Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PBS Web Sites and Databases Hacked

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the hacker-supported-news dept.

Security 387

wiredmikey writes "Late Sunday night, hackers gained access to several areas of PBS Web servers and were able publish a fake news story on a PBS news blog. The group also published PBS internal user login information that they were able to siphon out of PBS databases. The fake story was about rapper Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996 after being shot in Las Vegas, being been found alive and well in a small resort in New Zealand. A group going by the name of 'LulzSec' claimed responsibility for the hack, saying the attack was a protest against a PBS Frontline broadcast last week about WikiLeaks."

cancel ×

387 comments

Once apon a time (3, Insightful)

TheRealQuestor (1750940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291750)

I found all this mildly amusing.

not any more :(

Re:Once apon a time (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36291758)

September 11th changed everything, man.

Re: Once upon a time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36291760)

Agreed, the childish antics just give hackers a bad name. Go put your skills to some real use rather than defacing a TV station.

Re: Once upon a time (2, Funny)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291770)

No shit... and if you're gonna deface a TV station, why not go after FOX instead of PBS?

Re: Once upon a time (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291772)

Fox? They do a good enough job of defacing themselves.

Re: Once upon a time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291832)

Fox? They do a good enough job of defecating themselves.

FTFY

Re: Once upon a time (4, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291954)

While this is true, if someone hacked Fox we'd probably get NEW footage of an exploding van! "TERROR BITS IN AMERICA"

But... (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292084)

...criticizing liars associated with a political party makes you *partisan*!

A better idea! (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291820)

Actually, I think posting real information will cause as much damage as defacing.

Just imagine how many people will experience terminal cognitive dissonance upon reading real news on Fox News!

Re:A better idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291894)

Just post blatantly copied text from newspapers that use RightHaven. Full articles, no attribution. Don't brag about the hack, hide your tracks well, and wait for the fun to begin. Just wait for Fox to have to prove that they were hacked in order to get minimal damages assessed. Take that Faux news. (You might have to wait until RightHaven actually acquires the real copyrights though as apparently they don't really have standing to sue right now).

Re: Once upon a time (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291948)

If you RTFA you'd know that "the attack was a protest against a PBS FRONTLINE broadcast last week about WikiLeaks."
Since Fox News isn't usually one to air PBS FRONTLINE broadcasts, defacing Fox would hardly be effective for their cause.

Anyhow, resume your typical elitist anti- "Fox News" douchebaggery.

How pathetic you must be (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292258)

If you are so messed up that you consider reporting the truth to be elite.

Re: Once upon a time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292048)

And all you little bitches can come up with is hack Fox? jesus you newfags are full of faggotry

Re: Once upon a time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292146)

childish antics

I suppose revolutionaries can often seem childish from those benefiting from the status quo.

Are these people doing the exact same things as Che Guevara, George Washington, or Mohandas Gandhi, just to name a few examples? No, not the exact same things. Most probably aren't cut out for those kinds of life. So they fight where they know they can do best.

Re: Once upon a time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292218)

Get real.

Other than extremists like the Tea Party, and people who don't want to hear the truth unless it's slanted toward what they want to believe, people who watch the media and track news know that PBS is good at reporting things as they are. (Polls even show that people on the left thing it's conservative and people on the right think it's liberal -- do the math -- if you're pissing off both sides, you're doing something right and reporting more news that biased parties don't want to hear.)

When it gets to the point that a news organization cannot try to do a balanced report without repercussions, it's not about revolutionaries, it's spoiled children who have to have their way.

Re: Once upon a time (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292266)

Those who deface websites give themselves a bad name. It's not like they're defending liberty or something by shutting out what someone else has to say.

Re:Once apon a time (4, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291798)

Agreed. I don't find it amusing at all.

Now I find it illuminating. It seems that too much effort is spent making Javascript animated menus and Flash sliding widgets and not enough effort is spent on patches, updates, and decent password policy. Corporate culture prioritizes pretty pictures to sell us more shit we don't need. Meanwhile our personal information - and therefore capacity to buy said shit - is in danger of being leaked.

From Sony to PBS and HBGary in between, too many companies are Doing It Wrong.

Re:Once apon a time (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292054)

Corporate culture prioritizes pretty pictures to sell us more shit we don't need.

And yet, isn't PBS a non-profit?

