Anonymous Hacks Epik Web Hosting (gizmodo.com) 61
ArchieBunker writes: Members of the hacktivist collective Anonymous claim to have hacked web registration company Epik, allegedly stealing 'a decade's worth of data,' including reams of information about its clients and their domains. Epik is controversial, having been known to host a variety of rightwing clients, including ones that previous web hosting providers, like GoDaddy, have dropped for various reasons. Its users have included conservative social media networks Parler and Gab, as well as conspiracy-theory-laden YouTube wannabe Bitchute and former President Trump fansite, The Donald. The company recently hosted prolifewhistleblower.com -- the website designed to help people snitch on Texas residents who want abortions -- but later forcibly removed the tip-collecting platform after determining that it had violated Epik's terms by nonconsensually collecting third-party information.
So... (Score:2)
The company recently hosted prolifewhistleblower.com -- the website designed to help people snitch on Texas residents who want abortions -- but later forcibly removed the tip-collecting platform after determining that it had violated Epik's terms by nonconsensually collecting third-party information.
So... being a website that was basically a revenge-porn / targeted harassment of women site wasn't enough to get the site yanked, but "nonconsensually collecting third-party information" was the trigger???
S
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
revenge-porn / targeted harassment of women
As someone who is pro-choice, one thing I can’t stand is the dishonesty on both sides about what the other side is actually saying or doing. The site in question does not seem to be interested in going after women who get abortions but rather doctors who perform abortions who can be sued under this new law, and it does not seem to contain pornography of any kind.
To the sort of person who would go after a doctor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: To the sort of person who would go after a doc (Score:2)
These days 'stochastic stochastic terrorism' is a bigger problem. It's when someone wants to get rid of meddlesome speech they disagree with, and to do that they equate speech to 'calls for violence' by misusing the stochastic 'terrorism' meme.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can not ascertain what the website is interested in (as far as a website can be interested in anything), but it's difficult to find a genuine argument for the position that a vast majority of "pro-life" people aren't interested in harming women who have abortions, or supporting measures that harm women who have abortions, whether they do so directly or indirectly. Given the actual things these people say, and the measures they support, it's clear that a major motivation for many of these people is, in fact, to punish women for abortions (or, more likely, abortion-related behavior such as premarital sex).
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like they really have it backwards. They were happy to take the registration/hosting money from clinic bombers, so long as they didn't also "nonconsensually collect third party information."
This seems an uncharitable view. They probably weren't happy to host the site but to "nonconsensually collect third party information" is the grounds under their terms to drop them. Otherwise we are into 'we only host content that we agree with' territory.
Why do these folks even need Epik anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
The absurdity that private businesses right to refuse "is censorship" and the absurdity that hosting providers are responsible for what they host... it all needs to end. So perhaps, if providers did just ban whatever they wanted for any reason, folks would design their services not to trust the hosting providers themselves and we would all get over it. If nobody trusted hosting providers and designed systems accordingly, hosting providers could then legitimately argue "if we didn't host it, someone else would" and nobody would be able to disagree. The Pirate Bay successfully implemented decent distributed infrastructure with this in mind, meaning no one provider hosts a meaningful enough portion of the service for it to ever be fully shut down. While no cloud provider would be happy to host the service as a whole, none of them would be unhappy about hosting parts of the service infrastructure which standalone amount to nothing. Ever since 2015, TPB has remained reliably functional without any serious downtime, despite many more entities wanting it to be taken down than the stuff Epik hosts. High Courts (and their judges) across the world all have been exposed for how powerless they really are by a small group of nerds, even while incarcerated!
There is no reason why others can't follow their blueprint. If they do, they don't need to rely on Epik.
Re: (Score:1)
So... being a website that was basically a revenge-porn / targeted harassment of women site wasn't enough to get the site yanked, but "nonconsensually collecting third-party information" was the trigger???
Seems like they really have it backwards. They were happy to take the registration/hosting money from clinic bombers, so long as they didn't also "nonconsensually collect third party information."
I'd say they should've gone with the "equal opportunity" angle - if the site wanted to gather information about those seeking/helping abortions, the hosting provider should have also required the site to, say, collect information on egregious abuse of things like "civil forfeiture" as well.
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to be OK with a hacking group doing this to an entity I do not like, and I would be against prosecuting them, as political positions have consequences.
However, when an entity I do like gets similarly hacked, that will be terrible, and those hackers need to be fully prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When both sides consider each other objectively evil for different reasons, that should tell you how “objective” those ideas really are.
Re: (Score:2)
You act like this is something bad? Particularly when one side is objectively evil.
Try to keep in mind that anything your side can do THEIR side can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What doors would it close for you if you were "outed" to be a BLM supporter?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
But one side is evil
Like I said, "this time it's okay!" :^)
Re: (Score:2)
(...) when one side is objectively evil.
