General Discussion

DavidG_WI

(245 posts)

162. Then explain...

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 01:41 AM

Sep 2014

Why the vast majority of women seem to have the perfect spying device grafted to their hand? Wireless anything is inherently insecure.

When you add a camera, a microphone, GPS, Cell network, bluetooth and wifi radios together in a single device that will rarely if ever receive a security update, that every application they install requests full access to all hardware and files and will automatically upload any photos or videos to a cloud server which if you read the TOS hands over ownership of all uploaded files to said cloud service that women take nude photos of themselves with such a device?

Does nobody remember stuff like the bluetooth/wifi sniper? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4599106

The dozens of ways o crack wifi encryption in minutes with GPGPU?

Packet sniffing/browser watching with Firesheep?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

294 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Terrorists of 4chan [View all] riqster Sep 2014 OP

Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women seabeyond Sep 2014 #1

and thank you for clarifying the definition of terrorism. we found people needed the definition. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #2

a tool. a weapon. shame, humiliate, degrade women thru their sexuality. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #3

Too many people have a limited definition of terror. riqster Sep 2014 #6

thank you. your post is excellent in insight. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #7

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #9

as i am continually kicked off the board, in no shame at all. regardless how others would like me seabeyond Sep 2014 #10

No worries, that poster has been auto-removed! nt alp227 Sep 2014 #145

and there you go. lmao. why would i give a shit. lol. thanks for heads up. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #146

A perfect summation of the message. riqster Sep 2014 #11

i suggest he may be a .... well. that he gives the choice in seriousness. seabeyond Sep 2014 #12

Well, I alerted, just in case. riqster Sep 2014 #14

lol. i forget that tool sometimes. lets see. someone so obvious easily gets the boot, seabeyond Sep 2014 #18

It was done quickly. Yay MIRT! riqster Sep 2014 #28

yep. btw. i think your OP/thread is awesome in thought. big thumbs up. seabeyond Sep 2014 #30

Thanks back atcha. I learn a lot from your posts. riqster Sep 2014 #32

How does one become a member of 4chan? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #4

Go read and post? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #5

Ah 4chan, the jnternets' equivalent of international waters. Initech Sep 2014 #8

Never went there. And after this, I sure as Hell never will. riqster Sep 2014 #49

Yeah same here. Initech Sep 2014 #58

I have. At it's best it's dreck with the occasional flash of genius Warpy Sep 2014 #101

Uck. My stomach wouldn't survive the experience. riqster Sep 2014 #102

I haven't been back in over a year Warpy Sep 2014 #103

Oh great, even progressive have started calling anything they don't like "terrorism" Taitertots Sep 2014 #13

or... one can actually read the definition and use the word appropriately. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #15

Are you going to post the definition? Taitertots Sep 2014 #29

ok. so? seabeyond Sep 2014 #31

You are ignoring the definition and using it inappropriately Taitertots Sep 2014 #35

i disagree with you. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #37

And you used the wrong definition, as I point out down thread. riqster Sep 2014 #39

"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." ieoeja Sep 2014 #106

Nice post. riqster Sep 2014 #107

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #139

The definition sounds spot on to me. yardwork Sep 2014 #286

I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com riqster Sep 2014 #38

Save that real terrorists actually kill and bomb to promote... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #164

No, that is your own definition of a terrorist. riqster Sep 2014 #168

Trolls don't use terror. DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #173

ya. they do. i have had enough trolls use threats, throwing out sexist slurs, ect.... seabeyond Sep 2014 #175

Read the definition. riqster Sep 2014 #182

You are relying purely on the 'frightens others' definition; but she wasn't frightened muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #202

because she was not intimidate does not negate a threat and a message to women on the net. seabeyond Sep 2014 #203

I don't think it is common to say you're going to post naked pictures of someone muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #205

The normal usage of the term is part of the problem. riqster Sep 2014 #208

Oh, rubbish - I'm talking about the normal use in the English language as a whole muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #209

to terrorize a person or group. what does that look like to you? in "normal" usage. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #210

People in fear of their life or significant physical harm (nt) muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #214

that is your only definition of terrorizing a person? a very narrow usage. seabeyond Sep 2014 #217

So, apart from this ridiculous application to Emma Watson, in what other situation muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #219

i think our girls that are isolated, raped by groups, videod, distributed as porn, are terrorized seabeyond Sep 2014 #220

Rape is physical harm, but terrorism is also about more than physical harm muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #223

create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror. seabeyond Sep 2014 #225

You've put your problem in bold; "a civilian population" muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #232

i give you the relevant highlights that contradict your narrow definition. seabeyond Sep 2014 #233

