View Full Version : Corporate Spys above the law.. But wiki leaks is evil
revelarts
02-29-2012, 11:49 AM
WikiLeaks' Stratfor dump lifts lid on intelligence-industrial complex WikiLeaks' latest release, of hacked emails from Stratfor, shines light on the murky world of private intelligence-gathering
What price bad intelligence? Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/stratfor), an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/anonymous), the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html), the whistleblowing website, starting Monday.
The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder. Clients of the company include Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.
Analysts working on the Middle East for the company appeared to be very poorly informed, with no more experience than a semester of studying abroad, according to journalists who have studied the documents. "They used Google translate to read al-Akbar news articles," says an incredulous Jamal Ghosn, associate editor of that newspaper (http://english.al-akhbar.com/about) in Beirut, Lebanon. "This is a guaranteed way for good intelligence to be lost in translation."
Mike Bonnano of the Yes Men (http://theyesmen.org/), a group of international pranksters who impersonate corporate executives and government leaders to highlight environmental and social abuses, was astonished to discover that his group was being tracked by Stratfor (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-02-27-00-stratford-monitored-bhopal-activists-including.html), which was apparently making money selling a list of his public-speaking engagements.
"They [are] making it sound better to clients simply so that they can make money," says Bonnano, after reviewing the material provided to him by WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks). "We're not talking about good intelligence, we're talking about a lot of information because more information means more money. That does not mean that it's smart."
Bonnano gave another example: Stratfor allegedly sent a memo to Dow Chemical summarising a public blogpost on the use of an environmentally-friendly washing machine used by activists campaigning against the 1984 lethal gas leak from Union Carbide's plant in Bhopal, India, which killed over 2,259 people instantly and an estimated 25,000 over the next few years.
Stratfor is not the first company to be caught selling low-quality "intelligence" to government agencies and multinational corporations. Aaron Barr, then CEO of HB Gary Federal, a Sacramento, California-based company that sells similar services, boasted in 2010 that he could extract information about hackers like Anonymous from social media. In early February 2011, the company website was hacked (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/anonymous/all/1) to reveal the company was selling very inaccurate information about WikiLeaks....."
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oRA7WT66RIQ?version=3&feature=player_profilepage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oRA7WT66RIQ?version=3&feature=player_profilepage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
"Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, starting Monday. The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder...".* Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks.
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/28/wikileaks-inte... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/28/wikileaks-intelligence-industrial-complex)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/28/stratfor-email-hints-u-s... (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/28/stratfor-email-hints-u-s-may-have-already-indicted-wikileaks-assange/)
Cenk interviews Julian Assange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL8g3vye4xo
Subscribe to The Young Turks: http://bit.ly/eWuu5i
Not much a fan of the 'young Turks' but thy video is a must watch.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 01:28 PM
Yep, might be damaging to the company, but I'm glad to see that Manning, Assange and now "Anonymous" are on the radar. I believe they arrested like 40 members of the group from around the world overnight.
Yep, might be damaging to the company, but I'm glad to see that Manning, Assange and now "Anonymous" are on the radar. I believe they arrested like 40 members of the group from around the world overnight.
...then surly you want the people in this company arrested too, right?
If not have no idea what moral path you walk exactly.
As for arresting anons, it's the stupidest thing imaginable, and the FBI has already got egg on their face over it, for no gain.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 03:07 PM
...then surly you want the people in this company arrested too, right?
If not have no idea what moral path you walk exactly.
As for arresting anons, it's the stupidest thing imaginable, and the FBI has already got egg on their face over it, for no gain.
Hacking computers is a crime, so I don't see why it's dumb to arrest those involved, and it's Interpol not the FBI. And absolutely, anyone involved in major corruption should be brought to justice. I just don't agree with breaking the law to expose those who break the law. Sorta like being a vigilante. I suppose you guys think it would be OK for a "Charles Bronson" type going around and killing murderers and rapists?