Re:Once apon a time (4, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292092)

Now I find it illuminating. It seems that too much effort is spent making Javascript animated menus and Flash sliding widgets and not enough effort is spent on patches, updates, and decent password policy. Corporate culture prioritizes pretty pictures to sell us more shit we don't need. Meanwhile our personal information - and therefore capacity to buy said shit - is in danger of being leaked.

The Javascript animated menus and Flash widgets are cheap. They're (largely) a one-time cost that is often subsidized by being the same underlying code being packaged and sold to multiple clients. Hire someone to deploy a customized CMS and voila - done.

Patching, updating, and enforcing standards is expensive. You have to hire people to constantly follow the process. Those processes take paid hours. If you're doing it right, you're hiring staff that aren't also implementing aforementioned systems serving menus and widgets. And to avoid down-time and (most) ugly surprises, it takes additional investment in infrastructure as well.

You're right in so far as organizations often get it wrong. But flashy widgets is not the reason.

I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291814)

Nobody was seriously harmed in the hack. My amusement has made up for your lack thereof.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291834)

Surprisingly, crimes do not become okay just because some asshole on the internet laughed at them.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (0, Troll)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291862)

This isn't akin to any serious crime. This is about as dangerous as someone writing a funny phrase on a wall with a marker (and takes just about as much effort to clean up after), and people should treat it as such.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291908)

Bullshit. They broke into a computer network, stole and released username/password combos, and mocked the system admins as they tried to regain control of the site. They have shown a pattern of criminal behavior, attacking anyone who dares say something they don't like. They are crooks, and should be treated as such.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291950)

sometimes people die, sometimes people are physically hurt, sometimes people are mentally hurt, sometimes people are financially hurt.... and sometimes a website gets scribbled on. I do think there's some king of gradation of wrongdoing, and this is not very high.. it ranks like a leak of the latest iPhone... barely... We should focus on the important stuff.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

preaction (1526109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292000)

But if we only focused on the important stuff, there wouldn't be anything for the legal system to do the other 80% of the time.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292326)

So you're saying we could cut the costs associated with policing and the legal system by 80%? Sweet!

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292024)

lol, nice troll. Just the right level of self-righteous indignation to be almost believable.

Well done!

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292156)

Bullshit. They broke into a computer network, stole and released username/password combos, and mocked the system admins as they tried to regain control of the site. They have shown a pattern of criminal behavior.

Still, far better that they revealed it, than keeping the username/password combos secret and using them to crack bank accounts of people who stupidly re-use passwords.

And better that they deface the site causing the sysadmins to fix the problems, rather than just ignoring it or sending an email to support@pbs.org where the message will probably never make it to the person who needs to hear it.

If it were one of my websites, I'd much prefer someone defaced the home page and informed my users that their passwords may have been compromised (and that if they used the same combination elsewhere they should change it); rather than ignoring the problem (which you seem to suggest would be a better solution) leaving me and my users vulnerable.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292214)

Who is "they"? Or "They", possibly?

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292330)

Bullshit. Do you even know the definition of "harm"?

- Breaking into a computer system by itself is not harming anyone. The security was either already weak, or still nobody else will get in.
- Taking username/password combos is not stealing, since stealing is defined as taking away, because it is a word that applies to matter/energy and not to information. The information still is where it was.
- Releasing the passwords. Well, thatâ(TM)s not nice. But unless the admins are so retarded to leave those the same, even though they know their security was untrustworthy for a loong time, is like leaving the safe code the same, when everybody found out the old one, even though you "found out" (actually forced to stop being ignorant that) some of the building doors can be opened by inserting any random pointed stick, and the security guard prefers to watch porn instead of checking the cameras. So the released information must be worthless. The harm part is caused by the negligence of the admins, long before the "break-in".
- mocking the admins: i know BOFHs may be arrogant, but seriously... are you suggesting mocking someone, who also failed to do his job, is a crime??

I bet you'd also blame and sue a hungry tiger for attacking you, after you jumped in his cage and threw stones at him.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292018)

Yea it is no worse than burning books, or a cross on someones lawn, or painting graffiti on a synagogue. As long as no gets hurt is is all good right? I mean after all those actions do only about as much damage if any at all. I agree people are just too dang sensitive.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292288)

Those are hate crimes, this is not.

