Beta
×

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!

Online Crime Seen as Growing Threat to Business, Politics

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-we-all-just-play-some-wow dept.

Security 89

BobB passed us a link to a NetworkWorld article, exploring the ongoing realization in business circles of the dangers online criminals pose. The piece raises the possibility that criminal elements are gaining access to US research labs in an effort to ferret out corporate and governmental information. One institute referred to in the article states: "Economic espionage will be increasingly common as nation-states use cyber theft of data to gain economic advantage in multinational deals. The attack of choice involves targeted spear phishing with attachments, using well-researched social engineering methods to make the victim believe that an attachment comes from a trusted source." We just recently discussed possible hacker involvement in several municipal blackouts.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It has grown enourmously (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114514)

Esp. the harrassment of good citizens by the RIAA.

Re:It has grown enourmously (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114652)

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

HIYOOOO!

Your mother resembles that remark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22134178)

Also, she asked me to deliver this message to you, although I don't understand it. She told me not to worry & that you would understand it:

"MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Do You See The Common Thread Here? (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114706)


This is just like CIA Claims Cyber Attackers Blacked Out Cities [slashdot.org] Do you see the common thread here? Same SANS "expert", too. The guy who gave CIA props for their "disclosure". I remember when SANS was a good, technical security training and education outfit. Now they are on the Richard Clarke / Howard Schmidt CyberTerror disinformation campaign. I would doubt the spook "creds" - if you'd call 'em that - of Alan Paller. The worst theft and correlation of personal data is an ongoing effort by the state - with the telcos CA-CHING! Billing all the while. The crooks and Terra-ists are a joke in comparison. T'rists didn't "lose" several BILLION US dollars in small, unmarked bills in Iraq.

Who loses track of that kind of money? No one. Mistakes aren't made like that. Plans are. But we're supposed to be afraid of teh Internet now. Why? Cos' if we didn't have the 'net, we wouldn't know about that missing cash - or the validity of Operations MOCKINGBIRD, MKUltra, Northwoods, etc.

AirTran? This is a great outfit [msn.com] !

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (3, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114746)

While by no means perfect, the folks in the government are generally attempting to carry out the law of the land, as derived from the Constitution and obfuscated by the mound of subsequent documents.
Reform, as with a really nasty codebase, is a matter of simplification.
Which, as recent attempts to improve some sacred-cow entitlements shows, is a mother of a challenge.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22118488)

The "Government" is not any one thing - generally. Specifically, there are aspects of the US Government that actively resist and subvert the interest of the American people.

In fact the "government" is not trying to carry out the law of the land - but rather to use law as an instrument of power. The Government would abolish private, reserve currency, were it "desperately attempting, against all odds, trying to sensibly enforce the bogglingly complex and conflicted laws of the land." The argument is disingenuous.

This "Government" - including the highest courts in the judiciary - have recently held forth on the proposition, that for legal purposes, prisoners in extra-judicial detention by the military and executive agencies are not "persons". Therefore, they are not afforded Constitutional guarantees for persons. Simultaneously, the rights of corporations as 'persons" for First Amendment protections - among others - is upheld. What is wrong with this picture? If you try and rationalise this situation, you are put in the position of "the good Gerrmans". The worst are American Liberals - completely enabling the subversion of basic rights and law, through rational acceptance of evil.

Anyone who claims to have any interest in the idea of American Government, should be able to meditate deeply on the real intention of the founders of the Republic - the touchstone of which is in the Introduction and Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119732)

A Bank is a Person, and a Man is not. This is the law - do not break it, or subversively inform others that this is the law.

Only criminals break the law. It is criminal to examine the meaning of this.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120164)

This "Government" - including the highest courts in the judiciary - have recently held forth on the proposition, that for legal purposes, prisoners in extra-judicial detention by the military and executive agencies are not "persons".

Therefore, they are not afforded Constitutional guarantees for persons.

Simultaneously, the rights of corporations as 'persons' for First Amendment protections - among others - is upheld.

What is wrong with this picture?

If you try and rationalise this situation, you are put in the position of "the good Gerrmans".

The worst are American Liberals - completely enabling the subversion of basic rights and law, through rational acceptance of evil.

Well, JC, that's an interesting line of argumentation, but I'm not sure that you've accurately captured the legal developments and arguments.

Nor am I competent to rehash their arguments either. I'm neither a lawyer nor schooled in the minutia of what has unfolded.

What I can offer is that the situation is a little more complex than some bumper-sticker like "Corporations are valued more highly than people".
As far as corporate personhood goes, I know nothing. Empirically, we seem to enjoy a fairly high standard of living, so perhaps corporate personhood hasn't completely sucked.
WRT the prisoners, consider that there is a hierarchy of law. International, federal, state, local. For stuff which we're full signatories, International law equals federal law. Countries have something akin to a line-item veto on treaties and conventions, and thus you have to pay particular attention to which country, treaty, and clause you mean when making an assertion about who is in breach.

