US hackers attacking al jazeera website

[DaleDoe]

Did you guys hear that US hackers did some DNS poisoning on the al jazeera website after the website posted pictures of dead allied troops?  They replaced the website with a picture the American flag in the shape of the US and the words "Let Freedom Ring."

see USA Today for more info.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/world/iraq/2003-03-27-jazeera-flag_x.htm

Greg & I tried to go to the website to see if it is still has the American flag (site: al-jazeera.com).  We looked up the IP and it looked foreign (63.something).  However, when we tried to go to the site, the connection timed out.  Possibly denial of service attack?  I don't know.

Anyway, I read the FBI is "investigating."  I don't know what you think, but I think the FBI should be hiring the guy instead.

By the way, why are all the smileys broken?  Maybe it's terrorism.

[Chris Swingler]

That's ridiculous.  He had no right to poison the DNS like that.  Despite the fact that he will most definately get some sympathy for posting a patriotic image instead of dead Allied troops; he had no right to deny the world of its option to view what they want to view.  For ages, there has been the fight to keep the internet free for all, and with the current state of mass media and the government blocking these sort of topics from the American people, the Internet remains the only way to get the "truth" from several different prospectives and attempt to peice together the real truth.  This sort of thing does nothing to help that effort.  

One also has to keep in mind that Al Jazeera is not associated directly with the Iraqi government or the Taliban, and they are a seperate, legitimate corporation (not much unlike our own CNN) that has the sole purpose of reporting the news to make a profit.  

And don't think that every person of Arab descent is immediately a terrorist, sand monkey, AK-47 wielding Anti-American person with a towel on his head, or any other overused stereotype.  And don't hold an ultraconservative view that states things like "we shouldn't be able to see the pictures, because they are bad for morale."  War is ugly.  Get over it.

Flame on!

--Beanie

[Jerry]

Hmmmm, interesting discussion Item:

Are there Unwritten Hacker Rules of War?  

Are websites of a country that the U.S. is at war with fair game to U.S. hackers?

[DaleDoe]

Whell, I have to reply to a couple of things.  

First I want to say that we're not at war with al jazeera, which is based in Quatar, is it?  If we were, we'd have taken down their satelites or bombed their towers or something.

Secondly, It looks like this may turn into an ethics discussion.  I wasn't initially going to give my opinion in the matter, but what the heck.  I do agree with al jazeera communications manager Jihad Ali Ballout when he said that it violates the principle of freedom of speech.  However, I'm not the least bit sympathetic.

[Kade P. Cole]

Well I guess hacking is wrong. I agree that we are not at war with al jazeera. For some reason I do not feel this case is as bad as stealing peoples credit cards or identity. I guess I am just too patriotic. This could be the start to a good ethics thread.

[Stiffler]

Too late. It's gone ethical. And who are the al jazeera anyways? If I knew who they were, I could make an opinion.

Jon

[Chris Swingler]

Al Jazeera is a news orginization in the middle east, and not all that unlike our own CNN.  They have made themselves a name in the United States for being the first to relay video of Osama bin Laden every time he speaks.

--Beanie

[Stiffler]

Ok, now I know who they are. I say that hacking is wrong no matter who it's done to. Even if it was Osama's computer in his cave, would not make it any less wrong. For any cause, rules must be followed. If no rules are followed, then they are not rules anymore. Then you get into CAOS.

Jon

[DaleDoe]

Whell, I feel that I must remind you that we ARE at war with Osama (or at least would be if we knew where he was at) and if it was his personal computer, I don't believe that we should be worried about protecting his personal property or personal freedom.

[Ryan DonCarlos]

I totally I agree, I also believe hacking is wrong, especially when n00bs do it in stupid stuff such as CS and diablo2 LOD but anyhow as far as osama is concerend I wouldn't mind changing his desktop to "pwned by fate/owned by USA" but I just hate him. So I don't know, I've come from both sides of the issue, I've had people hack me and I must admit that I in turn find them and hack0rz them back worse, turning all there files into text files that read "owned" was pretty amusing when I was a kid but now that I'm a lil older I think that it is dumb but sometimes you have to go there in order for things to be made right.  I personnaly would not do it on my own and I think that it was wrong of them to do, but I think hacking itself depends on who, what, and how bad it is done. I don't think you can just say, hacking is bad, because a lot companies actually hire "hack0rz" to test their systems security, which on turn make our programs better.
-=[Fate]=-  

[Stiffler]

Yeah, but there is a difference in being a hired hacker/cracker, than not. The difference is that some agent actually wants a system to be hacked, and cracked. This issue deals with the individual rights of every human being no matter how disgusting he/she happens to be. To perform a moral atrocities yourself, only lessens you. Hence, we have laws that an individual is judged by, and not placing moral judgments on any one person.

