assist with this injustice!

lol

last post

no i am not against it, but i am against putting 20k+ people's hard earned money at risk

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:38 AM, compson said:

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.

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:46 AM, isaki said:

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

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

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:32 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:30 AM, isaki said:

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.

  On 11/6/2012 at 3:10 AM, Zeffolia said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:32 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:30 AM, isaki said:

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?

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.

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:30 AM, isaki said:

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.

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:32 AM, compson said:

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

Once again, Anonymous probably wasn't behind the Paypal thing.

It was probably just random kids.

  On 11/6/2012 at 3:16 AM, TechDiff said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:30 AM, isaki said:

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.

 

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:32 AM, compson said:

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

  On 11/6/2012 at 3:22 AM, LimpyLoo said:

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

  On 11/6/2012 at 3:31 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 3:16 AM, TechDiff said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:30 AM, isaki said:

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.

 

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:32 AM, compson said:

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.

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.

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:51 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:46 AM, isaki said:

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?

  On 11/6/2012 at 6:30 AM, ZiggomaticV17 said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:51 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 2:46 AM, isaki said:

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.

compson do you realise that PayPal hasn't been hacked at all?

you're being a knee jerk reactionist

Breaking news:

Anonymous just killed 20 nuns.

Okay, now talk about that for 3 pages.

  On 11/6/2012 at 8:17 AM, oscillik said:

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?

  On 11/6/2012 at 5:22 AM, Awepittance said:

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.

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.

  On 11/6/2012 at 8:30 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 8:17 AM, oscillik said:

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

  On 11/6/2012 at 9:11 AM, oscillik said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 8:30 AM, compson said:

  On 11/6/2012 at 8:17 AM, oscillik said:

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?