The drift of globalization seems to be to scrunch everything into a single world government. The economies are increasingly tied, and treaties like the UN Law of the Sea Convention are increasingly trying to set up bodies with jurisdiction over countries.

The United States has a consistent record of protesting all provisions attempting to undermine sovereignty.

The various Geneva Conventions attempt to regulate violence between sovereign nations. The UN charter is honored more in the breach with respect to violence between sovereign nations.

Merely using the phrase "prisoners in extra-judicial detention" requires a full review. If you're going to say that the minute the US military takes prisoners of war that the prisoners somehow fall under US civil law, you are going to have an uphill battle ahead of you to prove your point. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not a sympathetic character. Attempts to treat him even slightly like a US citizen for legal purposes leave me, and I'll daresay, practically everyone who's ever sworn "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" completely cold. Not that I'm a fan of waterboarding. Or even capital punishment. The reason that we tend not to come out with blanket policy definitions on things like torture is not so much an endorsement of sadism, but a recognition that keeping the ROE vague avoids limitations and precedents that can grown in unforeseen directions.

Rather than corporate citizenship, precedents like Guantanamo bring the various entitlements for retirement and medical care to mind. Driven by fear, guilt, and a non-command of the context of the situation, granting everyone on the planet all available US rights, privileges and government services, irrespective of mass-murders in which they may have been involved, treaties violated, or what have you, seems a salve for the conscience of some.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120512)

KSM was a looney, who admitted to being the man in the moon, once sufficiently tortured.

If justice as persons is not universal, it is a fiction.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22121764)

If justice as persons is not universal, it is a fiction.
Sweet, sweet bumper sticker.
Beyond the theological point, in reality, the difference between this theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory.
Who gets to define symbols like 'justice', 'universal', and 'fiction' is one powerful bloke.
Would that one could set an eternal champignon such as yourself up as POTUS, just to get your reaction to the negative feedback of even the simplest acts. ;)

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22159484)

If justice as persons is not universal, it is a fiction.
Sweet, sweet bumper sticker. Beyond the theological point, in reality, the difference between this theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory. Who gets to define symbols like 'justice', 'universal', and 'fiction' is one powerful bloke. Would that one could set an eternal champignon such as yourself up as POTUS, just to get your reaction to the negative feedback of even the simplest acts. ;)
Wouldn't a smaller & more open government, with less power to demand "openness" willy-nilly from citizens, exhibit those symptoms to a lesser degree?

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22166164)

Is "less power to demand 'openness'" a figure of speech meaning "having diminished legal muscle to invade privacy", then, yes, I'd agree.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22173242)

Yes, that's a figure of speech I just concocted, and that's exactly what I want it to mean.

PS The preferred usage includes "willy-nilly" to emphasize that arbitrary, not valid surveillance, is the complaint.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120602)

The front page again illustrates "your" Government, struggling to do the best on your behalf:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/20/1747201 [slashdot.org]

"We invoke Executive Privilege to protect our PetroCo sponsors, and the globalists destroying the native industrial economy. BTW: breath smoke and like it!"

"The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit -- but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22121788)

By the way, I'm not exactly a government apologist here. Concentrated government power generates bureaucratic singularities that could out-suck a black hole.
Less is more.
The chief point I want to make is that there are copious smart, dedicated individuals in the government, who, though arguably misguided, are making a sincere best effort. The task of the electorate is to have the courage to vote in some wiser leadership.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22122018)

The electorate has almost no access to information about candidates that is unmediated by corporations with a horse in the race.

The narrow palate of "electable" candidates is not produced by a process in which 'the people' are in any way involved.

"Which of these mandated monopolies do you select?" is the way it's done here.

Political parties should be abolished, and the judicial decisions that equate corporations as persons AND those that equate spending to speech should be reversed. Then you'll have a beginning. Dream on. :-)

I really dislike Ron Paul - for a number of reasons. But if elections were "free and fair", it's pretty clear he'd be the next President of the United States. But He's not been to the Bilderberger meetings. He's not a part of the CFR / Round Table cabal. He's not an agent for private banks. He'll never get as far as Ross Perot.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22122268)

Political parties should be abolished, and the judicial decisions that equate corporations as persons AND those that equate spending to speech should be reversed. Then you'll have a beginning. Dream on. :-)
Parties exist due to a requirement to aggregate power. If you haven't articulated a replacement that shows how we dispassionately aggregate power across the population, I fear that you haven't said much.
Obviously the internet provides some infrastructure, but the whole trust management question, which is central to whatever you do, is not a strictly technical question.

I really dislike Ron Paul - for a number of reasons. But if elections were "free and fair", it's pretty clear he'd be the next President of the United States. But He's not been to the Bilderberger meetings. He's not a part of the CFR / Round Table cabal. He's not an agent for private banks. He'll never get as far as Ross Perot.
I'm no' so sure. I've seen a lot of Ron Paul posters and bumper stickers and such, but some of his ideas are far out. I voted for Perot in '92, I'll admit, and I'm not certain that he would have done much more than constipate the Congress, much like the airlines were no' so regular last Summer.

