Hacktivism gone wrong? Nearly 16,000 whistleblowers have had their info exposed | Hacker News Reader

Hacktivism gone wrong? Nearly 16,000 whistleblowers have had their info exposed

stream.aljazeera.com

30 pointsramisms21 comments

I philosophically believe hacktivism or any kind of demonstrative breaking-of-unjust-rules is a good thing. But 'unjust' is the key. and I think this is reflective of the wiki-leaks/anarchist culture of "breaking 'any' rule is a good thing". It ceases to be activism of any sort, and becomes children playing with firearms. It also serves to undermine the impact of genuine hacktivism like that of Aaron Schwartz and Weev.

Genuine hactivists/activists harm institutions, and do their utmost to avoid harming innocents, as they know that undermines the cause.

the wiki-leaks/anarchist culture of "breaking 'any' rule is a good thing"

What? I don't think that's actually something many people advocate for. Do you have links to examples?

...googling Julian Assange is left as an exercise

Totally ot but I was just looking at some code he wrote... Beautiful stuff, very tight. I was looking for something to rewrite in cuda fortran for the shits and giggles and an seemed perfect given how long bigger anagram can take. Great way to learn new tricks

Which code?

Bigger anagram?

Sorry should have been bigger anagramS, autocorrect. He wrote /usr/bin/an the anagram maker

One person is not a "culture", and he's not an anarchist. But point still taken.

I don't see this contradicting Anonymous's philosophy at all.

These are people tipping the police off anonymously. This is more often then not for crimes like drugs that Anonymous does not agree with.

They did exactly the same thing in the US a year or so ago.

The police are 'The man', people acting in secret with the police are not what Anonymous would see as on their side.

"This is more often then not for crimes like drugs"

Citation needed, I guess?

Well really I'd just have to cite Anonymous thinks that. But true I have no evidence they do actually think this.

The idea that 'anonymous tipsters are only/mostly snitching on drug users,' is a bit tenuous and doesn't seem to have much basis in reality.

Which is better? That it is publicized that the security hole exists and anonymous tips aren't truly anonymous? Or that people continue to trust the site, while criminal organizations monitor it for their own benefit?

No question that this was an action with the potential for short-term harm. But I'm not convinced that in the long run it will prove to be a bad thing to put police everywhere on notice about how important it is to better secure databases like this.

Heck, if they want to improve, they can do worse than to start with http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/stron... and see how well it serves their needs.

What's the difference between a narc and a whistleblower again?

A whistleblower informs on the powers-that-be to the public, a narc informs on members of the public to the powers that be.

One lets the public or their community decide, the other appeals to an authority to come into the community and take care of the problem.

People who report illegal actions inside private companies to law enforcement or regulatory authorities are still called "whistleblowers."

Seriously: are you a whistleblower if you report your neighbor to the cops for burning leaves?

My conception of a whistleblower is someone who reports the behavior of closed institutions to the public. Other institutions might then take actions on behalf of the public, but isn't what makes the whistleblower a whistleblower. If you work as an accountant for a major company that is avoiding paying taxes through obscure and morally questionable, yet legal loopholes, you're still a whistleblower. If you report your neighbor for burning leaves in his yard, you've got to be a narc.

Describing people who make anonymous reports to police as whistleblowers seems at least editorial, and at most simply deceptive.

edit: a better counter-example might be a defector from the Mafia who reports their illegal activities to the police. Is he/she a whistleblower, or a narc?

This is the problem with `Anonymous`. Literally anyone can claim they are part of it. Any group could use it as a cover.

"problem"?

Well, for the people that try to classify it as a singular group with a singular purpose.

It just shows why you should always take steps to remain anonymous.

If your name isn't attached to the report you can't be hurt no matter what happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com