Are Hacker Attacks Government Operation To Push Internet Censorship Laws?

digme

PC Magazine questions whether the recent string of hacker attacks are really a government sponsored operation meant to drum up support to push through draconian internet censorship bill that the public would otherwise protest against.


Seems very plausible to me.

Moriarty

digme wrote: »

Seems very plausible to me.

Sounds ridiculous to me.

I fear we've reached an impasse.

Hal Emmerich

digme wrote: »

PC Magazine questions whether the recent string of hacker attacks are really a government sponsored operation meant to drum up support to push through draconian internet censorship bill that the public would otherwise protest against.


Seems very plausible to me.

I concur.

Ah no, yea I've being thinking the same for awhile now.

The Playstation hack pissed off the very group that would protest the loudest against any kind of Net censorship and the hacking has being getting enough Airtime for a few guys I know who usually love this sort of thing to even question what it's all about, so it's working.

There's no point to what they're doing, it's not funny, they're not doing any good.

The Newest group, Script Kiddies have a good name though.

deelite

I'm amazed that a few years back when Rebekah Brooks admitted to paying police officers (Coulson added the police were paid within the law) - that her statement was not delved into further???

hooradiation

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

I concur.

Ah no, yea I've being thinking the same for awhile now.

The Playstation hack pissed off the very group that would protest the loudest against any kind of Net censorship and the hacking has being getting enough Airtime for a few guys I know who usually love this sort of thing to even question what it's all about, so it's working.

There's no point to what they're doing, it's not funny, they're not doing any good.

The Newest group, Script Kiddies have a good name though.

The bit I've highlighted in bold is very debatable.

Setanta1974

I think it is very plausible. Have actually been thinking the same thing myself for the last week and was going to ask the same question on here when I got the chance

Hal Emmerich

hooradiation wrote: »

The bit I've highlighted in bold is very debatable.

Hmm, Security issues? If someone with enough know how wants to get in, they'll get in.

Sony should have had everything encrypted, they shouldn't have had to be told to do it.....saying that maybe they had it encrypted, they were an ideal "target" for an online attack for governments to then raise the Topic of Net Laws.

And they always seem to be issuing profit warnings, 2005, 2008, 2009, if someone offered them X amount of billions (especially now with their soon to be through the roof R&D spending with the NGP and PS4) I imagine the embarrassment of the breach would soon be forgotten about.

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

hooradiation

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Hmm, Security issues? If someone with enough know how wants to get in, they'll get in.

This might be true - but that doesn't forgive lax security setups by companies the size of sony that seek to do business on the web.

And unlike the hypothetical "someone" lulzsecs use of the data to embarrass the company in question is far more preferable than it being taken and nobody knowing.

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Sony should have had everything encrypted, they shouldn't have had to be told to do it.....saying that maybe they had it encrypted, they were an ideal "target" for an online attack for governments to then raise the Topic of Net Laws.

They didn't have anything encrypted, by their own admission.

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

And they always seem to be issuing profit warnings, 2005, 2008, 2009, if someone offered them X amount of billions (especially now with their soon to be through the roof R&D spending with the NGP and PS4) I imagine the embarrassment of the breach would soon be forgotten about.

This idea latches on the idea that someone offered Sony (And who is Sony in this? the company is so big i can't imagine who you'd bribe to pull this off) enough money to allow a massive security attack to happen or pretend that it was worse than it was, because they needed the money to R&D the playstation vita (which then they'd been working on since 2009 anyway so the money had been long since spent by the time of the hacks) and the the PS4 (which is unlikely seeing as the company only recently started to see profit from the ps3).

No. Sony fucked up and got punished because of it, the concept that they were bribed into screwing themselves multiple times for R&D money (or indeed money of any kind) is, in my opinion, madness.

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

Given that Sonypictures.com was taken down with an SQL injection attack, i share this sentiment, but not the conclusions it seems to have led you to.

Torakx

Why would a government offer Sony anything for a hacker to infiltrate their network?
If you want to hack the network get ingratiated with the people who can do it and coerce them to do what you want.
Its a billion times cheaper to start.More effective in hiding the real source and is in my opinion how most things are done regarding terrorism and political undermining around the world.

I think the original post poses a very valid question.