Hacking computers is a crime, so I don't see why it's dumb to arrest those involved, and it's Interpol not the FBI. And absolutely, anyone involved in major corruption should be brought to justice. I just don't agree with breaking the law to expose those who break the law. Sorta like being a vigilante. I suppose you guys think it would be OK for a "Charles Bronson" type going around and killing murderers and rapists?
The FBI paid a private security company to spy on Anons, Anonymous subsequently hacked the spy firm and made an ass out of them. Not to mention that the FBI has said that those who take part in DDoS attacks can be jailed up to 10 years, with your knowledge of computers, would you say that sounds reasonable? Or an irresponsible threat?
As for vilgilantism, you need only look at the work of Anons in Egypt, Iran, and other middle eastern counties to see how breaking the law to serve the greater good is for the greater good when balanced.
Anons have found a company acting above the law, illegally, yet only the (randomly selected) Anons will face the wrath of the law. The known names, with their signatures on the papers that implement Policies that directly violate your constitutional rights will get off Scott free, what does that tell you about your system, and who are the masters.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 03:31 PM
The FBI paid a private security company to spy on Anons, Anonymous subsequently hacked the spy firm and made an ass out of them.
As for vilgilantism, you need only look at the work of Anons in Egypt, Iran, and other middle eastern counties to see how breaking the law to serve the greater good is for the greater good when balanced.
Anons have found a company acting above the law, illegally, yet only the (randomly selected) Anons will face the wrath of the law. The known names, with their signatures on the papers that implement Policies that directly violent your constitutional rights will get of Scott free, what does that tell you about your system, and who are the masters.
They may have made an ass out of them, but they won't be laughing too much when and if Interpol/FBI or other agencies catch up to them.
The law is the law, and not something to be used by some as a tool to be broken, while expecting others to abide by it. It's ironic that those so hell bent on exposing corruption and what not, throw the laws to the wind when they think it suits them. We should ALL abide by the law, and NO ONE should be above it. By the logic I'm reading - it should then be OK for the police to violate the law if what they're doing is trying to bust someone they know is guilty. It serves the greater good, no?
They may have made an ass out of them, but they won't be laughing too much when and if Interpol/FBI or other agencies catch up to them.
The law is the law, and not something to be used by some as a tool to be broken, while expecting others to abide by it. It's ironic that those so hell bent on exposing corruption and what not, throw the laws to the wind when they think it suits them. We should ALL abide by the law, and NO ONE should be above it. By the logic I'm reading - it should then be OK for the police to violate the law if what they're doing is trying to bust someone they know is guilty. It serves the greater good, no?
Catch up with who? Everyone? If people think the 'war on terror' or 'war on drugs' is unwinable, just wait til they see the 'war on the internet'
Ofcourse there is a level in irony in what's happened, and everyone should obey the law. But it's telling that when a citizen breaks the law by say clicking a LOIC link, they're threatened with a decade behind bars. And when a company pisses all over you and your constitutional rights, well, it's your government that asks them to do it, so, they can just you know, do it.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 03:51 PM
By the logic I'm reading - it should then be OK for the police to violate the law if what they're doing is trying to bust someone they know is guilty. It serves the greater good, no? And what about vigilantes killing murderers, rapists & child molesters? The police and vigilantes should be able to work in this fashion, being as I see both thing as for the better good of society.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 03:54 PM
Catch up with who? Everyone? If people think the 'war on terror' or 'war on drugs' is unwinable, just wait til they see the 'war on the internet'
No, I was clearly discussing HACKERS. If you hack into ANY computer, it's against the law. Even worse when you do it on a grand scale and hurt companies. I'm not talking stuff like SOPA and what not, but those that use their skills to damage other networks or hack them.
By the logic I'm reading - it should then be OK for the police to violate the law if what they're doing is trying to bust someone they know is guilty. It serves the greater good, no? And what about vigilantes killing murderers, rapists & child molesters? The police and vigilantes should be able to work in this fashion, being as I see both thing as for the better good of society.
