Government Arresting Government?

I find it sad that the government would arrest more government.
In this case the arrested government is Lulzsec/Anonymous

Lulzsec and Anonymous are controlling the people in a way that the government has a retard in.
SOPA being a perfect example of the mental retard the government has.
SOPA was that bill that was "paused" or "withheld", due to the government not knowing what to do in the internet business (and so much popularity).
The governments motto: People. - This means more than one thing but I'll give you the basic.
Meaning: Do anything possible to make this country peaceful.

Now peaceful (government motto) is a strong word and Lulzsec/Anonymous isn't helping the case.

The Deal
————————————
Anonymous/Lulzsec are internet activists, or protesters, who believe people should be able to have all the info needed, SO THEY WON'T WORRY.
Since the people control the government, the government fears the people. - More advanced topic
A/L people are being arrested for "hacking" which we all know as controlling the internet!
A/L are the "government" of the internet!

Why are they doing this
————————————
Essentially the government needs money. Blocking the internet, or activities, will increase revenue.
Thus adding the "Cracking down" effect. They are "cracking down" on people who don't wear their seat belts, A/L hackers, etc.

Explanation:
Retard - Slowness.
Government fears the people - We control the government, Without people there wouldn't be government.

Ideas
————————–
Legalizing weed - There aren't any cons to this
Main idea: This will increase revenue (IMMENSELY). This will also have safer laws (Unnecessary, nobody has died, nobody can O.D.), etc.

I say this because it would weaken the government. A/L would be less of a concern!

First… lulzsec/anon are not a government, put down the crack pipe.

Secondly, Yep, because people need to know my username and password. Right.

Thirdly, SOPA has absolutely nothing to do with hackers. It's all about copyrights.

Forthly, old news is old. (SOPA)

EDIT: Fifthly, don't double post.

Sixthly: A lot of government leaders (including obama to some extent) are in favor of legalizing marijuana, or at least making it not illegal to use.

L/A are a type of government that "help" the internet.

I know that SOPA was about copyright but it was due to the government not knowing about the possibilities that it would destroy.

Weed legalizing was on the ballot in California. It was rejected but it actually made it to the voting stage.

They are not a government. Seriously. Drop the bong, stop eating the brownies. They're people who hack for fun and attention. Sometimes they are activists. Activists are government are NOT the same thing. Stealing my passwords and publishing them for all to see does not 'help' the internet.

Not for fun but to attract attention, to notify all that they are there. They do not publish those things.
They are there to give everyone in the U.S. the information they aren't receiving.

For the most part the citizens of the US have access to more information then most contries thanks to free press and open speach. I think L/A is more about preserving that freedom and trying to get the level of access to information that American's have for everyone. A prime example of this is their attack on the Chinese government websites.

Also the White House is officially AGAINST the legalization of Marijuanna, follow this link for the offical statement from the White House regarding it. https://wwws.whiteho...izing-marijuana

The information is out there, read and edjucate yourself.

@luanub
I know.. Weed is something they call a "gateway drug". My friends and some of my family smoke weed and I don't, but they have COMPLETELY normal lifestyles. I can tell you this, weed isn't nearly as addicting as the teachers at school tell you. It relaxes you and in many ways it actually can make you live longer. FACT: Stress takes 5 years off of the normal person's life (instead of living till 76 you live until 71).

I'm pro marijuanna, I think it should be legal before things such as tabacco and alchohol. Its not as adictive, less harmful on the body, and you maintaine more self control then when you are drunk. Having it illegal just spawns crimals and crime. Its like prohibition on alchohol. The mafia during prohibition were the ones providing the booze, now we have drug cartels providing the weed. There is no difference between the two, only weed is less harmful and has many other valuable uses from medical to industrial.

I think the world would be a much better place if people would just relax and smoke a bowl(granted we might run out of doritoes if that was to happen).

Marijuana is already legal in Holland ;D

Yes but we're talking about the U.S.A.

i like arguments that dont cite any sources instead just point out "facts" anyways LulzSec's twitter is 3 clicks away and it has a whole bunch of sites that were doing illegal things there are also abunch of articles on how they reveal holes in security but dont do any damage

abc, on 29 May 2012 - 06:33 PM said:

i like arguments that dont cite any sources instead just point out "facts" anyways LulzSec's twitter is 3 clicks away and it has a whole bunch of sites that were doing illegal things there are also abunch of articles on how they reveal holes in security but dont do any damage

Like the FBI hiring hackers to hack the system so they can make the antivirus better!