You, and your analogy = FAIL

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (1)

vandelais (164490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291890)

Not some asshole on the internet.
Some asshole on slashdot.
Not so surprising now.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292192)

Surprisingly, I don't give a shit about your retarded opinion.

Re:I still found it amusing; harmless and humorous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292238)

As a security expert this is funny as hell!

Process of natural selection springs to mind, moronic IT professionals are always compared to the good ones without any real difference seen by business heads. THESE issues _highlight_ where the morons are in the industry, as it did for SONY. Keep it up hackers / crackers / try hards / script kiddies, keep me in the job and keep the internet a safer place - as it is now a cesspool on incapable fucksticks at the helm of very important economic services that keep industries alive.

Proper understanding of networks, security and technology stop idiotic things like this from occurring. NOT doing them in the first place DOESNT! Remember SONY didn't even have a hardware firewall! I mean WTF? What?! Was PBS' site run off a fuckin 5 year old unpatched Celeron sitting in some IT managers living room? why was is so easy to backdoor?

If i was them i would of gone with a Kurt Cobain story. Tupac shows the gangsta in the kiddies, Cobain would of been more old school hacker style, and If it was Elivs that would of just been depressing, we all know the oldies cant hax0r.

Re:Once apon a time (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291930)

Just to make sure, we're not amused about Tupac, right?

Re:Once apon a time (1, Flamebait)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291996)

That was your error. It never really was amusing. It has always been an attack on freedom of expression and in this case the press. There is a reason why vigilantes are not a good thing.

Re:Once apon a time (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292074)

There is a reason why vigilantes are not a good thing.

And that's because most people in tights look like Tronguy.

Cyber temper tantrum (4, Insightful)

CaptainAmerica1941 (689079) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291764)

Say what we like or we'll stamp our feet and hack your site! What happened to freedom of information? Or is it just WikiLeaks approved information?

Re:Cyber temper tantrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291942)

Lulzsec who?

Teh cult of Assange strikes again! (4, Insightful)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291782)

It is ironic that they violated the very freedom they see as being threatened

Find 'em and lock 'em up (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291784)

These punks need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. The trolling culture on the internet today teaches kids (and man-children) that as long as you're laughing, you win, and there are never any consequences for fucking with people. A reminder of how the real world works is long overdue.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36291792)

That is how the real world works.

Until you get your teeth blasted out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292276)

See above.

I agree. (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291822)

What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read In every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire interlink! I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos.

Re:I agree. (2)

vandelais (164490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291906)

Take off the mask, Butters. We know it's you.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291896)

"Hacking" should not be a crime in the first place and is not a crime everywhere. You are the authoritarian. This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody. They brought a web site down temporarily or I should say added a story which is only going to be up temporarily.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291998)

This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody.

They want to, though. That was the whole idea, or did you miss the point about the hacker group wanting to retaliate for a story that the hackers perceive as "anti-Anonymous."

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292032)

"Hacking" should not be a crime in the first place and is not a crime everywhere. You are the authoritarian. This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody. They brought a web site down temporarily or I should say added a story which is only going to be up temporarily.

So, it's OK to imprison you in order to shut you up as long as it's only "temporarily"?

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292080)

Yes, a protest by unlawful access to secured resources. We call that a crime. If you enter a business and hang a big protest banner in the middle of the night, you could damned well be prosecuted for it. "Hacking" is and should be a crime because you're fucking with something that IS NOT YOURS. Is that so hard to understand? Do you just not give a shit about anyone else's property as long as the political cause is just in your eyes? Are you really that fucking detached?

Consequences for who? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292094)

Good luck, they're behind 7 proxies.

Re:Consequences for who? (1)

zvar (158636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292142)

I'll just write a VB App so we can traceroute back to them. I'll have their IP address in a moment. :)

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292196)

you raff you ruse

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292212)

These punks need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. The trolling culture on the internet today teaches kids (and man-children) that as long as you're laughing, you win, and there are never any consequences for fucking with people. A reminder of how the real world works is long overdue.

Exactly, because in the real world whoever shoots first gets to laugh. It's a little hard to laugh when you're bleeding all over the fucking floor. Try that for a pissing contest, bitch... oh by the way, your intestines smell funny. /jocktroll

Re:Find 'em and lock 'em up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292236)

Hey, you know what?

Fuck you.

No, really. Fuck you.

Think I've learned my lesson?

Fuck you some more.