Nope. Those that are breaking the law should be subject to the law in the States.
But we know for a fact that only the citizens will be targetted. If you're running a big company you're above the law, now you may not like that, but that's the way it is, and it's only by these citizens opening themselves up to prosecution that you know that this is how your government operates.
No, I was clearly discussing HACKERS. If you hack into ANY computer, it's against the law. Even worse when you do it on a grand scale and hurt companies. I'm not talking stuff like SOPA and what not, but those that use their skills to damage other networks or hack them.
Land what about DDoS attacks? Criminal? (I mean the FBI claims 10 years in jail so they consider them illegal it seems...)
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 04:03 PM
Land what about DDoS attacks? Criminal? (I mean the FBI claims 10 years in jail so they consider them illegal it seems...)
Do you seriously believe anonymous has only done ddos attacks?
Do you seriously believe anonymous has only done ddos attacks?
No ofcourse not, I'm asking if you consider DDoS attacks criminal, like the FBI.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 04:08 PM
Nope. Those that are breaking the law should be subject to the law in the States.
But we know for a fact that only the citizens will be targetted. If you're running a big company you're above the law, now you may not like that, but that's the way it is, and it's only by these citizens opening themselves up to prosecution that you know that this is how your government operates.
So in some places it's ok to break the law for the greater good. Not in the US though because they are subject to laws here? Why should it be ok in some places and not others, if for the greater good of course? Shouldn't the point of breaking these laws be just that, to benefit the greater good? You mentioned quite a few countries - but shouldn't this "concept" be the same everywhere?
And you think it's ok to break the law to go after some people, but not others? Shouldn't the point be to go after those violating the law? Why should they be treated differently? If you break the law, you should be brought to justice. Only if you're in a select group though? Why would you're concept be good to bust corporate corruption or state corruption of sorts, but laws should never be violated to bust law breakers who are "normal citizens"?
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 04:11 PM
No ofcourse not, I'm asking if you consider DDoS attacks criminal, like the FBI.
Let's put it this way... I owned a server once, which was co-located in another state. I paid for my bandwidth. So the more traffic I receieved the more money I had to spend. This is something that applies throughout the world regarding to the internet - bandwidth=$$$ So I have a couple of monkeys in Tunisia who flood my server with millions of requests, which costs me major $$$. Why SHOULDN'T attac king someone elses private property be a crime?
So yes, I do consider it to be a crime. It cripples servers, eats bandwidth and costs companies major money.
Let's put it this way... I owned a server once, which was co-located in another state. I paid for my bandwidth. So the more traffic I receieved the more money I had to spend. This is something that applies throughout the world regarding to the internet - bandwidth=$$$ So I have a couple of monkeys in Tunisia who flood my server with millions of requests, which costs me major $$$. Why SHOULDN'T attac king someone elses private property be a crime?
So yes, I do consider it to be a crime. It cripples servers, eats bandwidth and costs companies major money.
Okay, imagine the situation of you will...
A user posts a story, with a link under it, assuming its a source with more info you click the link, the links broken, you think no more of it.
A few weeks later Feds turn up at your house with a warrant, unknown to you, that link was actually hot-linked to a macro that commanded LOIC attacks, are you now a criminal?
If you are, where's the justice? If not, then ignorance is a fail safe against the law, how can that be?
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 04:34 PM
Okay, imagine the situation of you will...
A user posts a story, with a link under it, assuming its a source with more info you click the link, the links broken, you think no more of it.
A few weeks later Feds turn up at your house with a warrant, unknown to you, that link was actually hot-linked to a macro that commanded LOIC attacks, are you now a criminal?
If you are, where's the justice? If not, then ignorance is a fail safe against the law, how can that be?
Of course the story you're posting is ridiculous, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. But there's a huge difference between someone who unknowingly clicks a link, and another person who sets out to harm, whether it's physical or virtual.