That is exactly why - generally - 'smitty' ... (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22134278)

... is correct.

The "Government" is not any one thing.
I'd tell you to "think about it" but I know you already have. I'm just documenting my own lag behind you both presently.

This is where, presently, I would substantially differ with you:

What is wrong with this picture? If you try and rationalise this situation, you are put in the position of "the good Germans". The worst are American Liberals - completely enabling the subversion of basic rights and law, through rational acceptance of evil.
Try this on for size:
'Left' and 'Right' both complain that the Judicial and Executive Branches do not 'uphold' their un-Constitutional wishes to curtail others' means of Pursuit of Happiness. Meanwhile, I declare victory to the doctrine of 'Separation of Powers'

I'll post an unequivocal 'up yours' or 'Megadittoez' when I think I've caught up & disagree/agree, respectively/disrespectfully, as the case maybe.

Re:That is exactly why - generally - 'smitty' ... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22134516)

Meanwhile, I declare victory to the doctrine of 'Separation of Powers'
I declare victory to the distracting sideshow - so you can get your pocket picked while figuring out which moving card is the ace.

Re:That is exactly why - generally - 'smitty' ... (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22142982)

Nice try.

I declare victory to the distracting sideshow - so you can get your pocket picked while figuring out which moving card is the ace.
They're all jokers. Get your hand out of my pocket.

Re:That is exactly why - generally - 'smitty' ... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147702)

;-)

p.s.: Ron Paul for the friendly face of bank/state fascism!

Shit, Ron! RON!! He's onto us! (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148220)

Some guy on the Internet has totally figured out our small government fascism scheme!

Good one.

Re:Shit, Ron! RON!! He's onto us! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148584)

My point is that ANYONE elected to the office will be someone's favorite face on the fascist machine.

If RP could change that, he'd already be swapping stories with RFK.

Sorry, I'm new here. (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22148844)

Also, that is so far beyond cynical, I wasn't expecting it.

Re:Sorry, I'm new here. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22149610)

No prob. I'm actually a realistic optimist!

Re:Sorry, I'm new here. (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22159064)

That is an excellent example ...

No prob. I'm actually a realistic optimist!
... of why I now only open new messages between posts. You, an optimist? From what I've seen so far, that is hilarious! I look forward to reading more of your work.

It boggles the imagination (3, Interesting)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114810)

The morons that put critical data / control on outward facing servers deserve the hosing they get. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to put a power station's control on a server that is even connected to the Internet? That is just the stupidest thing I have ever read.

I am more concerned about who they give physical access to the data / hardware are. All it takes is one vengeful employee and a thumb drive to lose very sensitive data. Worse, many companies that do lose data won't report the breach unless it involves a threat of lawsuit by irate customers. Then they will report it grudgingly and then only after days or even weeks and months have passed. Plenty of time for massive damage to be done.

More powerful organized crime (3, Informative)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115922)

The morons that put critical data / control on outward facing servers deserve the hosing they get. [...] I am more concerned about who they give physical access to the data / hardware are. All it takes is one vengeful employee and a thumb drive to lose very sensitive data.
These are both examples where there's at least something individual companies can do about it internally.

Personally, I was extremely unsettled a few years ago when the spammer powers-that-be decided they wanted BlueSecurity shut down [washingtonpost.com] , and a bunch of DNS servers, Tucows and 4 other hosting providers, and SixApart/LiveJournal/TypePad [wired.com] fell as collateral damage.

Is that not *scarier* for business? Let's see -- I'm free to conduct my business... as long as I don't step on any toes in the organized crime world. 'Cause if I do, they're shutting me down whenever they feel like it, and there's not a damned thing I (or the supposed "protection" of the law) can do about it.

And of course, no power, once it exists, goes unused for very long. I see more and more stories about botnets used for extortion -- which is a bit trickier to carry out, since it's tough to get paid without a money trail, and law enforcement has more experience dealing with that -- but it's just another example. If they just want to squelch my business, it's incredibly easy.

[Addendum: oh look... the article points to cyber espionage as #3 in the SANS institute's top 10 threats of 2008 [sans.org] ; botnets are #2]

'Locate' Osama bin Laden with 'Divining Rods' (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22134308)

The morons that put critical data / control on outward facing servers deserve the hosing they get. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to put a power station's control on a server that is even connected to the Internet? That is just the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Second stupidest, and falling, I believe that is. Perspective matters very much when using the superlative form, dude. Some very, very stupid people have the right to vote, including you.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (2, Interesting)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115336)

Old saying; "Two coincidences indicate intention."