Check my signature:
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Right and wrong matter.
MAD (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. Right and wrong matter.
That tends to work out until someone thinks that *you* are wrong and *you* get hacked. Of course, you think you are right. But if you think hacking people whom are wrong is OK you then can't really complain about the tactics, can you?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there are those who believe that right and wrong are not mutable and inconstant, but absolute. Such people are said to have morals. Then there are those like you who believe right and wrong are transactional and relative to viewpoint. This is called "amoral".
You can lea
Amorality (Score:2)
Then there are those like you who believe right and wrong are transactional and relative to viewpoint. This is called "amoral".
I do believe in absolute right and wrong in most circumstances. I also believe that breaking the law to do something "right" is also wrong. Hence my facetious original post.
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe that Martin Luther King's protests in Birmingham, Alabama were wrong because they were against a law that was hastily conceived to prevent the very protest?
Here's his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to give you a little context.
Sometimes, breaking a law is part of the road to justice. And justice can never be wrong.
Law (Score:2)
So you're comparing willingly going to jail to protest an unconstitutional law with breaking the law to get dirt on your political opponents?
You aren't saying that hacking into people's computers, then publishing what you find on the internet *should* be legal, are you? Or, as I alluded to earlier, only illegal against people you don't like? 'Cause that's not how the law works.
Re: (Score:2)
To fight evil, yes.
No, not legal, but worth the consequences when exposing evil. We have seen several high-profile cases of whistleblowers obtaining access to state secrets which are a crime, and they uncovered possible war crimes. That's a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are those who believe that right and wrong are not mutable and inconstant, but absolute. Such people are said to have morals
Like, say, people that think abortion is murder, and like all taking of innocent human life, can't be excused or justified and shouldn't be legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Good example. Those people should not get abortions. Also, abortion is already legal. It's a constitutional right.
Re:MAD (Score:4, Interesting)
It's balancing the rights of someone who has been born (the pregnant woman) with someone who has not been born, may never be born (the fetus).
I tend to lean toward protecting the rights of the person who exists, who has a name, who has a birthday. The fetus is the woman's and can only be the woman's. No one else has anything to say about it. Having something completely inside your body, living off your body, gives you rights morally that don't exist under other circumstances. No one else, not the government - not anyone - has this unique relationship.
I'm not saying morals aren't complicated, but there is a big different between what's right and wrong and what should be legal or illegal. Something as personal as reproduction has no place in the public sphere.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a very simple solution to this.
Every man gets a vasectomy when they hit puberty. Put some sperm on ice for them. Then when they have proven they are responsible, can afford it and have a willing partner, they can apply to the court to get their sperm back.
Rather than trying to control women's bodies and forcing them to go through a long and painful process, just take control of men's bodies instead.
Re: MAD (Score:2)
Shouldn't eveyone be hacked? Information wants to be free!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to be OK with a hacking group doing this to an entity I do not like, and I would be against prosecuting them, as political positions have consequences.
However, when an entity I do like gets similarly hacked, that will be terrible, and those hackers need to be fully prosecuted.
Followed by:
Yes. Right and wrong matter.
This!
Right and wrong is what separates acceptable hacks from the non-acceptable. And it's very easy to determine right from wrong, because as luck would have it, I only dislike
Congratulations you just noticed (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, well you should want the people involved to face legal consequences if they're caught at the same time it's perfectly acceptable to be happy if they're not caught when they're going after people who are objectively bad and bringing to light the terrible things those people are doing. If somebody punches a Nazi it's okay that you don't feel bad for t
Re: (Score:2)
If we're tolerant to the intolerant and eventually the intolerant when and tolerance goes away.
This isn't particularly difficult to solve. The rule of thumb is to establish that whatever someone wants to do to another is first done to that person. Example:
a) "It seems you dislike democracy. That's fine! We respect your choice to be anti-democratic, and as such are making you democracy-free, so that you won't be able to vote nor be voted in for as long as you keep being anti-democratic!"
b) "I see you're opposed to free speech. That's perfectly understandable. So, from now on your speech is blocked. Ge
Re: Congratulations you just noticed (Score:1)
Of Course You Want to Decide Who's Tolerant (Score:2)
If somebody punches a Nazi it's okay that you don't feel bad for the Nazi even if the guy who threw the punch still gets charged with assault.
So how bad do you feel for this Nazi?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
. . . you know, on a scale of 1 to 10?
Censorious activists are even less qualified to decide to decide who's "tolerant" than they are qualified to decide what is "hate speech."
Re: (Score:2)
How bad would you feel if you punched a Nazi and the Nazi died and you were charged and convicted of murder because it was on video?