Look, I admire you guys (I say you guys as I know there are others here who agree with your stance). I admire your desire to get rid of corruption and government wrongdoings. I agree with ANY efforts to bolster or ensure our constitutional rights. And yes, I know they are worth literally fighting for if it ever came to that. But I can't get on board with the committing of crimes to seek out or bust those committing crimes. We shouldn't have to act like them to bring their crimes to the surface. It's a can of worms just looking for chaos, IMO.
revelarts
02-29-2012, 04:56 PM
The law is the law, and not something to be used by some as a tool to be broken, while expecting others to abide by it. It's ironic that those so hell bent on exposing corruption and what not, throw the laws to the wind when they think it suits them. We should ALL abide by the law, and NO ONE should be above it. By the logic I'm reading - it should then be OK for the police to violate the law if what they're doing is trying to bust someone they know is guilty. It serves the greater good, no?
Ok there's a lot there.
In a another thread -if i read you correctly- you didn't think Cops should be even be bothered even if it wasn't against the law to bother them with video. If the person was trying to do a "gottcha" you wish they wouldn't. How is anyone suppose to check up on corporations and public figures if you don't even like them be bothered legally -in that specific case at least-.
Someone thought new laws should be made so that it would be a crime for police to bothered, or watch in a way that made them feel uncomfortable or piss them off or wasted their time, or was trying to make them look bad or some vague stuff like that.
So THAT would be the law and someone could say at that point, "SEE it's against to law to watch a police officer... we can't be vigilantes."
Concerning the logic of obeying the law vs being a vigilante. that's a good question
I don't know if it was posted here or not but i read recently about an old man who sees a guy breaking into his neighbors house, he took his gun confronted the man on the way out and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. Guess what the cops did. they arrested the old man. Reckless endangerment i think was the charge. HE BROKE THE LAW, at least according to the police, no ones above the law, right? He was acting like a vigilante. You could probably post a dozen similar stories yourself.
The thing is no one wants a world full of vigilantes but also we can't live in a world where only the "authorities" are the only ones with authorities to do what's right or what needs to be done in terms of common sense and justice.
Conhog mentioned He and his unconstitutional police/nat'l guard drug task force let an old woman go, even though she "broke the law" in a drug case.
Citizens arrest are legal , protecting yourself is not always legal now a days, Whistle blowing is legal, Obama thought so when he was running for office. there are laws on the books to protect them. Reporters sometimes hack and steal to get info for stories that expose corruption. Doing the right thing may not always be "legal" but doing something wrong may not always be "illegal".
so sure in a perfect world always obeying the law is great. when there are so many laws are stupid not so much.
When laws protect the crooks and punish those that would expose them it's even worse.
It's risky to do whats right "without proper athority" and as great as this country is it's not perfect, we've got to keep a check on each other AND give other some slack where the rules are concerned from time to time to make sure justice trumps the law.
you ever hear of Jury Nullification?
revelarts
02-29-2012, 05:01 PM
Of course the story you're posting is ridiculous, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. But there's a huge difference between someone who unknowingly clicks a link, and another person who sets out to harm, whether it's physical or virtual.
Look, I admire you guys (I say you guys as I know there are others here who agree with your stance). I admire your desire to get rid of corruption and government wrongdoings. I agree with ANY efforts to bolster or ensure our constitutional rights. And yes, I know they are worth literally fighting for if it ever came to that.
AllRIIGHT!!
But I can't get on board with the committing of crimes to seek out or bust those committing crimes. We shouldn't have to act like them to bring their crimes to the surface. It's a can of worms just looking for chaos, IMO.
I'm going hit here Jim, sorry but, do you mean crimes like torture.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 05:06 PM
I'm going hit here Jim, sorry but, do you mean crimes like torture.