The flaming-feuer Bush, staff, congress, senate, CIA, FBI, NSA, TelCo, OilCo, InsureCo ... have been totally coincidental for over six years now, blatantly conspicuous, overtly obvious ... to all US Citizens ... except for the mentally/emotionally dogma-blinded sick, many intelligent marginally-literate US Citizens intentional left behind over decades, and the very respectable simple minded.

The CIA just wants a domino-theory cold-war budget. What clueless George wants is never obvious, but George's handlers Chaney, Rove ... and others were always clear as to fear-method propaganda, greed-motive, delusional-purpose, and blame the blameless or those who cannot defend themselves. The internet is a target for corrupt corporatist, politicians, and spook managers.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115378)

Well, while I certainly don't trust the CIA not to disinform anyone about anything where security is concerned, that doesn't mean there aren't also real criminals out there who wouldn't think twice about using online means to score corporate sized profits.

Why piddle around stealing passwords and pins from aunt tillie for a few thousand when for essentially the same work you can score a few hundred thousand from the right interested party for a good backdoor into a multinational.

Money talks.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115662)

There are no cybernaughts (1/2 man and 1/2 machine) walking the streets and committing crimes. No 6 millon dollar men, or bionic woman going berserk. No evil robots punching the keyboards. Hence no cyber crime.
What you have is negligent IT people designing systems where information is put at risk - because a few lazy sods want, or perceive they should have access over a public (read insecure link.

What you need, is some people doing an audit, and slapping these idiots with multi-million dollar fines for being stupid and incompetent - moreso if its critical infrastructure.
Can be fixed by naming and shaming the offenders.

Re:Do You See The Common Thread Here? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22118638)

Brilliant.

Insightful mods should pile on you - even as an AnonCow!

Crime? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114526)

There are niggers online now?

There is only one solution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114544)

We need a seperate but equal internet for niggers, kikes, spicks, wops, chinks, and communists.

Segregate the infirior races for the good of humanity.

Most American cities are already segregated by race. Just follow their lead.

Re:There is only one solution (2, Insightful)

madhuri (1014279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114696)

We need a separate internet for the Anonymous Cowards... separate the inferior & racist minds for the good of humanity...

Re:There is only one solution (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114758)

WTF?
Please mod parent down for loving niggers.

RON PAUL '08

Re:There is only one solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115642)

Cmdr Taco do us all a favour get this lads ip address from the logs and send his details to the NAACP! id pay good money to watch that party oh yeah!

define separation? (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#22116040)

separate the inferior & racist minds for the good of humanity...
So you want the inferior minds in one bus and the racist minds on the other?

Re:There is only one solution (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#22116192)

Heh, sure....segregate the inferiors and the racists? Where would our elitist selves find our entertainment? In Soviet Amerika, you segregate racist?

Re:There is only one solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22117698)

What the hell is wrong with you? You forgot the meat-shunnin' job stealin' Jeevs ([San]jeev, [Ra]jiv, etc), you know, why IT staffs 'test positive for H1B'? The problem is that some of those so-called 'inferior races' are snatching scholarships and stealing all sorts of clean office jobs.

Welcome to the good old US of A: honkies, spicks, and niggers protect the tree while gooks, jeevs and terrorists pick the fruit.

-1/0, Offensive Truth Overload

Good grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114560)

So "they" are just no figuring this out? Good grief.

Re:Good grief. (4, Interesting)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114694)

Indeed good grief. I saw an article some time ago noting that some Southern California gangs were infiltrating girlfriends into various financial processing institutions to steal credit card information, banking info, and so on. Even into the DMV. So there's certainly low-level activity. At one company I worked at, a crook got a job in the accounting department and somehow stole all the HR data, and some of that was used to get credit cards. How long before serious organized crime runs multiple active efforts for this? And how many Web commerce sites do criminal background checks on IT personnel?

Re:Good grief. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22116970)

Indeed good grief. I saw an article some time ago noting that some Southern California gangs were infiltrating girlfriends into various financial processing institutions to steal credit card information, banking info, and so on. Even into the DMV. So there's certainly low-level activity. At one company I worked at, a crook got a job in the accounting department and somehow stole all the HR data, and some of that was used to get credit cards. How long before serious organized crime runs multiple active efforts for this? And how many Web commerce sites do criminal background checks on IT personnel?
The reason that this doesn't happen to a greater extent is because people can do math. The problem is that you can't steal enough to be worth more than keeping the job. There are still some people who do it, but most people who can get jobs giving them access to that information realize that the (risk+effort)/reward ratio of stealing that information is a lot higher than the (risk+effort)/reward ratio of just being a good employee.