Well said, & I agree: HOWEVER... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292344)

Those same "sysadmins" ought to get their shit together better along with their site devs, because they got "busted into"... so, that said? Well... IF they had done their job RIGHT in the 1st place?? These idiots lulzsec fools couldn't have gotten that far!

Still, this is the part I agreed 110% with you about:

"The trolling culture on the internet today teaches kids (and man-children) that as long as you're laughing, you win, and there are never any consequences for fucking with people. " - by artor3 (1344997) on Monday May 30, @07:53PM (#36291784)

I dislike trolls myself (and I get regularly harassed by them here on this very website to make that statement)...

They do so, mostly as ac replies, some not though.

However - The little weasels that do it as ac though? Sooner or later, I've caught every one of them (tomhudson being the latest here in fact, once I caught wind of him trolling me as ac from his journal entries discussions)...

Then, it's "payback time" ( & I'd rather handle it myself, than let the law do it, actually - it's more fun and much more satisfying!)

E.G.-> Especially taking them on, in what most of these cowardly little "geek wannabes" THINK is their "strong area" - computer tech! I like catching them in screwups & embarassing them over it, publicly...

(It's priceless, & tomhudson, whom I mentioned above? Paid that price... I publicly caught tomhudson in SO many stupid technical screwups, & embarassed he with them, he began to rant & rave like a lunatic... I thought it was funny, putting the trolling shoe on the other foot, & putting that asshole in his place!).

I'll chase them into hell to drive them off is why, once I get ahold of them.

APK

P.S.=>

"A reminder of how the real world works is long overdue." - by artor3 (1344997) on Monday May 30, @07:53PM (#36291784)

Personally, I think they DO know "how the real world works" & it's usually against them, because they have no spine to fight back, & get pushed around!

Why do I say that? I've seen it enough times in this life, for one thing... & another??

Well - I think that character/persona of MOST trolls is that of a little weasel, who gets his butt kicked a LOT in "the real world" & the only place they can "act big" IS online...

(Which is why they do it in the 1st place. Anyone normal doesn't because they know the "world hits back", & so do individuals, but by making themselves an "invisible target" is what protects these little freaks, & keeps them doing it, so they go with it!)

In the end? Well - I actually SORT OF feel BAD for them - they're pitiful is why & act more like WOMEN, than men!

... apk

Hypocracy much? (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36291786)

"You can't censor everything, information wants to be free. And if you don't agree with what we have to say, we won't let you say anything."

Re:Hypocracy much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292246)

better hypocracy than hypercracy

Wikileaks and...Tupac? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291824)

"...A group going by the name of 'LulzSec' claimed responsibility for the hack, saying the attack was a protest against a PBS Frontline broadcast last week about WikiLeaks."

And, they chose to fabricate a story about Tupac "Elvis" Shakur to get their point across? Way to go...I'm sure people can find the correlation in there somewhere...

Re:Wikileaks and...Tupac? (0)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292046)

And, they chose to fabricate a story about Tupac "Elvis" Shakur to get their point across?

Why not? It's every bit as believable as the Bin Laden death - look [obsessedwithfilm.com] at Obama's cartoonishly exaggerated facial expression(right out of a Spongebob or Spumco show) with Hillary's dainty "Oh, no!" pose. That bitch has bigger balls than the entire pentagon.

Osama was killed by a guy named Obama. Even the worst Hollywood hack writer could do a better job than that. All this from the same mouthpiece that tells us that we will win the war on terror by being afraid of everything.

Re:Wikileaks and...Tupac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292398)

Quiet troll.

Manning is a hero. (0, Offtopic)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291870)

And he's going to pay a heavy price for his actions: there is no doubt. However, what he has done is necessary for a functioning democracy. If you say: leaders should not ever be embarrassed by their actions and what really happens in back-rooms must forever remain secret, well, is that in line with the principles of a democracy? What I've seen Wikileaks expose so far, in the controlled manner they are releasing them: not a sudden flood of documents with no vetting as it has been portrayed in some news sites I won't bother to mention, really shows how two-faced governments are in how they relate to each other and then the story they feed the public of the same events. I'd rather know: my representative is really an asshole, not the smiling baby-kisser his press release tells me he is. Perhaps, just perhaps, it'll change a vote - and some days I think the USA is already too far gone for that to even matter.

