Hacker News Reader

> Then the entertainment industry has enemies actively trying to destroy their systems.

so to be fair this is actually where we are today, if you remember the efforts of anonymous and sony, etc...

To be fair:

1) Anonymous/Lulzsec aren't necessarily a best-of-the-best of the 'hacker world.' Do they want to raise the ire of even more skilled people?

2) Anonymous/Lulzsec are/were in it mostly for the publicity, and 'cheap thrills.' I'm sure that they could have done a lot more damage had they been focused on being as malicious as possible.

> mostly for the publicity, and 'cheap thrills.

You mean... for the lulz?

I purposely expanded 'for the lulz' into something a bit more succinct.

You actually expanded it into something that by definition is less succinct.

Lulz may be brief, but it is hardly clear.

Number 1 is a very good point and something those companies should keep in mind. Anonymous/Lulzsec are basically like children in terms of what they could do. Very skilled people could do substantially more disruption and damage.

Being actively targeted would certainly encourage membership.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com