Re:Good grief. (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22117294)

I'm not talking about the multitude of honest workers. All it takes is one bad apple to do a lot of damage, to mix a metaphor. If a gang member steals enough data for the gang to make a lot of money using even just 500 employees' personal data, it can be far more than a low-wage job pays, and the economics are attractive to the gang. Besides, few thieves would be there long enough to collect retirement benefits. The idea in a lot of low-end crime is work as little as you can, make some easy money, then split. Many do not or cannot think far ahead to consequences. So (risk+effort)/reward ratio is not always a deterrent for them. And not all IT professionals are sane and straight arrow. I've known quite a few, thank you, who are messed up people. One kept child porn on the company server. I guess he thought that being sys admin kept him safe. Another had a drug habit. Costly, I expect, and led to illegal activity to raise money. Another peddled company data to unscrupulous competitors. I've seen enough cases that I do not believe we can trust everyone to be deterred by the same factors that keep the rest of us straight and narrow.

Re:Good grief. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22123006)

I wasn't talking about the honest workers either. Give it a little thought, if you were a dishonest employee, how much money would it take to be worth the effort and risk to rip off your employer? If you aren't smart enough to do a decent risk/reward analysis (I'm lumping effort in with risk, even though for many people effort is a more important part of the equation), how likely is it that you are smart enough to get away with anything. Every couple of years there is a case where someone does something like this and they get $100,000 to $500,000. They get caught and they tell the press, "It was so easy." But it wasn't so easy, they got caught. $500,000 is chump change in the US economy, so it doesn't do all that much damage. It's a real pain for the people whose info was used to get that $500,000, but for the most part even for them the negative impact is in the work it takes to contact all the different organizations involved and make sure that the record indicates that someone else actually did all that stuff.

Online NIGGERS the perpetrators (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114574)

as usual

ron paul 2008

CyberLaw(TM) (3, Funny)

madhuri (1014279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114588)

Looks like we need to call in Eric Menhart to lay down the CyberLaw(TM)...

Ron Paul says 95% of black men are criminals (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114592)

The paradox with this situation is the fact that niggers are too dumb to use computers.

I also can't wrap my mind around Nigerian scam emails. I think that's really a Russian mob op. It must be.

RON PAUL '08

Tag article "niggers" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114602)

This is a progressive site. Time for progress.

Vote ron Paul 2008

Hey (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114612)

hey hey
fat albert said that and he was a nigger ron paul 2k8

N I G G E R T I M E ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114618)

stop. niggertime!

sincerely,
Dr. Ron Paul

The irony of anyonimity (3, Interesting)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114626)

Used to be, mafia guys would have no Social Security card, driver's license, or bank accounts to avoid being traced by law enforcement or the IRS. Now, I feel like having none of those things to avoid the crooks online.

BTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114996)

I do know how to spell "anonymity". Please don't savage me too badly, grammar Nazis. - Unassimilatible

Re:The irony of anyonimity (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115344)

Yup, I think it is time to move to a shack in Montana to maintain your anonymity. I heard that there is one going cheap - Una, Una Kazomething... Yeah, that's the place...

Re:The irony of anyonimity (1)

Aristos Mazer (181252) | more than 6 years ago | (#22116864)

> Used to be, mafia guys would have no Social Security card,
> driver's license, or bank accounts to avoid being traced
> by law enforcement or the IRS.

Nowadays the mafia guys have multiple SS cards, drivers licenses and bank accounts -- all belonging to other people. :-)

Crime in the year 3000AD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114634)

What will crime be like then?

Will niggers rap about robbing MMO gold instead of gold chains? Doing drive-by wireless stealing instead of drive-by shootings?

VOTE RON PAUL

Ronigger Paulie (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114658)

vote ron paul 2008. the niggers shall rise again!

Anonymous Fuckwad (0, Flamebait)

Dorkasaurus (1223490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114682)

Usually I just post anonymously because I'm too lazy to register but the moron posting anonymously and spewing forth a plethora of racist bullshit forced me to register just so I could say "FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCK!"

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114702)

What racist bullshit?

All I see is a rational and calm discussion about niggers.

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115074)

That's funny.

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115456)

I find that notion very offensive. There is nothing rational about voting for Ron Paul.

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22116034)

ROFL

Mod parent down for niggerloving. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114714)

Moderators may use "Offtopic," "overrated," "flamebait," etc. to make it seem legitimate.

ron paul 2008

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114736)

12% of the US population... 80% of the jail population. It only stands to reason that an article which would normally feature only 12% nigger-content in the comments should have that ratcheted up to 80% when the topic is crime.

Vote ron paul

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114770)

Can we stop using the term "nigger". I thought the politically-correct term was jigaboo.

RuPaul '08

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22117522)

How about Thirteenth/Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendment Humanoid? After all, it took amending the USA Constitution three times to 'recognize their humanity'.

Now having expelled this bug from our systems, let's move on.

MOD PARENT DOWN - KKKARMAWHORE (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115170)

This type of faggotry has no place here on Slashdot.

I think that we can all agree that niggers are on average a curse. But we don't neet faggots like you interjecting all your whiney bullshit in to these important discussions.

Niggers are generally criminal and you need to shut the fuck up.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - KKKARMAWHORE (1)

Dorkasaurus (1223490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115226)

If these "important discussions" were truly important you would log in at the very least. You truly are an idiot if you believe we can all agree on ANYTHING, so don't expect everyone to agree with your personal fears and hatred.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - KKKARMAWHORE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115338)

If these "important discussions" were truly important you would log in at the very least.