Re:Manning is a hero. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291956)

Yes, complete transparency is necessary for a functioning democracy.

Just one problem...

The United States is not now, and has never been, a Democracy. It's a Republic.

Re:Manning is a hero. (0)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292016)

You are right. However, the trust people put in the US government is flavored with democratic principles as bread and butter.

Re:Manning is a hero. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291966)

Manning is not a hero.

Re:Manning is a hero. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292364)

He sure as hell is.

He has more courage in a few skin cells than a piece of shit like you has in an entire body.

Re:Manning is a hero. (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292052)

I disagree with you on many points here. I think Wikileaks is acting irresponsibly and that if a member of the military did leak that info I feel they are not heros but criminals. However the biggest problem I have with your post is that you are declaring Manning guilty of the action before he has had a trail. You may voice any opinion you feel is truthful about the actions but I would ask you to refrain from declaring Manning guilty. It is unfair to him as he is innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292072)

You have a point. And my premature conclusion betrays the amount of faith I have in the situation. :(

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292138)

You see that is the thing. If I had been like Anon or this other bunch of losers I would have hacked Slashdot and removed your post or defaced it. And then you might have done the same.
Adults discuss and eventually if they are real grown ups respectfully disagree. That is how a democracy works. Using power to restrict the honest exchange of ideas and opinons is an evil act. It doesn't make the act any less evil if that power is technical knowledge instead of wealth or political power.

Re:Manning is a hero. (2)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292188)

I agree with you. Just because Wikileaks is being disparaged does not justify vigilante behavior. But, for what Wikileaks has released: it is more truth than our governments release, and in my value-system I believe that is more important than national security: it is what really happened. I'll give you a concrete example, here in Canada - where I live - our government during the run-up to the Iraq war was telling us: We do not support the Iraq war [www.cbc.ca] . And meanwhile, they were telling the USA in private: we cannot support you publicly because of the "political climate" against the war here, however: we will do everything we can to support your invasion. Tell me, what is our government if it is not the expression of the people who gave it a mandate? Canadian CITIZENS, en-mass were against the Iraq war: yet our government made no case to support their actions and instead pulled a back-room deal with the hopes it would never surface in history. And without leaking: it never would have.

Now, moderators: if you are going to bother to mod this *anything*, consider: Informative.

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292308)

It is fortunate that acting irresponsibly which I feel Wikileaks is doing is not illegal. The discussion really isn't about wikileaks, Manning, or Iraq. What it should be about is way too many people on Slashdot approving of vigilantly revenge and censorship. On that subject I see are in agreement.
    As to Canada's action that is one of those things that really only history will know for sure. If what you say is accurate does not not sound different from what FDR did before the US entered WWII. The US wanted nothing to do with another bloody European war. FDR felt that was not the right choice and had our military do some really "questionable" things for a neutral country. History says he was a hero but he also lied to the people of the US about our level of military support. Had Japan not attacked the US he would have gone down as a villain. He would have been a villain for doing both too much and or too little depending on how history worked out.
I am not Canadian so I feel I have no right to say if your government is right or wrong. As a US citizen I have the greatest affection for Canada. They are the best neighbors we could ask for and I have enough respect for them to say your government is up to you.
As to who ever leaked the data if they where in the military they acted in a very dangerous and I feel a criminal way. If they really thought that these where criminal acts he should have called them to the attention of his commanding officers. If he felt they where also guilty then to a member of congress. That would have been the correct actions IMHO. As it is it looks like whom ever did it just grabbed all the data he could and handed it over to somebody. You can not have a member of the Military of a free nation over ride the actions of the elected civil authority. While you think this action is good think of all the other actions members of the military could do over the objections and control of the elected civil authority. The vast majority of them are really not what you want. As I have gotten older I have found that the world is a complicated place. All those rules are restrictions that I thought where foolish wastes of time when I was young I now understand more and more. Not that I am sure this is the best of all possible worlds. It is just that I know that I fear many other people's idea of the best of all possible worlds more than I desire my own.

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292354)

I will give you a very concrete point because you are absolutely correct in saying it: Manning's purported leaks are very much in favor for Citizens outside of the USA as the material of the leaks is all in relation to how the US government relates to other governments: they were mostly honest diplomatic cables. So, it's good for pretty well everyone - integrity wise - except the USA. Manning did a great job: just not for where his citizenship lies.

