Blogs Jul 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm


This was stupid, because now the Murdoch properties can try to spin the story onto how they are now victims of an anonymous liberal hacker conspiracy. And not be as full of shit as when they tried that tack last week.

They were twisting in the wind just fine by themselves. Don't change the story.
Wow, attacking a tabloid read by 60 year old Brits in a supermarket.

What innovators.

Redirecting URLs and creating DoS attacks.

What geniuses.

Please...I'll pay attention the day I wake up and everyone has $10 million deposited in their bank account.
The whistleblower showed up dead today. The evil Murdoch empire still has some muscle.
nice Gurren Lagann reference, Lulzsec.. (yeah I know I'm a frikkin' nerd)
Fuck LulzSec.
I'd still prefer breaking up all the media conglomerates with a flaming axe, but I guess this will have to do until reasonable people start abandoning corporate media en masse.
Yeah, because the only thing in the world less accountable than Murdoch are these anon hackers. Far from being "absolutely necessary", they are destroying the world and replacing it with "lulz". Assholes.
@7 You tell them! Shake your cane at them, that will show them!
Absolutely necessary. Like smashing windows during the WTO. My god, can you imagine all the injustice there would be today if somebody hadn't broken a McDonald's window?

Somebody should hack the SPD website and then there will be no more police racism and brutality.
Lulzsec will probably end up paying a higher price than Murdoch.
Nobody cares what you have to say, ruler. Here's your football back. Now go home.
Wait, Lulzsec is still around? Didn't they announce their retirement already?
I don't know if the hacking is necessary, and it's probably not even a blip on the radar for the policymakers at news corp. that authorized the phone hacking to begin with, but I still find it amusing- and as I doubt there will be any real consequences for the truly guilty in the end, I'll take amusement where I can get it.
I wish @10 was not correct.
You know how the DEA gets super excited about when the seize some arbitrary amount of drugs, but it doesn't make a dent in the actual drug trade/drug industry/drug usage of the world?

That's what it's like if anybody happens to actually get "caught" for being part of anon, or lulzsec, or whatever you want to call whatever group at the time.

You know how you make comments saying how you totally don't care? That is like candy for the trolls. If you don't care, don't post.
Would be nice if there were a way to hold rich people accountable for their actions, but until then, the script kiddies will do.

Maybe what those script kiddies should be focusing on is hacking Citigroup, B of A, Barclays, Credit Suisse, et al, and "erasing" those uber-wealthy people's assets. After all, most of it isn't real currency anyway, just lots of zero's and one's in an electronic database, so honestly it shouldn't be all that much more difficult to do.
The only coverage on Fox News made it sound as if there was a big brew-ha about Fox getting hacked like Sony or Citibank, not that they were the ones doing the hacking. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Murdoch gave these guys the passwords himself so he can muddy the waters and come off as a victim. Fox News veiewers won't know the difference.
@18, the subtle but gaping-once-you-see-it hole in your hypothesis is that it is no longer even remotely necessary to actually do something in reality in order to propagandize Fox News viewers. Fox News has been outright lying, and not shy about admitting it, for years now.

Why bother manufacturing a scandal when they can just flat-out invent one out of nothing?
@4 Yeah, I thought the same thing with the Gurren Lagann reference.
Every black eye that News Corp gets, irregardless of source, is fine by me.
Wait, you're telling me that these LULZ assholes have the ability to post a fake story to NewsCorp's site and redirect people from the Times and this is the best thing they can write? Jesus! Their post sounds like it was written by a petulant 9 year old. I suppose it probably was. I'm just saying, if you've got that kind of power at least get someone in your group who can write at a 10th grade level and say something meaningful.
@7, @9: you mad.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.