Noodle, on 29 May 2012 - 11:14 PM said:

abc, on 29 May 2012 - 06:33 PM said:

i like arguments that dont cite any sources instead just point out "facts" anyways LulzSec's twitter is 3 clicks away and it has a whole bunch of sites that were doing illegal things there are also abunch of articles on how they reveal holes in security but dont do any damage

Like the FBI hiring hackers to hack the system so they can make the antivirus better!

yerp
edit: lol just broke a rule

abc, on 29 May 2012 - 11:25 PM said:

Noodle, on 29 May 2012 - 11:14 PM said:

abc, on 29 May 2012 - 06:33 PM said:

i like arguments that dont cite any sources instead just point out "facts" anyways LulzSec's twitter is 3 clicks away and it has a whole bunch of sites that were doing illegal things there are also abunch of articles on how they reveal holes in security but dont do any damage

Like the FBI hiring hackers to hack the system so they can make the antivirus better!

yerp
edit: lol just broke a rule

Rule? Nvm, I get what your saying above.

1. About the "spawn criminals" kinda like kids and curfews.
2. The FBI has their own virus.
3. Free speech. One word: WIKILEAKS :)/>/>

Again, Anon wants to leak this info to wikileaks so the people will know, the people have the right to know.

Yes, hostile countries have a right to know our military secrets. Right. You keep telling yourself that.

did you know that the FCC decided that tv and radio are the only thing not protected by the first ammendment?

No, the FCC decided that that's what they were given control over.

Also, freedom of speech has its limits, and is not the same thing as freedom of information.

D3matt, on 03 June 2012 - 08:17 PM said:

No, the FCC decided that that's what they were given control over.

american "democracy" in action my rights are being decided by some rich person without any vote or anything

abc, on 04 June 2012 - 08:41 PM said:

D3matt, on 03 June 2012 - 08:17 PM said:

No, the FCC decided that that's what they were given control over.

american "democracy" in action my rights are being decided by some rich person without any vote or anything

Your rights? No, the rights of the companies that are LICENSED BY THE FCC TO BROADCAST. The FCC also doesn't regulate Satellite TV or anything other than basic channels on cable TV.

I would argue that hackers infringe more upon my rights than anything the FCC does. Like my right to privacy, among others, which any sane person should value among all others, and my property rights (stealing my money).

then again they were only hacking into websites that were doing bad things and they dont steal user information if they actually like the company usually just poke around and notify them of the hole

abc, on 04 June 2012 - 11:34 PM said:

then again they were only hacking into websites that were doing bad things and they dont steal user information if they actually like the company usually just poke around and notify them of the hole

Well, actually, UGNazi (some people from Anonymous who made a hacking team),
hacked WHMCS (WHMCompleteSolution) which A LOT of companies use to sell stuff (mostly web hosting and that stuff)
and they did a file + database leak and 1000+ people found out other peoples credit cards, names, addresses, and e-mails.

thesbros, on 04 June 2012 - 11:59 PM said:

abc, on 04 June 2012 - 11:34 PM said:

then again they were only hacking into websites that were doing bad things and they dont steal user information if they actually like the company usually just poke around and notify them of the hole

Well, actually, UGNazi (some people from Anonymous who made a hacking team),
hacked WHMCS (WHMCompleteSolution) which A LOT of companies use to sell stuff (mostly web hosting and that stuff)
and they did a file + database leak and 1000+ people found out other peoples credit cards, names, addresses, and e-mails.

were talking about the good side of anon and lulzsec not those aholes that do it just for money but call themselves some famous hacker group

Your rights? No, the rights of the companies that are LICENSED BY THE FCC TO BROADCAST. The FCC also doesn't regulate Satellite TV or anything other than basic channels on cable TV.

actually you allow those companies to sue you if you do something they dont like (the things the first ammendment protect)
ahem:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

First of all, what could I possibly do with my satellite TV that my satellite company would dislike enough to sue me? Second… I don't see where you're getting that from.

Thirdly, Lulzsec is lulsec, you can't pull it apart into what you like and what you don't. They're well-known for being as disruptive as possible. Just because they happen to be anti-authority and like to DDoS government websites doesn't make them good people. It's in their name… They do it for the lulz. Anon is not even a hacking group so much as a bunch of people using the same tag, but for the most part Anon also likes to be disruptive. If you truly want to help the cause of being anti-authority (The merits of which I won't get into), there are far better ways with far less collateral damage, and as much as you may not like it, governments perform an essential function. Attacking government websites does little more than waste tax money and annoy the people who have to take care of it. Annoying people doesn't help any cause.

