News Corp. e-mails could be in hands of 'hacktivists'

[babylonsister]

News Corp. e-mails could be in hands of 'hacktivists'
By Byron Acohido, USA TODAY
Updated 8h 2m ago


snip//

On Thursday, hacktivist group LulzSec claimed, via Twitter postings, to be in possession of a 4-gigabyte cache of archived e-mails stolen from News Corp., the media giant accused of hiring hackers to break into the cellphone voice mails of murder victims, celebrities and 9/11 victims.

However, with law enforcement stepping up arrests of alleged members of the notorious Anonymous hacking cooperative, LulzSec's leaders indicated they had no plans to publicly post any of the stolen e-mails, at least not yet.

Doing so could further escalate the tabloid scandal, as well as the scrutiny surrounding News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch. The e-mails could shed light on whether senior News Corp. executives truly had no knowledge of the voice-mail snooping, as they claim, says Josh Shaul, chief technical officer at Application Security.

LulzSec appears to be sitting "on a treasure trove of e-mails that could have a massive impact on the ongoing investigations of Rupert Murdoch's empire," says Shaul.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-21-hackers-news-corp-emails_n.htm

[KharmaTrain]

1. So They Hacked To Get The Hacked Emails??

Yeah...that'll go over real well. Two wrong making a right?

As usual I'm dubious in hearing these kind of stories...lots of noise but little else. I'll leave the real investigating to those who are directly involved...9/11 families or others who have some kind of proof their calls or emails were hacked. I'll take a pissed off defense lawyer with subpoenas and the power of discovery over a bunch of kids in mom's basement looking to make some headlines.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

2. Hey you!

:hi:

I agree, two wrongs don't make a right. But if there's some way legally to 'release the hounds', I hope they do. I despise NewsCorp that much and know there's lots of juicy info yet to be unearthed.

[trumad]

3. Call it the Pentagon papers.....

good for them.

[marions ghost]

4. Cyberwars

just the beginning.

In a country with wrongs prevailing everyday, youe xpect justice? In a country with a right wing controlled media--you expect justice? Really?

Maybe all we have left is this kind of "divine justice"....ie. fight fire with fire. :shrug:

[KharmaTrain]

5. I'm Looking At Civil Suits That Will Bankrupt Murdoch

People want to destroy this evil empire and so do I. The way to do it is through the pocketbook...a massive class action or a variety of individual suits that will drain Murdoch of money and energy. This is where the justice will be done and by lawyers who will have a vested interest in the outcome. I honestly think Murdoch fears civil suits far more than any possible criminal litigation as its the loss of money and power that matter in his world the most.

[marions ghost]

6. Criminal, civil

both would be fine by me.

I think Murdoch fears criminal more than civil. He has some deep pockets. But criminal suits would really be juicy --esp juicy to see it reported by Fox News. Criminal suits get the public's attention. Civil suits could damage him, but would languish for years and in the end they just have to come up with the money and do some restructuring.

Anyway it's not about the old Pirate anymore--he's gonna play the 'dead in the water' card. It's all about the direction his offspring want to go now.

Anyway, the behavior is criminal.

And in my opinion, that's where it needs to go for maximum hurt.

[Snoutport]

9. yup. those are going to go on long after he is dead and gone

[jberryhill]

7. That's how you get to a situation "with wrongs prevailing everyday"

Because someone with opinions different from yours decided to "fight fire with fire" first.

One has to expect justice.

The alternative is to become what one is fighting.

[marions ghost]

8. Sounds logical but

maybe a little too pat, your line of thinking?

Maybe if we fight fire with fire, then RIGHT will prevail--ever thought of that?

You are construing me to mean doing EXACTLY what they do. No, because we have better motives, we do not use the information gleaned in the same way. "Fire with fire" does not mean violence here--it means beating them at their own game. It's the only way we can get any respect when dealing with people who follow no rules or laws. Sitting back and expecting a broken justice system to work is just passive compliance. There is no societal safety net for what these people are doing to us.

[jberryhill]

10. " Maybe if we fight fire with fire, then RIGHT will prevail"

Yes, that's what everyone thinks.

[marions ghost]

11. It is as logical as saying

"fight fire with fire, and WRONG will prevail..."

We are only talking theoretically anyway.

[jberryhill]

12. No

The logic of the abortion clinic bomber is that a few deaths caused by him will prevent the deaths of many.

Once someone has have decided he is "RIGHT", that's where the trouble starts.

[marions ghost]

13. Don't try to compare or equate

people working for "good" to clinic bombers.

Some people are right. Some are wrong.

[jberryhill]

14. Precisely

And only if you are infallible do you get to be your own judge.

Your statement is exactly what the wrong people say.

[marions ghost]

15. We are all our own judge

and of course we all (right or wrong) have things we say in common. But I'm not getting what you are trying to say.

Maybe if you could state it more directly instead of meting out this little semantic spanking?