No, I'm saying what you did put in bold contradicts your position muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #238

the intent is to silence all women in going after watson and other women consistently, constantly seabeyond Sep 2014 #239

No, I am saying that your "normal use" definition is wrong. riqster Sep 2014 #212

Just using the dictionary definition. riqster Sep 2014 #19

Oh great. Even a progressive doesn't understand that denying women a voice pnwmom Sep 2014 #44

+1 LostInAnomie Sep 2014 #75

So 4Chan's threats towards Emma Watson are "things we don't like" alp227 Sep 2014 #149

Oh great, those who consistently take the right-wing stance on every issue on this board are upset. Ikonoklast Sep 2014 #170

So, then, according to that definition... Bragi Sep 2014 #16

wow. you do not think in degrees. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #20

Both are using threats as a coercive measure. riqster Sep 2014 #22

Yes, they are the same. "Terrorism" is a method, not a specific action. DetlefK Sep 2014 #24

Well said. riqster Sep 2014 #27

A terrorist could threaten to blow up a building. Even if the building is empty of people, pnwmom Sep 2014 #45

Blackmail does not equal terrorism Bragi Sep 2014 #80

This isn't blackmail. No one's asking for money. They're trying to silence her with personal pnwmom Sep 2014 #82

Blackmail doesn't require a financial demand Bragi Sep 2014 #85

Blackmail is personal KitSileya Sep 2014 #118

Per the definition provided and cited, it's a terrorist act. riqster Sep 2014 #83

Your definition is wrong Bragi Sep 2014 #86

Do you think that individuals cannot be the targets of terrorist acts? riqster Sep 2014 #87

it is using blinders to define. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #89

It's easier for some people. nt riqster Sep 2014 #90

"a prime example of misinfirmation" Bragi Sep 2014 #91

You don't accept a bog-standard definition of a simple word? riqster Sep 2014 #93

Ever noticed this? Bragi Sep 2014 #99

Respectfully, the dictionary is the agreed-upon source for definitions. riqster Sep 2014 #100

the implicit minimisation of the crime? Bragi Sep 2014 #111

Dictionaries are not tyrannical. They are important reference works that help us communicate. riqster Sep 2014 #186

It's seems, young men in online-communities are especially pretentious, whiny women-haters: DetlefK Sep 2014 #17

Taylor Swift said ... seabeyond Sep 2014 #23

Disgusting. No one should have to deal with that. riqster Sep 2014 #98

The goal is to waste the energies of the target so they can't participate at a higher level, freshwest Sep 2014 #151

An excellent post. Thank you! riqster Sep 2014 #152

Then explain... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #162

More victim-blaming, misogynistic tripe. riqster Sep 2014 #213

I work in IT, and there is lot of that. riqster Sep 2014 #26

That "socially inept" excuse is getting old. malthaussen Sep 2014 #40

i am in. i agree. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #42

Indeed, I am not making the argument. Thanks for acknowledging that. riqster Sep 2014 #46

As a tactic, I favor insulting their intellects. malthaussen Sep 2014 #51

In some cases, it can work. riqster Sep 2014 #57

Intellectual arrogance can cut both ways, though. malthaussen Sep 2014 #66

I don't offer it as a dialogue. Company policy dictates non-hostile work environments. riqster Sep 2014 #67

Okay, now I'm really envious. malthaussen Sep 2014 #70

last sentence... such a good question. excellent. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #72

Yeah, I hope he catches it, it was an edit. n/t malthaussen Sep 2014 #76

One of those rare cases where company policy is on the side of the angels. riqster Sep 2014 #73

agreed ! nt steve2470 Sep 2014 #115

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #140

4Chan is a safe haven for nasty, obscene little boys MineralMan Sep 2014 #21

respectfully, i am done giving this behavior to little boys. even in man form. it has become an seabeyond Sep 2014 #25

Good point - I also see a lot of bad behavior described as "adolescent" behavior hedgehog Sep 2014 #33

Nasty and obscene are the keywords. MineralMan Sep 2014 #34

yes. Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #84

Agreed. I have a little boy who has a precious heart. prayin4rain Sep 2014 #36

Nice broad brush you got there TransitJohn Sep 2014 #114

Whatever you say... MineralMan Sep 2014 #128

Oh, okay then, continue with your prejudice. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #153

Thats because they've never been... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #163

I guess we'll see, but I think y'all are getting trolled. fbc Sep 2014 #41

having a thought out and insightful conversation is not being trolled. regardless of the outcome. seabeyond Sep 2014 #43