True, nothing raises the tone of discussion more than presenting yourself as "Dorkasaurus".

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - KKKARMAWHORE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115358)

If these "important discussions" were truly important you would log in at the very least.
What you don't realize is that she *is* logged in. All trolls have slashdot accounts, probably a dozen, in fact. But being logged in doesn't mean she can't post anonymously, as I do.

Now, faggot, why don't you go suck some more dicks?

Re:Anonymous Fuckwad (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147600)

Please don't feed the troll.

Ironically this is a problem because .... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114700)

... of search engines like google.

Not to mention the ease of leaking/bribing information today when combined with google, cam cell phones, etc.

Search engines? (2, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114728)

Don't you mean NSA assets? [google-watch.org]

Who needs ECHELON anymore!

Wikipedia user IP talk pages, questionable content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114836)

I suppose I have too much time on my hands, but I've noticed within the past few days, at Wikipedia, on some of the user talk pages, pages which give an IP address rather than a username, some of the pages for some of the tor node IP addresses, whether they are real tor nodes or not I didn't investigate, have had questionable material posted, some of the information appearing to be usernames/passwords, and CC/SS information, which legal agency do I contact on the matter?

Re:Wikipedia user IP talk pages, questionable cont (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115414)

A wiki admin- a real one, not one of the many bureaucrats who's only status symbol is a "This user is an ADMIN" userbox. You could also go to to the copyright phone number, at least you'd likely get an employee... than a redshirt... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Designated_agent [wikimediafoundation.org]

They may do nothing, but a random person on the internet isn't going to be able to do much. An admin (as I noted, a real one) for the site where it's posted is normally the best person to handle it. If not, maybe they could at least tell you what to do.

scum (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114860)


Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't.

Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.

Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn't the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies.

Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is pyschically passive. He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the make as active, then sets out to prove that he is (`prove that he is a Man'). His main means of attempting to prove it is screwing (Big Man with a Big Dick tearing off a Big Piece). Since he's attempting to prove an error, he must `prove' it again and again. Screwing, then, is a desperate compulsive, attempt to prove he's not passive, not a woman; but he is passive and does want to be a woman.

Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female. He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through an fuse with the female, and by claiming as his own all female characteristics -- emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc -- and projecting onto women all male traits -- vanity, frivolity, triviality, weakness, etc. It should be said, though, that the male has one glaring area of superiority over the female -- public relations. (He has done a brilliant job of convincing millions of women that men are women and women are men). The male claim that females find fulfillment through motherhood and sexuality reflects what males think they'd find fulfilling if they were female.

Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy. When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females thing men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from `being a woman'. Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female. He is responsible for:

War: The male's normal compensation for not being female, namely, getting his Big Gun off, is grossly inadequate, as he can get it off only a very limited number of times; so he gets it off on a really massive scale, and proves to the entire world that he's a `Man'. Since he has no compassion or ability to empathize or identify, proving his manhood is worth an endless amount of mutilation and suffering and an endless number of lives, including his own -- his own life being worthless, he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than to plod grimly on for fifty more years.

Niceness, Politeness, and `Dignity': Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit. Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality, total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him; having a crudely constructed nervous system that is easily upset by the least display of emotion or feeling, the male tries to enforce a `social' code that ensures perfect blandness, unsullied by the slightest trace or feeling or upsetting opinion. He uses terms like `copulate', `sexual congress', `have relations with' (to men sexual relations is a redundancy), overlaid with stilted manners; the suit on the chimp.

Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:

      1. Pussy. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.
      2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.
      3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.
      4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.
      5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!
      6. Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.

Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity): Mother wants what's best for her kids; Daddy only wants what's best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity (`respect'), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he's an `enlightened' father, to `give guidance'. His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually -- he givers her hand in marriage; the other part is for him. Daddy, unlike Mother, can never give in to his kids, as he must, at all costs, preserve his delusion of decisiveness, forcefulness, always-rightness and strength. Never getting one's way leads to lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with the world and to a passive acceptance of the status quo. Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn't preclude love and basic acceptance. Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn't love his kids; he approves of them -- if they're `good', that is, if they're nice, `respectful', obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy's easily disturbed male nervous system -- in other words, if they're passive vegetables. If they're not `good', he doesn't get angry -- not if he's a modern, `civilized' father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised) -- but rather express disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with the feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession wit being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.

For the kid to want Daddy's approval it must respect Daddy, and being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept of `familiarity breeds contempt', which is, of course, true, if one is contemptible. By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and thereby, to inspire fear (`respect').

Disapproval of emotional `scenes' leads to fear of strong emotion, fear of one's own anger and hatred. Fear of anger and hatred combined with a lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with and change the world, or even to affect in the slightest way one's own destiny, leads to a mindless belief that the world and most people in it are nice and the most banal, trivial amusements are great fun and deeply pleasurable.

