Bad day for Sony

[Jen]

I'll use an American definition since most people here are American:

U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
...
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

---

Dave, the DDoS attack you described involved neither violence nor a political motive. It was just a cyber-crime, however dispicable.

According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, cyberterrorism is any "premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which results in violence against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents."
Unlike a nuisance virus or computer attack that results in a denial of service, a cyberterrorist attack is designed to cause physical violence or extreme financial harm.

I guess the extreme financial harm is subjective - as what may be extreme to one company, may not be to another.

Now they are targeting employees of Sony as well as the judge. They have employees personal information as well as that of their families - I think they have definitely crossed the line into cyberterrorism. If they are revealing the home addresses of employees - whose to say some nut won't read it and decide to take it to the next level and incite violence...even if it's just throwing a brick through a window.

 

[devilof76]

Since violence isn't the only way to compromise personal security, it isn't a defining characteristic of terrorism.

 

[Timinator]

TBH, I wouldnt lose sleep if they gave these hackers the death penalty. single handedly ruining services for millions of innocent customers. You play with fire, prepare to get burned.

And ultimately it will cost the innocent consumer time and money. Thieves!

 

[Star Puffs]

That is strong rebuttal, Jen, but "cyberterrorism" is clearly not interchangable with "terrorism", just as a "demigod" is not a "god". The fact activities are defined as "cyberterrorism" does not make them "terrorism", again because they precisely lack the key component of violence. Now I will admit that these attacks on Sony have a definite ideological/political agenda.

 

[devilof76]

Initiated force is the defining characteristic. Not violence.

 

[Star Puffs]

Since violence isn't the only way to compromise personal security, it isn't a defining characteristic of terrorism.

Well, what constitutes "personal security"? In a non-deterministic world is that ever more than an entirely relative and thus subjective concept?

Various governmental bodies around the world want to restrict the definition of "terrorism" to violence precisely because it is objectively demonstrated by an actual act. If they open it up more, it becomes a free for all where everyone wants to define any novel/unusual criminal activity that upsets or frightens them as "terrorism".

The reason that is dangerous because the emotionally-charged nature of the word and the climate of political debate it creates is exactly what leads to curtailing civil liberties, increased state authority and a decrease in privacy.

 

[devilof76]

I've never read a novel that could initiate force.

 

[jinxx]

So this is why I couldn't play MVC3 online a fews day ago. Off with their heads!:emperor

Kidding! But seriously, I don't like hackers myself. Someone hacked my laptop and it like, totally hurt my feelings.

 

[BadMoon]

I've never read a novel that could initiate force.

I was reading on the toilet and it pushed me in. I was so upset. True story.

 

[FQRizzo]

Now the hackers are going after personal information of the Sony execs and their children.

 

[BadMoon]

Now the hackers are going after personal information of the Sony execs and their children.

They are not terrorists though.

 

[Shropt]

 

[THX-182]

Heh, when that Star Puffs person talks all I think about is this:

 

[devilof76]

You don't have to be like that.

Well, what constitutes "personal security"? In a non-deterministic world is that ever more than an entirely relative and thus subjective concept?

No. It's as clear cut as it has ever been. Personal security is constituted by the inviolate state of an individual's life, liberty and property.

Various governmental bodies around the world want to restrict the definition of "terrorism" to violence precisely because it is objectively demonstrated by an actual act.

And that would allow for any 'passive' agent of force to operate with impunity. For example, showing up at a banker's home and occupying their property would be permissible, so long as no one at the residence was assaulted. Standing outside a business and disrupting access by employees or customers would be permissible, so long as no one was assaulted. Blocking traffic with protest marches. DDoS attacks. Lawsuits that serve no purpose other than to drain the defendant's bank account. I'm sure that outright destruction of property would even qualify so long as it was done 'peacefully'.

Do you get the idea? Non-violent coercion gets a free pass under that definition. It protects nothing except for the activist's 'right' to infringe upon the lives of their targets. ____ that.

If they open it up more, it becomes a free for all where everyone wants to define any novel/unusual criminal activity that upsets or frightens them as "terrorism".

Fear is not the distinguishing characteristic of a violation of personal security.

The reason that is dangerous because the emotionally-charged nature of the word and the climate of political debate it creates is exactly what leads to curtailing civil liberties, increased state authority and a decrease in privacy.

Under the definition I've provided, I see no cause for concern. If laws intended to protect the rights of citizens are being used to violate the rights of citizens, it's the responsibility of the courts to prevent that kind of abuse.

Criminals don't have a right to privacy, and a state with no authority to investigate and prosecute criminals is less than useless.

 

[BadMoon]

You don't have to be like that.

I guess I'm a big meanie head.

 

[devilof76]

You should be nice to girls, even when they're completely wrong.

 

[BadMoon]

You should be nice to girls, even when they're completely wrong.

Wrong is not gender specific. Everyone wants equality so I treat them accordingly.

 

[devilof76]

I'm sexist.

 

[BuffyGirl]

Wrong is not gender specific. Everyone wants equality so I treat them accordingly.

Unless you're me, who's right all the time...

 

[BuffyGirl]

Yesterday, I could at least sign into my psn, just not get onto online gaming. Today, I cannot even sign into my psn. So, it's just getting worse. Wonderful!