Until such time that "waterboarding" is defined by the courts, it's no more than an opinion. Whether you like it or not, no "crime" occured when the individuals were waterboarded.
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 05:10 PM
Ok there's a lot there.
In a another thread -if i read you correctly- you didn't think Cops should be even be bothered even if it wasn't against the law to bother them with video. If the person was trying to do a "gottcha" you wish they wouldn't. How is anyone suppose to check up on corporations and public figures if you don't even like them be bothered legally -in that specific case at least-.
Someone thought new laws should be made so that it would be a crime for police to bothered, or watch in a way that made them feel uncomfortable or piss them off or wasted their time, or was trying to make them look bad or some vague stuff like that.
So THAT would be the law and someone could say at that point, "SEE it's against to law to watch a police officer... we can't be vigilantes."
Concerning the logic of obeying the law vs being a vigilante. that's a good question
I don't know if it was posted here or not but i read recently about an old man who sees a guy breaking into his neighbors house, he took his gun confronted the man on the way out and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. Guess what the cops did. they arrested the old man. Reckless endangerment i think was the charge. HE BROKE THE LAW, at least according to the police, no ones above the law, right? He was acting like a vigilante. You could probably post a dozen similar stories yourself.
The thing is no one wants a world full of vigilantes but also we can't live in a world where only the "authorities" are the only ones with authorities to do what's right or what needs to be done in terms of common sense and justice.
Conhog mentioned He and his unconstitutional police/nat'l guard drug task force let an old woman go, even though she "broke the law" in a drug case.
Citizens arrest are legal , protecting yourself is not always legal now a days, Whistle blowing is legal, Obama thought so when he was running for office. there are laws on the books to protect them. Reporters sometimes hack and steal to get info for stories that expose corruption. Doing the right thing may not always be "legal" but doing something wrong may not always be "illegal".
so sure in a perfect world always obeying the law is great. when there are so many laws are stupid not so much.
When laws protect the crooks and punish those that would expose them it's even worse.
It's risky to do whats right "without proper athority" and as great as this country is it's not perfect, we've got to keep a check on each other AND give other some slack where the rules are concerned from time to time to make sure justice trumps the law.
you ever hear of Jury Nullification?
Man, you went all over the playing field with this one. Too much to address, too little time, and coffee has subsided. I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I read every last bit of it, just too many subjects to cover in one post, for me anyway! LOL
revelarts
02-29-2012, 05:25 PM
Until such time that "waterboarding" is defined by the courts, it's no more than an opinion. Whether you like it or not, no "crime" occured when the individuals were waterboarded.
how about 1983?
"In 1983, Texas sheriff James Parker and his deputies water-boarded a number of prisoners in an effort to elicit confessions. Parker was subsequently sentenced to ten years in prison for his actions and the judge presiding over the case repeatedly described waterboarding unambiguously as torture in his judgment....
“Torture is indeed against the law, and water boarding – or simulated drowning – has consistently been considered to be torture under both international and U.S. jurisprudence. At the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, Japanese officials were convicted of torturing captured U.S. pilots by subjecting them to waterboarding. ...”
...Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions. Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. ... that 1983 case...
or such time as 1945
http://pubrecord.org/politics/9675/heels-cheney-rewrites-history/
http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-for-waterboarding-prisoners/
the law is the law right?
jimnyc
02-29-2012, 06:16 PM
how about 1983?
or such time as 1945
http://pubrecord.org/politics/9675/heels-cheney-rewrites-history/
http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-for-waterboarding-prisoners/
the law is the law right?
First off, precedence doesn't always = law. And I know we've prosecuted for it before, because some feel it rises to the level of torture. But find a judge who doesn't think so, and there's no reason he can't rule the other way. Just like one judge can rule in favor of gay marriage, and other against. Torture, as in what we are a signatory to, is not defined enough. There was preapproval from the DOJ as well.