I think it a worthwhile convo in any event. riqster Sep 2014 #47

Uhhh yup. VScott Sep 2014 #48

welcome to du vscott seabeyond Sep 2014 #52

Thank you. VScott Sep 2014 #109

Good call. JVS Sep 2014 #122

I think it was just under a decade ago... Blue_Adept Sep 2014 #50

no. bush defined only brown skinned people terrorists. there were plenty of seabeyond Sep 2014 #54

I think it was just under ten minutes ago when members here would trivialize and minimize actions... LanternWaste Sep 2014 #59

Internet you don't make eye contact with. Marr Sep 2014 #53

Sounds right. A road accident that people gawk at. riqster Sep 2014 #62

Parts of 4chan have been the hellholes of the internets hifiguy Sep 2014 #55

No doubt. But being aware of the hellholes is a good idea all by itself. riqster Sep 2014 #63

Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #165

Terrorizing people makes the perp a terrorist. riqster Sep 2014 #167

Labeling trolls on the internet diminishes the actions of real terrorists... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #172

Read the definition. The shoe fits. riqster Sep 2014 #180

LOL. JTFrog Sep 2014 #194

was he banned? he did well to stay quiet for a while. got overconfident. interesting. thanks. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #197

Yes indeed. n/t JTFrog Sep 2014 #200

His other posts remain on the thread. riqster Sep 2014 #215

i am not opposed to a good smack down and understanding of his positions. it behooves us all, seabeyond Sep 2014 #218

Not all trolls! Recursion Sep 2014 #56

OK, that's funny. Or... riqster Sep 2014 #60

Exactly (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #61

Yeah I read about it that ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #64

Stupid can still be dangerous. riqster Sep 2014 #65

Totally agree ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #68

When stupid is gathered in groups hifiguy Sep 2014 #77

Heh! ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #88

Not to nitpick, but I think it's "exponentially". riqster Sep 2014 #95

You are correct and thanks for the catch. hifiguy Sep 2014 #96

Indeed it does. riqster Sep 2014 #97

What a dismal, dismal site. marble falls Sep 2014 #69

It's an International Cultural Complex daredtowork Sep 2014 #71

example, revenge porn. how many participate that did not set it up. +1 to your post. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #74

Yep. daredtowork Sep 2014 #78

4chan IS relevant as an individual case of gender terrorism. riqster Sep 2014 #79

It's absolutely relevant daredtowork Sep 2014 #81

I'm sure the folks at 4chan NobodyHere Sep 2014 #92

They have a good understanding of how to use the law as a shield. riqster Sep 2014 #94

4chan is a cesspool of jerks... Agschmid Sep 2014 #104

So the fact that they are threatening Emma Watson is just boys being jerks? riqster Sep 2014 #108

I said no such thing. Agschmid Sep 2014 #117

I am sorry that I hurt you. I responded to what you wrote in response to my OP. riqster Sep 2014 #119

Thanks for the response, sometimes my short replies get me in trouble. Agschmid Sep 2014 #127

I hear you. Being laconic has caused me some issues as well. riqster Sep 2014 #129

this is the point. we really need to update our criminal code, to allow this to be a crime. seabeyond Sep 2014 #130

I agree. Agschmid Sep 2014 #131

DU Kurska Sep 2014 #105

I consider both groups to be terrorist organizations, albeit with different methods and foci. riqster Sep 2014 #110

As stupid, heartless, idiotic and cruel as what 4chan is doing Kurska Sep 2014 #112

That is a misreading of my post, coupled with an unjust attribution. riqster Sep 2014 #120

No you said 4chan is a terrorist organization. Kurska Sep 2014 #154

HAH hilarious Kurska Sep 2014 #155

Read the post of yours to which I responded: riqster Sep 2014 #166

Oh lord Kurska Sep 2014 #171

So it's OK to commit terroristic acts as long as it is a smear campaign? riqster Sep 2014 #179

No, it is wrong to call innocent people terrorists or accuse them of harboring them. Kurska Sep 2014 #184

The marketing firm used 4chan to promulgate its terroristic material. riqster Sep 2014 #206

4chan is no more responsible than twitter. Kurska Sep 2014 #221

Correct, because I have not insulted anyone except those who sent the threats. riqster Sep 2014 #241

Ahem Kurska Sep 2014 #243

Rantic Media doesn't give two shits about 4Chan,they aren't sufrommich Sep 2014 #181

Regardless of the motive. Kurska Sep 2014 #185

and, regardless of the motive, this woman was attacked on the net with the weapon seabeyond Sep 2014 #187