Jon

[DaleDoe]

I would like to make a distinction between what is legal and what is moral.  The two are not always correlated.  First of all, moral decisions, decisions about what is right and wrong, have to be made by each individual and each individual is responsible for those decisions.  However, legality is decided for us by those we voted into office.  Ideally, what is considered illegal should be a proper subset of what is considered immoral.  However, in practice this is often not the case.  

I believe the responsibility falls on the people to decide what is moral and what isn't and what should be legal and what shouldn't be.  Then the people vote for candidates that will change the law to best fit what the public deems appropriate.  It is not for the people to wait for the government to tell them what is legal and illegal and base their sense of morality on legality.

[Guest]

Currently english.aljazeera.net is down until mid-April. So despite rumors of US citizens being blocked by al-jazeera or elsewise is not true -- that is currently.  So hopefully, we'll be able to see the site back up in a couple of days and accessible to all.

Please refer to vandals and the like as crackers as hacking itself is relatively benign compared to stunts like this.

[Ryan DonCarlos]

let me just make it clear that what is morally right does not mean that is legal but it doesn't mean that it is wrong either.  Some of the best things for the human race have come from things that were "against the law" examples

Socrates - public speaking/freedom of speech
he was jailed and later put to death

Martin Luther king Jr. no need to explain

Ghadi (sp) - no need to explain

Not allowing equal rights to blacks/women

all these things were against the law and now the value they teach are what we call "today's society" I think that the USA has every right to use and only use military personal to hack things that would help the enemy, and believe me I'm SURE they do we just don't know it. but I see nothign wrong with it but I don't think civilians should.  I think as we get closer to the future this will also be allowed.
-=[Fate]=-

[William Grim]

While I feel hacking is wrong, in times like these, battle lines are drawn.

It is also wrong to murder, but if you are in a war, you have to do these types of things to protect what you believe is right.

So, what about hacking during a war?  What exactly makes that different than killing?  The people who win a war are the ones with the most information, best skilled, and best armed.  If hacking Osama's computer or any other enemy's computer for that matter helps to increase our odds of winning a brutal war, possibly with many less casualties, what makes it wrong?  After all, we would be fighting for what we believe in.  Plus, umm, we don't protect our enemies; that is part of the definition of an enemy.

I don't agree with the Al Jazeera posting POWs or what not on their web site, but I don't really agree that it should have been cracked.  Although, I don't feel sympathetic for them that it got cracked.

However, they do associate themselves with the likes of Osama and others we don't appreciate and are at war with.  So, even though I don't morally agree with this particular cracking, the crackers themselves were performing their own form of "freedom of speech".

I guess you just have to make your own decision about the idea; it's more of a personal ethical decision that can't be answered by any one person for everyone else.

[Stiffler]

That is a good point, Mike. A government hacker would report all the info to the appropriate authorities, but what about some Joe Blow in the basement of his parents house? If he gets into the enemies computer, and causes it to stop working, or for them to take it off-line, then the government hacker, will not be able to get in. Will Joe Blow alert the authorities about the info that he has? This is what I have been trying to say with my first post in this tread.

This is a call to all hackers/crackers: OK, so you can break into eBay. Who cares? Stop causing dung (I know which words are in the automatic censors) to fly on the internet slowing everbody down, and go work for the government to hack enemies' computer(s). I know many of you do it to see if you can, but see if you can get into an enemies and report what you find to the generals that can take action, instead of posting it on the internet for our enemies to find, and take action to prevent it from happening again.

You can tell I am pretty furious at malicious people. I mean all malicious people, whether they are murderers, rapist, molesters, crackers, and scum-of-the-Earth.

Timer: How many days until I get hacked for posting this. Any bets?

Jon

[Ryan DonCarlos]

I am really at a loss on what to say I know I want to say something but I can't think of a way to say it nicely.  Just try to see the good that can come out of hacking and not just the evil there is 2 sides. I agree that joe blow should not hack the enemy I've stated that and i think everyone can agree with that. I will update my post when I can finish my thoughts completely right now I am a lil worried about why you feel this way and i don't want to say anything in anger...
-=[Fate]=-

[Stiffler]

Happy trolling to you. When will you all figure out that I always argue the opposite? Oh well. All though that comment I made to the hackers and crackers was real. I am saying that they should unite to get our enemies, but do it under the supervision of the government, so then the armed forces can get intell. I am really teed off at the hackers and crackers for causing loads of trouble on the internet. That's all.

Jon

[Chris Swingler]

Here's an interesting article, courtesy of The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30131.html

"Al Jazeera and the Net - free speech, but don't say that"

They bring up a very interesting--and valid--point:  The internet is all about free speech, as long as you don't say the wrong thing.  They also point out that the Internet is an insecure medium for free speech--simply due to the fragility of servers.

Definately worth a read.

--Beanie