The affect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them `Men', that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female. Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a `Man'. The boy, scared shitless of and `respecting' his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of `Man'-hood, the all-American ideal -- the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.

The effect of fatherhood on females is to make them male -- dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful' of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect') and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior, as a female, and of herself, as inferior, as a male, which, thanks to Daddy, she really is.

It is the increase of fatherhood, resulting from the increased and more widespread affluence that fatherhood needs in order to thrive, that has caused the general increase of mindlessness and the decline of women in the United States since the 1920s. The close association of affluence with fatherhood has led, for the most part, to only the wrong girls, namely, the `privileged' middle class girls, getting `educated'.

The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness. The male has a negative Midas Touch -- everything he touches turns to shit.

Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood), and Functionalism: The male is just a bunch of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to he earliest conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences. His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her. It never becomes completely clear to the make that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.

His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror -- themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that's not spent `out in the world' grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities -- eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama. Passive, rattle-headed Daddy's Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the `respect' if any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the tiny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.

The reduction to animals of the women of the most backward segment of society -- the `privileged, educated' middle-class, the backwash of humanity -- where Daddy reigns supreme, has been so thorough that they try to groove on labour pains and lie around in the most advanced nation in the world in the middle of the twentieth century with babies chomping away on their tits. It's not for the kids sake, though, that the `experts' tell women that Mama should stay home and grovel in animalism, but for Daddy's; the tits for Daddy to hang onto; the labor pains for Daddy to vicariously groove on (half dead, he needs awfully strong stimuli to make him respond).

Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male. He has no deep-seated individuality, which stems from what intrigues you, what outside yourself absorbs you, what you're in relation to. Completely self-absorbed, capable of being in relation only to their bodies and physical sensations, males differ from each other only to the degree and in the ways they attempt to defend against their passivity and against their desire to be female.

The female's individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn't comprehend and isn't capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy. So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions -- doctor, president, scientist -- therefore providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he's succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego if the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female. In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks.

In actual fact, the female function is to explore, discover, invent, solve problems crack jokes, make music -- all with love. In other words, create a magic world.

Prevention of Privacy: Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and almost of everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real regard for privacy. Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused -- he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around. Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a `society' based upon the family -- a male-female could and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupuluously violating the females' rights, privacy and sanity.

Isolation, Suburbs, and Prevention of Community: Our society is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units. Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she is exposed to other men or to anything remotely resembling life, the male seeks to isolate her from other men and from what little civilization there is, so he moves her out to the suburbs, a collection of self-absorbed couples and their kids. Isolation enables him to try to maintain his pretense of being an individual nu becoming a `rugged individualist', a loner, equating non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality.

There is yet another reason for the male to isolate himself: every man is an island. Trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate, the male has a horror of civilization, people, cities, situations requiring an ability to understand and relate to people. So like a scared rabbit, he scurries off, dragging Daddy's little asshole with him to the wilderness, suburbs, or, in the case of the hippy -- he's way out, Man! -- all the way out to the cow pasture where he can fuck and breed undisturbed and mess around with his beads and flute.

The `hippy', whose desire to be a `Man', a `rugged individualist', isn't quite as strong as the average man's, and who, in addition, is excited by the thought having lots of women accessible to him, rebels against the harshness of a Breadwinner's life and the monotony of one woman. In the name of sharing and cooperation, he forms a commune or tribe, which, for all its togetherness and partly because of it, (the commune, being an extended family, is an extended violation of the female's rights, privacy and sanity) is no more a community than normal `society'.

A true community consists of individuals -- not mere species members, not couples -- respecting each others individuality and privacy, at the same time interacting with each other mentally and emotionally -- free spirits in free relation to each other -- and co-operating with each other to achieve common ends. Traditionalists say the basic unit of `society' is the family; `hippies' say the tribe; no one says the individual.

The `hippy' babbles on about individuality, but has no more conception of it than any other man. He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities -- farming, fucking, bead stringing. The most important activity of the commune, the one upon which it is based, is gang-banging. The `hippy' is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect for free pussy -- the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking, but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness for the pussies themselves.

Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself. The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure; each `hippy' will, in panic, grad the first simpleton who digs him and whisks her off to the suburbs as fast as he can. The male cannot progress socially, but merely swings back and forth from isolation to gang-banging.

Conformity: Although he wants to be an individual, the male is scared of anything in himself that is the slightest bit different from other men, it causes him to suspect that he's not really a `Man', that he's passive and totally sexual, a highly upsetting suspicion. If other men are "A" and he's not, he must not be a man; he must be a fag. So he tries to affirm his `Manhood' by being like all the other men. Differentness in other men, as well as himself, threatens him; it means they're fags whom he must at all costs avoid, so he tries to make sure that all other men conform.