Now, here's another case of leaking: Thomas Drake [newyorker.com] . What makes this case more of a test is that he leaked very few documents and the intent behind them was that he truly believed his duty as a citizen was to point out what was happening behind closed doors. His reward for saying: "this isn't right and it must not be kept secret" is being charged under the US espionage act. What happens to him, more than Manning, will shape my opinion of how much hope the USA has in the future.

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292136)

Even if Manning is a faultless Messiah come to save us all, how does that justify hacking PBS?

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292256)

Without Manning - the accused - there would be no story and the event of PBS getting hacked wouldn't have happened. Trying to put blinders on the conversation: "Only look at this event, not it's causes" is short-sighted and disingenuous [reference.com] .

Re:Manning is a hero. (0)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292300)

Manning is a traitor. He violated the terms of a contract he willingly signed to maintain state secrets. He also agreed to be subject to the military justice system when he signed up. Don't try and elevate him to the status of some political martyr because he's being treated as any other rogue soldier would be.

Your capacity for independent thought is questionable seeing as you only want to regurgitate the pap that is spewed on the 24-hour news channels. Are you really so naive to think that every other country in the world is focused on playing nice and the US is the only player that uses underhanded tactics to get ahead?

Re:Manning is a hero. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292388)

We aren't going to change each other's opinions. For what it's worth: I am not a US citizen so I see more good in his actions than you do.

So OK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291892)

Doing a story on wikileaks is bad, but having lunch with the muslim brotherhood is ok. I got it.

The moral compass of these cracker fags is going to get uprooted when muslims turn their brown eye into a pinata.

Re:So OK (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292106)

muslims . . . . pinata . . .

I suspect that you've mixed up your cultures, as well as your metaphors.

Streisand Effect (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291934)

If they really didn't like what Frontline had to say, they could have at least made their fake story a fake-retraction of the points they had a problem with. As Frontline is probably the most accurate docunews show on american television, if they pissed off some script kiddies, chances are the script kiddies are in the wrong.

I didn't bother to watch the show because I assumed that following wikileaks closely over the years I probably already knew everything they had to say. As it is now, I am going to go watch that episode (it is Frontline Season 29, Episode 13 titled "Wikisecrets" and was posted to usenet in full 1080i about 3 days ago).

Re:Streisand Effect (0)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291972)

> script kiddies

2001 just called and they want their lame expression back.

(this being said, since the group name starts with "Lulz" I would tend to agree that we are not witnessing actions of a mastermind on this one)

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292102)

2001 just called and they want their lame expression back.

Goes back years before 2001. Meanwhile I don't see you coming up with anything more hip.

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292178)

> Meanwhile I don't see you coming up with anything more hip

I kinda like "scriptdiots" but my favorite one is definitely "hackerz" (or "hack3rz" to go more extreme)

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292104)

What's wrong with that term today? It still applies. Or would you rather shorten it to "Skiddies"? It's still just a bunch of kids using prepackaged tools to get into poorly-secured servers.

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

Lanir (97918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291982)

My first thought was "Script kiddies censored something? WTF? Now I'm curious..." Next thought was "Hello, Streisand Effect."

The documentary gets one thing stupidly wrong, considering who all they were talking to. They don't really bother to define "hacker" and they're pretty free with the term. Leads the average viewer to think there are organized, known clubs at universities structured around breaking into other people's computer systems.

Re:Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292176)

They did it for the Lulz, they took the car for a joyride and brought it back without bumpers.
Any decent admin could have prevented this or at least mitigated the damage

Re:Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292324)

I watched it when it aired don't remember getting too pissed off. They were kind of a dick to Assange a few times.

Lighten the hell up. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36291984)

You all need to lighten up. I thought this was hilarious.

If a person leaves their front door wide open, while stealing is wrong and illegal, that person has no right to really be angry that someone walked in your house and stole something. You were practically (although not technically) inviting them inside.

If a news agency's IT department, with almost 20 years of "modern" (i.e. post-1993) Internet history behind us, doesn't know the basics of securing a website by now, they, nor anyone here, don't really have the right to be angry. They were practically asking them to do it.

We need things like this as sharp and harsh reminder that maybe the Internet is merely another tool for humankind, but not ultimate salvation or a way to the future in itself.

