If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dangerous Minds)   LulzSec eclipses The Sun. The Sun isn't there   (dangerousminds.net) divider line 180
    More: Cool, LulzSec, the Sun  
•       •       •

14067 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jul 2011 at 10:12 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-18 08:35:50 PM
Okay... I chuckled.
 
2011-07-18 08:43:46 PM
Ha, awesome.

Glad to see them shiatting all over Murdoch.
 
2011-07-18 08:48:39 PM
 
2011-07-18 08:53:43 PM
This ain't over by a long shot yet. Apparently, internal emails are forthcoming.

Also, Bloomberg is saying that Murdoch may step down as CEO. (new window)
 
2011-07-18 08:58:06 PM
The Sun is still down. Lulz.
 
2011-07-18 09:03:08 PM
So... would any of this stuff be admissible in a court of law... or would it get thrown out stymying any chance of bringing down News Corp once and for all?
 
2011-07-18 09:04:29 PM
You have only 4 true friends in life: God, your mama, the Democratic Party... and LulzSec.
 
2011-07-18 09:07:59 PM
This is getting better and better. Soon Murdoch will be retiring to his secret volcano island lair to plot his revenge.
 
2011-07-18 09:09:59 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: So... would any of this stuff be admissible in a court of law... or would it get thrown out stymying any chance of bringing down News Corp once and for all?


Depends on what are in the emails. However if the prosecution did help steal it, it becomes public knowledge.
 
2011-07-18 09:15:05 PM
I thought they retired? I guess they came back for the lulz.
 
2011-07-18 09:19:13 PM
good...good.
 
2011-07-18 09:20:05 PM

WTF Indeed: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: So... would any of this stuff be admissible in a court of law... or would it get thrown out stymying any chance of bringing down News Corp once and for all?

Depends on what are in the emails. However if the prosecution did help steal it, it becomes public knowledge.


If the prosecution aided in any way with the theft of the emails, they would be inadmissible in court because they'd be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree". If the emails were stolen, then published i.e., made public, there is a stronger argument that they could be admissible (although that is doubtful). I believe the only way they could be admissible is if prosecution could prove the emails were able to be obtained - and were obtained - in a legal manner.
 
2011-07-18 09:25:04 PM

thomps: good...good.


They're claiming to have stolen huge amounts of e-mails too, that they're going to start releasing tomorrow. It's glorious.
 
2011-07-18 09:29:55 PM
I do not in any way approve of this theft of personal information.

But, you know, since it's already been done -- HOW'S IT FEEL, NEWS CORP?
 
2011-07-18 09:35:29 PM

FredaDeStilleto: If the prosecution aided in any way with the theft of the emails, they would be inadmissible in court because they'd be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree". If the emails were stolen, then published i.e., made public, there is a stronger argument that they could be admissible (although that is doubtful). I believe the only way they could be admissible is if prosecution could prove the emails were able to be obtained - and were obtained - in a legal manner.


I think you're wrong. I am a lawyer, but don't touch the criminal stuff, and quite frankly, don't pay much attention to it. But unreasonable search and seizure and fruit of the poisonous tree only applies to the government. If a criminal (LulzSec in this instance) steals from another criminal (assuming criminal acts by News Corp), then makes those criminal acts public, I don't know anything that prevents its use in court.

But, again, I emphasize strongly, that I don't do criminal law and I am basing my assertion on a fuzzy memory of Crim Law I 14 years ago.
 
2011-07-18 09:53:27 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: FredaDeStilleto: If the prosecution aided in any way with the theft of the emails, they would be inadmissible in court because they'd be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree". If the emails were stolen, then published i.e., made public, there is a stronger argument that they could be admissible (although that is doubtful). I believe the only way they could be admissible is if prosecution could prove the emails were able to be obtained - and were obtained - in a legal manner.