But let's get back on topic here. Regardless of making this another waterboarding thread - should people be able to break laws in order to stop other crimes? Do you set aside a select amount of the PUBLIC who are able to commit crimes as part of some "duties", or is everyone free to break crimes while looking for lawbreakers? And again, if it's for the greater good, that applies to EVERYONE and ALL laws, and I don't see why it would be an issue with the police violating laws in order to put shitheads behind bars. Vigilantes that stay true to their goals should be fine too. It's definitely for the greater good that these scumbags be removed, and even more so to those who would probably get the death penalty anyway. Where to stop and where to begin. Which crimes do we commit in order to reach our goals, and what crimes are good enough for us to commit our crimes! :laugh:
logroller
02-29-2012, 08:56 PM
Of course the story you're posting is ridiculous, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. But there's a huge difference between someone who unknowingly clicks a link, and another person who sets out to harm, whether it's physical or virtual.
Look, I admire you guys (I say you guys as I know there are others here who agree with your stance). I admire your desire to get rid of corruption and government wrongdoings. I agree with ANY efforts to bolster or ensure our constitutional rights. And yes, I know they are worth literally fighting for if it ever came to that. But I can't get on board with the committing of crimes to seek out or bust those committing crimes. We shouldn't have to act like them to bring their crimes to the surface. It's a can of worms just looking for chaos, IMO.
But who is it, exactly, who is seeking to bust someone? Has Assange gained some power to enforce his will upon others; isn't it the government that is busting people?
As for chaos, Freedom is a double-edged sword. But it is freedom which is at the very essence of our being.
gabosaurus
02-29-2012, 10:49 PM
That's nothing unusual. It's like the old "blue collar vs. white collar" crime imbalance.
If you get caught with a bag of pot, you will likely go to jail. But if you screw someone out of millions of dollars, a high dollar lawyer will probably get you off.
SassyLady
03-01-2012, 02:49 AM
Sometimes there are bad cops and sometimes there are good criminals.
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 10:43 AM
I'll be sure to remind ya'll of these stances when a police officer commits a few small crimes to get a dirtbag off the streets, that primarily it's ok to do so, so long as it's for the greater good. And of course the vigilante scenario that everyone is ignoring - of course it's acceptable for a citizen to kill a few murderers and rapists, as that's all for the greater good.
Unless of course you guys want to dictate WHO can do things for the greater good and WHO can break the law. So long as it's for the greater good for ALL of us, then ALL of us should be able to participate!
revelarts
03-01-2012, 11:19 AM
I'll be sure to remind ya'll of these stances when a police officer commits a few small crimes to get a dirtbag off the streets, that primarily it's ok to do so, so long as it's for the greater good. And of course the vigilante scenario that everyone is ignoring - of course it's acceptable for a citizen to kill a few murderers and rapists, as that's all for the greater good.
Unless of course you guys want to dictate WHO can do things for the greater good and WHO can break the law. So long as it's for the greater good for ALL of us, then ALL of us should be able to participate!
interesting how you phrased that
Cops commit "a few SMALL crimes" to get a "dirt bag"
vs
A citizens Committing multiple murders "for the greater good".
I GET THE IMPRESSION -not putting words in your mouth- that you approve of "a few small crimes" is that true?
How about a citizen committing a few small crimes to get a dirt bag off the streets?
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 11:21 AM
interesting how you phrased that
Cops commit "a few SMALL crimes" to get a "dirt bag"
vs
A citizens Committing multiple murders "for the greater good".
I GET THE IMPRESSION -not putting words in your mouth- that you approve of "a few small crimes" is that true?
How about a citizen committing a few small crimes to get a dirt bag off the streets?
Damn, do you read a conspiracy into EVERYTHING?
I'm simply saying, if you think it's ok to commit a crime to catch a criminal, then you shouldn't whine if a cop commits a few crimes to put criminals behind bars. Or you should be ok with any citizen killing another if that person is a known murderer, rapist or child molester. It's all for the greater good.
revelarts
03-01-2012, 11:28 AM
Damn, do you read a conspiracy into EVERYTHING?