Re:Lighten the hell up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292202)

You are so right. You making an invalid point practically (although not technically) invites me to respond with how much of a tool you are. No one is asking for anything unless they announce it, practically or technically.

They may be responsible for not having adequate security if it wasn't reasonable, but any lock can be broken, whether home or website. There lock are places in America where people still don't lock their doors, since they know everyone in the rural area. If someone came in from out of town (miles) to steal something, their unreasonableness of stealing something not worth the gas doesn't make them not locking their door unreasonable.

You can watch the FrontLine episode here (5, Insightful)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36291992)

You can watch the Frontline episode on PBS's website [pbs.org] . I love how PBS publishes a lot of their TV content online.

This sort of thing is just (1)

WonderingAround (2007742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292002)

Annoying, sort of disappointing, and getting really old. Seriously no one's impressed, if they didn't take responsibility then maybe for one second some people just might think it was anonymous and they would get a little more than 15 minutes of fame, either way why attack PBS over what was said about a different group?

Does this mean a fundraiser to secure the servers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292010)

"PBS would like to thank you, the viewer, for your generous donations...your donations have allowed us to close 200 ports...but we need more help! We can reach our goal of closing 3000 ports if you would just send $5 to...."

Re:Does this mean a fundraiser to secure the serve (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292346)

To be safe, they're going to have to close over 9000 ports.

PBS Is Very Commercial Nowadays... (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292194)

Not to justifying the hacking per se, but many PBS stations have strayed far from their roots of serving the public interest.

Nowadays, minutes long blocks of advertising have become routine on many PBS stations. Combined with "bugs" - often multiple! TV station logo in one corner often along others, such as E/I, in another - what the heck E/I means is beyond me other than being more annoying clutter on the screen.

And as for excessive corporate executive pay, yep PBS has that too. The head of WHYY, which serves the Delaware Valley region, including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has reportedly received upwards of $500,000 in combined annual compensation.

http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-08/news/24961586_1_whyy-91fm-fiscal-year [philly.com]

Ron

Re:PBS Is Very Commercial Nowadays... (3, Interesting)

Slagothor (1156549) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292270)

I had questioned the E/I as well. From the following page: http://tv.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/f/EI_CTA1990.htm [about.com] Answer: EI stands for Educational and Informational programming. It is a result of the Children's Television Act of 1990, which mandates broadcast stations to program at least three hours of educational programming a week. EI is often seen on Saturday mornings. In creating the Children's Television Act of 1990, Congress was reacting to a FCC report that recognized the role television plays in a child's development. The CTA essentially reduces the amount of commercials during children's programming, and increases the amount of education and information in each show.

Granting 1st amendment rights to the government? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292206)

I'm surprised at the response of some of the slashdotters in this thread, saying that these "hackers" are trying to infringe on the free speech of the government.

Why should the first amendment apply to government-funded website trumpeting a government-funded story slanted in a government-favoring way?

Whodunit? (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292216)

I think the Cookie Monster did it.. it makes sense, right?

Typos?!?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292220)

Sometimes I wonder if slashdot has any editors. This story posting is full of typos (corrected below, in bold):

Late Sunday night, hackers gained access to several areas of the PBS Web servers and were able to publish a fake news story on a PBS news blog. The group also published PBS internal user login information that they were able to siphon out of the PBS databases. The fake story was about rapper Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996 after being shot in Las Vegas, having been found alive and well in a small resort in New Zealand. A group going by the name of 'LulzSec' claimed responsibility for the hack, saying the attack was a protest against a PBS Frontline broadcast last week about WikiLeaks.

Sounds lame and jerk (1)

karvind (833059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292262)

Sorry I don't have any sympathy for LulzSec or whatever their name (Geeze at least get a cooler name or they are bunch of high school drop outs).

Attacked pbs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36292272)

NOT fucking cool.

What the fuck is wrong with you guys. Can't find any better targets far more deserving out there to attack?

Pbs is one of the few better than average things left in the world. At least TRYING to make the world better sometimes. Far more than any other target you could have picked. Let em be.

For the first time ever when it comes to a 'hack'... cant believe i'm saying it...
I hope they find these little shitbags and throw them in a deep dark cell for a long time.

They crossed one of the lines you just dont.

ftp.pbs.org (1)

iamzack (830561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36292314)

For some reason ftp.pbs.org has port 21 open for business. Can someone explain to me why they aren't using SFTP on 22?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...