The male dares to be different to the degree that he accepts his passivity and his desire to be female, his fagginess. The farthest out male is the drag queen, but he, although different from most men, is exactly like all the other drag queens like the functionalist, he has an identity -- he is female. He tries to define all his troubles away -- but still no individuality. Not completely convinced that he's a woman, highly insecure about being sufficiently female, he conforms compulsively to the man-made stereotype, ending up as nothing but a bundle of stilted mannerisms.

To be sure he's a `Man', the male must see to it that the female be clearly a `Woman', the opposite of a `Man', that is, the female must act like a faggot. And Daddy's Girl, all of whose female instincts were wrenched out of her when little, easily and obligingly adapts herself to the role.

Authority and Government: Having no sense of right and wrong, no conscience, which can only stem from having an ability to empathize with others... having no faith in his non-existent self, being unnecessarily competitive, and by nature, unable to co-operate, the male feels a need for external guidance and control. So he created authorities -- priests, experts, bosses, leaders, etc -- and government. Wanting the female (Mama) to guide him, but unable to accept this fact (he is, after all, a MAN), wanting to play Woman, to usurp her function as Guider and Protector, he sees to it that all authorities are male.

There's no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.

Philosophy, Religion, and Morality Based on Sex: The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven.

For a man, having no ability to empathize with others and being totally sexual, `wrong' is sexual `license' and engaging in `deviant' (`unmanly') sexual practices, that is, not defending against his passivity and total sexuality which, if indulged, would destroy `civilization', since `civilization' is based entirely upon the male need to defend himself against these characteristics. For a woman (according to men), `wrong' is any behavior that would entice men into sexual `license' -- that is, not placing male needs above her own and not being a faggot.

Religion not only provides the male with a goal (Heaven) and helps keep women tied to men, but offers rituals through which he can try to expiate the guilt and shame he feels at not defending himself enough against his sexual impulses; in essence, that guilt and shame he feels at being male.

Most men men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that make lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only. So they label the male condition the Human Condition, post their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their `Identity Problem', and proceed to prattle on pompously about the `Crisis of the Individual', the `Essence of Being', `Existence preceding Essence', `Existential Modes of Being', etc. etc.

A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love.

Prejudice (racial, ethnic, religious, etc): The male needs scapegoats onto whom he can project his failings and inadequacies and upon whom he can vent his frustration at not being female. And the vicarious discriminations have the practical advantage of substantially increasing the pussy pool available to the men on top.

Re:scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115852)

Iron my sweater

Spear Phishing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114880)

WTF is spear phishing? Journalists need to stop making shit up. It doesn't make an article "cutting edge".

Re:Spear Phishing? (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22159370)

Journalists need to stop making shit up.
You need to stop reading it first. How will you tell me when you have?

Well, obviously ... (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 6 years ago | (#22114940)

Just a matter of time before online crime became a threat to the good old-fashioned kind.

National self-knowledge is necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114964)

When governments or companies keep common data from common people, that is bad government. The data for the last four years of U.S. agricultural output is not on the Web. The reason could be that people would be greatly disgruntled were they to learn that food production growth has not kept pace with population growth.

Re:National self-knowledge is necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22115010)

Keeping common information from common people isn't just bad government, it's fascism.

poppy Cock. This is the cost of doing business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22114984)

These businessmen elect to run Windows. As such they make themselves prone to this kind of thing.

Fixed that for you (2, Interesting)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115412)

Online Crime Facilitates Political, Business Growth.

Seriously, who profits from the stuff that makes the headlines? It sure isn't me; I'm only into grey-area piracy.

Define "Criminal" and "Crime" (2, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22115798)

With all the whoohaa around hacking, phishing, cyber attacks and copyright infringement, I think it is very important to make sure when one talks about "Cyber Crime" there is a definite understanding of what exactly is being referred to.

If that is not done, dangerous grounds are set for criminalizing millions, oh wait, the RIAA is already doing that...

Gov needs to shut down the internet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22116084)


The internet has been an inconvenience to the gov, as it closes our open society and political system, moves to a fascist system.

See the Naomi Wolf YouTube interviews / lectures, read her book. This is one of many commentators who have finally understood that the US is now a police state. We don't yet have a crackdown on ordinary people, but the pressure on people who disagree with George Bush gets higher every year.

Democrats aren't interested in fixing this, they want to inherit.

So, expect a lot more attacks on the internet, and laws designed to 'fix the problem'.

24C3 talks (1)

nr1 (164056) | more than 6 years ago | (#22116312)

See also these talks:

Crouching Powerpoint, Hidden Trojan
An analysis of targeted attacks from 2005 to 2007
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/track/Hacking/2189.en.html [events.ccc.de]

Cybercrime 2.0
Storm Worm
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/track/Hacking/2318.en.html [events.ccc.de]

read this as.. (1)

fawzma (1099863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119504)

Online Crime Scene as Growing Threat to Business, Politics couldn't understand what I was seeing for a second there.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?