Which no one is contending is right or okay. Kurska Sep 2014 #222

bullshit. i linked to a di thread, of du men, with different names, who... do not give a shit. seabeyond Sep 2014 #227

We're talking bout DU, this thread. Kurska Sep 2014 #229

lol. du men. bubba. du men. and they do not care. cause the very men have to pretend here..... seabeyond Sep 2014 #231

I see absolutely no one I recongize Kurska Sep 2014 #235

4chan was used to do this. riqster Sep 2014 #211

No 4chan is a website with a userbase and you can't prove that userbase sent anything. Kurska Sep 2014 #224

I have been in IT since the the 70's, and know a bit about how the Internet works. riqster Sep 2014 #246

You're really just demonstrating your lack of knowledge about 4chan at this point Kurska Sep 2014 #247

Since you keep changing your "explanation" of the technology, there isn't much point in this. riqster Sep 2014 #250

Um, this isn't about any particular aspect of technology. Kurska Sep 2014 #254

Such rot. You fail to explain how I was wrong, and to answer my post. riqster Sep 2014 #255

I thought you were done responding though. Kurska Sep 2014 #256

Thanks... freshwest Sep 2014 #113

VR terrorism. Thanks, someone had to speak up about 4chan. Rex Sep 2014 #116

S'truth. Thanks. riqster Sep 2014 #125

These nasty little 4chan kids also plan campaigns via IRC channels intaglio Sep 2014 #121

But they aren't wearing turbans or blowing shit up, so supposedly they aren't terrorists. riqster Sep 2014 #126

It appears the terrorists you decry are as phony as Bush's yellowcake. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #123

They acted in a terroristic fashion. They are terrorists. QED. riqster Sep 2014 #124

You realize the threat to Ms. Watson was a viral marketing campaign, yes? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #133

why is this the new meme? why is there such a push from some men to take over the conversation seabeyond Sep 2014 #134

The threat itself was a false flag. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #138

yet the point you, others totally ignore is that they did it because this is what 4chan and the net seabeyond Sep 2014 #141

Well put. Doing a terroristic act for other purposes doesn't take away the terrorizing behavior. riqster Sep 2014 #150

Using misogyny and terror for marketing? That is not exculpatory. riqster Sep 2014 #135

The title of this thread is the terrorists of 4chan AngryAmish Sep 2014 #137

Using terroristic tactics for another purpose does not change the terroristic nature. riqster Sep 2014 #142

So does it matter at all to you that you identified the wrong "terrorists" Kurska Sep 2014 #158

Exactly. The unwilingess in this thread to acknowledge the error is silly and sad. nt. Hosnon Sep 2014 #285

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #132

TY. riqster Sep 2014 #136

the daily beast is posting it was a hoax to get the website shutdown GusBob Sep 2014 #143

The behavior described in the OP is not changed by the disclosure. riqster Sep 2014 #144

marketer is still a fucking terrorizing motherfucker who should be locked up for a long time, with n seabeyond Sep 2014 #147

I wish it were that obvious. Sadly, it appears not to be. riqster Sep 2014 #148

Sooo, you gonna apologize to 4chan for calling them a terrorist organization? Kurska Sep 2014 #157

Exactly. Both groups of men attacked high profile females for their own purposes. pnwmom Sep 2014 #160

Looks like you got punked Kurska Sep 2014 #156

Not really. Emma Watson WAS terrorized, but by a different group of "pranksters." pnwmom Sep 2014 #159

Rantic media claims this was a smear campaign on 4chan Kurska Sep 2014 #174

"buyint it" would be buying the line it was about going after 4chan. they did it for clicks. $. seabeyond Sep 2014 #176

A group of anonymous creeps targeted a high profile woman. It doesn't matter which group pnwmom Sep 2014 #199

Yeah these "terrorists" comparable to the KKK LittleBlue Sep 2014 #188

wrong. that is the meme others are trying to create. wrong. because.... seabeyond Sep 2014 #190

The purpose of the threat was to shut down 4chan LittleBlue Sep 2014 #191

No, the purpose of the threat was to make money: sufrommich Sep 2014 #192

Your links don't contradict that 4chan was targeted LittleBlue Sep 2014 #195

"this was not targeted at Emma Watson." watson was very much the target. seabeyond Sep 2014 #198

What? Dr. Strange Sep 2014 #196

Yes, that's what Rantic "claimed" it's aim was. sufrommich Sep 2014 #201

regardless the motive or intent. that does not matter. a WOMAN was THREATENED seabeyond Sep 2014 #193