How bad would you feel if someone sucker punched you for saying something they didn't agree with or like? That is where the rub lies. If it is OK to attack someone physically for saying something you don't like, then why would it be wrong for a Muslim to attack someone for drawing a cart
Illiberalism (Score:3)
This is an illiberal stance. Either everybody gets to express themselves, or an authoritarian government gets to say whom gets to express themselves.
Welcome to horseshoe theory. Those that want the other side's views suppressed lie are generally outliers on the political spectrum. If everyone on the other side looks like a Nazi or a Communist, you're probably on the other end of the horseshoe, delving into the authoritarianism of either side.
This is liberalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you notice,
You're right (Score:3)
The kind of simplistic libertarianism you're after isn't possible. Sooner or later that system will be exploited and you'll lose your freedom to it.
Also, off hand I don't know the logical fallacy you're employing here but at no point did I suggest everyone I disagree with is a Nazi. I used them as an
Re: (Score:3)
Also, off hand I don't know the logical fallacy you're employing here but at no point did I suggest everyone I disagree with is a Nazi. I used them as an example because they're the most obvious, which should be obvious from context.
I know, but that's how the push for regulating speech works. Your blind spot is that you see it only coming from the right. I see it coming from both sides.
We can ban the NSPA without banning MLK by making the distinction between one group calling for violence and oppression as a fundamental requirement of their ideology and the other doing the exact opposite.
And this is your other blind spot. The issue isn't banning one group or another. It's that once you give the government to ban one group, you give them the power to ban *any* group.
This was the one bright spot in Trump's presidency. If you want the government to be able to ban or regulate something as fundamental as freedom of speech, picture Trump with
It's not the only way (Score:2)
Another way is to repeal Section 230 and then use trolls, bots and outright threats of violence to control speech. You can see this happening in real time if you google "Twitch Hate Raids". Twitch will eventually get those raids under control, but they're only able to do that because of S230. And the Authoritarians
Re: (Score:1)
The paradox of tolerance. If we're tolerant to the intolerant and eventually the intolerant when and tolerance goes away. The real world is messy.
The "Paradox of Tolerance" is crap. It's an excuse to declare that only your ideas are good and pure and all others are a threat, and thus excuses your dominance and their destruction by any means necessary, all while patting yourself on the back for being the Good Guy. The so-called paradox ultimately leads to no tolerance, where every perceived shadow is Hitler. ("Punch Nazis!" "Uh, he's not a Nazi" "They're ALL Nazis! Punch!" ).
If you're worried about where to draw that line that's because the Nazis have spent a lot of time trying to make that line fuzzy to you.
Aaannnnd... here we are. When you're a Righteous Nazi Puncher, they're ALL
Re: (Score:2)
It's "controversial" to disagree with the Left (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's "controversial" to disagree with the Left
Heh. Bear in mind a disproportionate amount of time is spent defending/minimizing the behavior of the Right than admonishing the behavior of the Left. "It was a peaceful tour!"
TLDR: Most of your immediate problems would be solved by getting your buddies to settle down.
Not possible (Score:1)
Everyone assured us that when Amazon boots you off their platform that you disappear from the web. It's simply not possible that anyone anywhere hosted Gab or Parlor.
Or maybe the rightwing morons were wrong. But surely that's not it.
It's like watching children fight (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't win an argument on the merits, call them names. If they don't care, cancel them. If they still don't care, DOX them. Steal their personal data if you have to. This is about "justice".
Now pat yourself on the back. Ignore the fact that you're working for the establishment. You're just a useful idiot.
Like I said, childish.
Seriously (Score:1)
If GoDaddy, the company known for TV commercials with large breasted women wearing Hooters inspired outfits, is giving you the boot, that should probably tell you something, like you're way outside of the norms of society. Though, I suppose that level of introspection is not something people running those kinds of sites would have.
The hack is a scam (Score:2)
to funnel donations to some fake journalist who published it on twitter. He didn't even go to the trouble of setting up a burner twitter account for the responsible "anonymous" members to post the information, but rather just posted it directly to his own page.
No surprise that gizmodo fell for the scam, but I half expected better of slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
180gb is a lot of data to fake. The sql files are full of names and addresses.
Re: (Score:1)
You're obviously not a programmer. :)
(It's probably not fake, but not because it's that hard to fake.)
Which "Anonymous" (Score:1)
The original 4chan one, that was not organized more than "people communicating a meme"?
Or the FBI one created to "undermine" what they confused for a group, thereby actually making it a group, assuming they did "agent provocateur" things, when really they were being the only thugs? (Anyone remember this news from Slashdot?)
Anyway, it was hilarious when "Anonymous" suddenly had a media spokesperson. Like the "I can haz cheezburger" cat meme having a media spokesperson... ^^ *facepalm*
Given the stance of 4cha