Oh, and… I don't care how much you dislike a company because they stop your silly DDoS attacks, there's never any excuse for releasing user information. Keep your childish games where they belong.

D3matt, on 06 June 2012 - 05:50 PM said:

First of all, what could I possibly do with my satellite TV that my satellite company would dislike enough to sue me? Second… I don't see where you're getting that from.

Thirdly, Lulzsec is lulsec, you can't pull it apart into what you like and what you don't. They're well-known for being as disruptive as possible. Just because they happen to be anti-authority and like to DDoS government websites doesn't make them good people. It's in their name… They do it for the lulz. Anon is not even a hacking group so much as a bunch of people using the same tag, but for the most part Anon also likes to be disruptive. If you truly want to help the cause of being anti-authority (The merits of which I won't get into), there are far better ways with far less collateral damage, and as much as you may not like it, governments perform an essential function. Attacking government websites does little more than waste tax money and annoy the people who have to take care of it. Annoying people doesn't help any cause.

Oh, and… I don't care how much you dislike a company because they stop your silly DDoS attacks, there's never any excuse for releasing user information. Keep your childish games where they belong.

were talking about saying stuff on the news and on radio stations not doing stuff to your satelite dish,
the reason i dont have cable is because it rots your brains and is a waste of time they control what you see and what commercials they can jam up your butt, another reason they killed the first ammendment is because they want to inject you with their opinions.

and there not DDoS attacks i mean they are just not intended to DDoS, they are a collection of attacks that are used to exploit holes in a server
user information is for scaring the crap out of the company so they fix the hole faster.
credit cards is how they get money, sell fake numbers to some ahole and run away with money

abc, on 12 June 2012 - 06:20 PM said:

D3matt, on 06 June 2012 - 05:50 PM said:

First of all, what could I possibly do with my satellite TV that my satellite company would dislike enough to sue me? Second… I don't see where you're getting that from.

Thirdly, Lulzsec is lulsec, you can't pull it apart into what you like and what you don't. They're well-known for being as disruptive as possible. Just because they happen to be anti-authority and like to DDoS government websites doesn't make them good people. It's in their name… They do it for the lulz. Anon is not even a hacking group so much as a bunch of people using the same tag, but for the most part Anon also likes to be disruptive. If you truly want to help the cause of being anti-authority (The merits of which I won't get into), there are far better ways with far less collateral damage, and as much as you may not like it, governments perform an essential function. Attacking government websites does little more than waste tax money and annoy the people who have to take care of it. Annoying people doesn't help any cause.

Oh, and… I don't care how much you dislike a company because they stop your silly DDoS attacks, there's never any excuse for releasing user information. Keep your childish games where they belong.

were talking about saying stuff on the news and on radio stations not doing stuff to your satelite dish,
the reason i dont have cable is because it rots your brains and is a waste of time they control what you see and what commercials they can jam up your butt, another reason they killed the first ammendment is because they want to inject you with their opinions.

Now you're making absolutely no sense. My cable company can sue me if I do something they don't like, (which is what you said), now you're talking about the company getting in trouble for what they say. Then you go back to the cable company forcing commercials down my throat. That makes no sense at all. So you're a lulzsec fanboy, AND you can't form a coherent argument. First of all, the cable company doesn't control what's on TV, the channel broadcasters do. Second, there's about as much variety of commercials on TV as there are websites on the internet, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there, not to mention other companies PAY MONEY to advertise. Thirdly, they don't control what you see. If you don't like it, change the channel. HERP A DERP. And I still have absolutely no idea what you keep talking about the first amendment for. The cable company isn't restricting what I can say, nor is the FCC.

As for my mentioning of DDoSing, I was referring to how your precious lulzsec likes to dox anti-DDoSing companies and other security companies.

I also like how you still haven't addressed any of my points.

Any good hackers such as myself (pfft! Modesty!) always use proxies or VPN's so it's only the 10 year olds who don't know a thing about coding who get arrested (generally) but yes I agree with what you are saying.

This was a moronic topic to begin with, there's no need to resurrect it simply to further the collective idiocy. Locked.

Northfleet, on 10 March 2013 - 01:41 AM said:

Any good hackers such as myself (pfft! Modesty!) always use proxies or VPN's so it's only the 10 year olds who don't know a thing about coding who get arrested (generally) but yes I agree with what you are saying.

That's absolutely hilarious.