Bingo. riqster Sep 2014 #216

So it doesn't matter that you guys targeted the wrong people? Kurska Sep 2014 #228

i did not target anyone, being hte net, i am clueless. i have ONE argument. a woman was THREATENED seabeyond Sep 2014 #230

Throughout this entire thread you've ridden shotgun to the OP, who continues to attack a victim. Kurska Sep 2014 #234

a whole lot of straw seabeyond Sep 2014 #236

What facts are you disputing? Kurska Sep 2014 #237

Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women seabeyond Sep 2014 #240

And if that cause is so important to you Kurska Sep 2014 #242

Wow... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #161

No, actually I'm not. riqster Sep 2014 #169

calling these misogynistic motherfuckers out seabeyond Sep 2014 #177

You mean completely the wrong people whose name was used in a money making stunt? Kurska Sep 2014 #226

That's our society as it exists today. We're much better off with open & free 'internet speech' Sunlei Sep 2014 #178

The first amendment. A good thing, really. riqster Sep 2014 #183

says someone who is not being attacked, threatened to shut up? ya. so fuggin much better seabeyond Sep 2014 #189

open chats have always been this way. yes there are online 'bullies' and plenty of smack talkers. Sunlei Sep 2014 #204

HA. truly a smile. k, see, i am not gonna line by line, correct you. why bother. right? nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #207

4chan should be raided and shut down by the DOJ mwrguy Sep 2014 #244

It was a hoax. Kurska Sep 2014 #245

Sigh. Semi-literate people should not try to pose as experts on the Intertubez. riqster Sep 2014 #248

Hmm, I really don't see why you have to make this personal. Kurska Sep 2014 #249

This one was mwrguy Sep 2014 #251

oops. looks like your op with all of those triggers and righteous rhetoric Doctor_J Sep 2014 #252

Take a gander Kurska Sep 2014 #253

Nope. Read through the thread carefully. I called out the users. riqster Sep 2014 #259

I don't know a lot about photography... NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #257

The actual creation of fake images has been held as legal in some cases. But it's not just images. riqster Sep 2014 #258

I would be very surprised to see anyone prosecuted... NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #262

Again, the images themselves are not the issue. riqster Sep 2014 #263

Okay, well I guess we'll see how it plays out. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #264

If it proceeds as usual, nothing will be done. riqster Sep 2014 #265

and the meme is here. i called it. within an hour that it began. and the meme is here. seabeyond Sep 2014 #268

a white wash, and a re write. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #269

Oops. Hoax. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #260

Nope. The acts were terroristic in nature, regardless of the motivation behind them. riqster Sep 2014 #261

Not only were you sexist towards men: "needle-d***ed, wussy" Hosnon Sep 2014 #266

Bollocks. The behavior called out has not changed as a result of the disclosures. riqster Sep 2014 #267

Of course not. But "4chan" didn't do it. Hosnon Sep 2014 #281

I did not say that every 4chan user was involved. riqster Sep 2014 #292

and YET the woman was still threatened. and YET women across the net heard the message LOUD and seabeyond Sep 2014 #270

Ah, but Sea, that is not the point. riqster Sep 2014 #271

man uses women in whatever way, as means of $, mancard, manhood, for dominance, seabeyond Sep 2014 #272

OR, the net will threatens. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #273

Minor quibble: riqster Sep 2014 #274

quibble away. i am disagreeing with you. the net accomplished this, and is creating this. and of seabeyond Sep 2014 #275

every single person that participated, be it the men in this thread, redirecting it from a threat to seabeyond Sep 2014 #276

and the net, needs to just keep saying.... no!. you and i, buddy. seabeyond Sep 2014 #277

I see that as the fault of those who refuse to admit they were trolled. Hosnon Sep 2014 #284

I see this as the acts of individuals, using the net. riqster Sep 2014 #278

so many participated. every man that ignore, dismissed and marginalized. media that promoted and seabeyond Sep 2014 #279

Wait...so now the people who IGNORED the trolls are also responsible? NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #288

But not by "4chan". Hosnon Sep 2014 #282

All true. A lot of people got played on this. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #280

Nothing wrong with shifting blame to the proper party. Hosnon Sep 2014 #283

Agreed, but I still think the term "terrorist"... NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #287

I agree with that too. The term should not be used lightly. nt. Hosnon Sep 2014 #289

4chan is the ISIS of the internet. rug Sep 2014 #290

I'd disagree: some 4chan users are terrorists. riqster Sep 2014 #293

That is a poor definition of terrorism Harmony Blue Sep 2014 #291

Disagree, in this case: it was political. riqster Sep 2014 #294