I'm simply saying, if you think it's ok to commit a crime to catch a criminal, then you shouldn't whine if a cop commits a few crimes to put criminals behind bars. Or you should be ok with any citizen killing another if that person is a known murderer, rapist or child molester. It's all for the greater good.
the way you put it, you act as if there's no subtantive difference, when we both know there is.
In principal your correct however in practice you know there is a HUGE difference between a Small crime and Murder.
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 11:34 AM
the way you put it, you act as if there's no subtantive difference, when we both know there is.
In principal your correct however in practice you know there is a HUGE difference between a Small crime and Murder.
And what about stealing confidential information, releasing it and putting many lives at risk. If that's ok, what about a cop, lets say does a quick search without a warrant, and as a result a rapist or murderer goes to prison. You don't have a problem with the cop bending a few laws in order to put them away, do you?
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 11:35 AM
the way you put it, you act as if there's no subtantive difference, when we both know there is.
WHO gets to decide where this difference stops? WHO gets to decide if it's an OK law to break for the greater good, or going too far?
Sometimes there are bad cops and sometimes there are good criminals.
I like this, a lot.
revelarts
03-01-2012, 11:42 AM
WHO gets to decide where this difference stops? WHO gets to decide if it's an OK law to break for the greater good, or going too far?
not you.
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 11:45 AM
not you.
And that's why you're wrong. Because when pressed deeper with the questions you can't even answer. If it's good for one person to commit a crime for the greater good, then of course it's also good if another person does so. 2 bad people knocked down a pedestal for the greater good. How can it possibly be bad?
Oh, because it's wrong of a cop does so.
And that's why Manning, Assange, Anonymous & the worlds vigilantes are being prosecuted. And when they plead their case and tell the judge/jury that they did it for the greater good, and then say WHO should be doing it then if not them. They will reply with "Not you".
revelarts
03-01-2012, 11:52 AM
And that's why you're wrong. Because when pressed deeper with the questions you can't even answer. If it's good for one person to commit a crime for the greater good, then of course it's also good if another person does so. 2 bad people knocked down a pedestal for the greater good. How can it possibly be bad?
Oh, because it's wrong of a cop does so.
And that's why Manning, Assange, Anonymous & the worlds vigilantes are being prosecuted. And when they plead their case and tell the judge/jury that they did it for the greater good, and then say WHO should be doing it then if not them. They will reply with "Not you".
I asked you before if you had ever heard of Jury nullification, you never got back to me on that.
But that's where questions like that are answered.
the case is presented to the jury and the the jury can decide the case "inspite" of the law and based on there assess ment of the facts. If there are decent people on the jury some real world justice can be done. case by case. The laws are the base standard but not the FINAL judge there are exceptions and the juries gets to make that call. that's my answer. Jim.
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 11:59 AM
I asked you before if you had ever heard of Jury nullification, you never got back to me on that.
But that's where questions like that are answered.
the case is presented to the jury and the the jury can decide the case "inspite" of the law and based on there assess ment of the facts. If there are decent people on the jury some real world justice can be done. case by case. The laws are the base standard but not the FINAL judge there are exceptions and the juries gets to make that call. that's my answer. Jim.
I know exactly what it is, but you're bringing that up to avoid my questioning. If it's ok for one citizen to commit a crime for the greater good, then it should be ok for the next citizen to do so.
fj1200
03-01-2012, 12:01 PM
Corporate Spys above the law.. But wiki leaks is evil
Have they broken the law?
revelarts
03-01-2012, 12:01 PM
I know exactly what it is, but you're bringing that up to avoid my questioning. If it's ok for one citizen to commit a crime for the greater good, then it should be ok for the next citizen to do so.
:facepalm99:
jimnyc
03-01-2012, 12:04 PM
Have the broken the law?
Only the laws that are OK to break, sometimes.
logroller
03-01-2012, 01:41 PM
I know exactly what it is, but you're bringing that up to avoid my questioning. If it's ok for one citizen to commit a crime for the greater good, then it should be ok for the next citizen to do so.
Indeed; and pending a fair trial, I would hope the same verdict would be issued for the same crime under the same circumstances. I mean, say I'm speeding down the road and get pulled over (I know, not a crime really, but bear with me); now if the circumstances were, God forbid, my wife and kids were just in a serious car accident and I was racing to the hospital; I think prudence would indicate that a reasonable person might do the same, so justice would be ill-served by punishing me. Laws represent a universal standard for reasonable behavior-- what should, or shouldn't not, be done-- but rarely is something without exceptions.
logroller
03-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Have they broken the law?
In at least one instance, it appears information was gathered about people which could be used to turn them, which sounds a lot like blackmail...I'm pretty sure there are laws about that.
fj1200
03-01-2012, 10:01 PM
In at least one instance, it appears information was gathered about people which could be used to turn them, which sounds a lot like blackmail...I'm pretty sure there are laws about that.
Gathering information is illegal or blackmail is illegal?
logroller
03-01-2012, 10:23 PM
Gathering information is illegal or blackmail is illegal?
What do you think I meant? I think its kinda obvious which one is illegal.
And since there are emails instructing this practice, add to that conspiracy.
fj1200
03-01-2012, 10:30 PM
What do you think I meant? I think its kinda obvious which one is illegal.
And since there are emails instructing this practice, add to that conspiracy.
It was a bit unclear.
In at least one instance, it appears information was gathered about people which could be used to turn them, which sounds a lot like blackmail...I'm pretty sure there are laws about that.
If they broke the law they should be prosecuted.
logroller
03-01-2012, 11:01 PM
It was a bit unclear.
If they broke the law they should be prosecuted.
Sorry if it was, but did you watch the video, it had an email that left little room to debate otherwise...and for the record, I don't think merely gathering information should be illegal. How its gathered, however, certainly can be. Which is why I doubt they [stratfor] will be prosecuted, because the information indicting them was gathered illegally. Much of this I sorta brush off to be honest; a hacker collective hacking corporate espionage files...it reminds me of prison violence.
SassyLady
03-05-2012, 12:42 AM
Anonymous is a supporter of Palestinian Liberation and are anti-Israel. I believe they have only presented information obtained to further their own agenda and not releasing all information in an unbiased fashion.
logroller
03-05-2012, 02:43 AM
Anonymous is a supporter of Palestinian Liberation and are anti-Israel. I believe they have only presented information obtained to further their own agenda and not releasing all information in an unbiased fashion.
Where'd you hear that? I'm not saying there all a bunch of stand-up characters, but I haven't heard they're in bed with the ME and all that.
SassyLady
03-05-2012, 03:46 AM
Where'd you hear that? I'm not saying there all a bunch of stand-up characters, but I haven't heard they're in bed with the ME and all that.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/make-them-pay-for-their-crimes-hacker-group-anonymous-issues-chilling-warning-to-israel-conference/
Citizens of the World.
We are Anonymous.Just a few weeks ago, we declared our crusade against the government of Israel and all supporting counterparts for their involvement in war propaganda, crimes against humanity, and the systematic genocide and expulsion of minorities. Their crimes have resulted in the displacement of Palestinians who did not commit any crime but defend their homelands. Let’s also not forget the U S S Liberty incident where Israel killed 34 American servicemen.Now, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee wants to lobby for more wars, more destruction, more deaths than they already have committed and unfortunately, our president has decided to defend them for it.Our government’s foreign policy has no sovereignty to America. It’s sovereignty is to the state of Israel.AIPAC is now our enemy.We’re calling for an occupation of AIPAC and the destruction of their websites. Make them pay for their crimes.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We must certainly not forget.
Expect us or perish.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.