I think you're wrong. I am a lawyer, but don't touch the criminal stuff, and quite frankly, don't pay much attention to it. But unreasonable search and seizure and fruit of the poisonous tree only applies to the government. If a criminal (LulzSec in this instance) steals from another criminal (assuming criminal acts by News Corp), then makes those criminal acts public, I don't know anything that prevents its use in court.

But, again, I emphasize strongly, that I don't do criminal law and I am basing my assertion on a fuzzy memory of Crim Law I 14 years ago.


I stand corrected re the application in the US. From what I've read so far, the exclusionary rule seems less stringent than in the US. If I find anything interesting, I'll post it.

/never practiced criminal law and it's been 27 years since I studied the subject.
 
2011-07-18 10:16:21 PM

GWSuperfan: This ain't over by a long shot yet. Apparently, internal emails are forthcoming.

Also, Bloomberg is saying that Murdoch may step down as CEO. (new window)


Those internal emails must be pretty good, then.
 
2011-07-18 10:16:50 PM
...a butler, Davidson, reports.

Butler Davidson has since been taken into custody for additional questioning.


I laughed.
 
2011-07-18 10:17:04 PM
So a hacker group hacks a newspaper because they hacked voicemail?
 
2011-07-18 10:17:36 PM
Good to see them coming out of 'retirement' for this!
 
2011-07-18 10:18:05 PM

GAT_00: thomps: good...good.

They're claiming to have stolen huge amounts of e-mails too, that they're going to start releasing tomorrow. It's glorious.


Oh shiat. When I go to sleep tonight, I'm gonna leave the popcorn maker on "continuous mode". That's the amount of popcorn tomorrow will require.

I will be prepared.
 
2011-07-18 10:18:53 PM
Awesome. No jokes to make. Just... awesome.
 
2011-07-18 10:19:08 PM
Can we get a summation of the what has happened so far, and some form of banner/identifier that we can add to the fark logo while the fight is ongoing?
 
2011-07-18 10:20:06 PM

FredaDeStilleto: Three Crooked Squirrels: FredaDeStilleto: If the prosecution aided in any way with the theft of the emails, they would be inadmissible in court because they'd be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree". If the emails were stolen, then published i.e., made public, there is a stronger argument that they could be admissible (although that is doubtful). I believe the only way they could be admissible is if prosecution could prove the emails were able to be obtained - and were obtained - in a legal manner.

I think you're wrong. I am a lawyer, but don't touch the criminal stuff, and quite frankly, don't pay much attention to it. But unreasonable search and seizure and fruit of the poisonous tree only applies to the government. If a criminal (LulzSec in this instance) steals from another criminal (assuming criminal acts by News Corp), then makes those criminal acts public, I don't know anything that prevents its use in court.

But, again, I emphasize strongly, that I don't do criminal law and I am basing my assertion on a fuzzy memory of Crim Law I 14 years ago.

I stand corrected re the application in the US. From what I've read so far, the exclusionary rule seems less stringent than in the US. If I find anything interesting, I'll post it.

/never practiced criminal law and it's been 27 years since I studied the subject.


I took criminal procedure last semester, and my recollection is that the exclusionary rule exists to protect individuals from government action. An illegal search by the police could lead to evidence being excluded, having a burglar steal your child porn and then turn it over to the police would not. Of course, this is in the US.
 
2011-07-18 10:21:28 PM
I know a lot of people here think these guys are juvenile, silly, etc. but this sh*t is just hilarious. Go LulzSec!
 
2011-07-18 10:21:44 PM
Didnt think I'd find myself rooting for lulzsec... but... You go sir!
 
2011-07-18 10:22:19 PM

FredaDeStilleto: LulzSec's theme for the evening


Sorry, NO (new window)
 
2011-07-18 10:22:51 PM
www.brainygamer.com
 
2011-07-18 10:22:55 PM
Don't condone this, but damn they're good.
 
2011-07-18 10:25:40 PM
That's farking hilarious! Kudos to LulzSec!
 
2011-07-18 10:25:50 PM
I was disappointed to find out this was a hoax. Luckily it will be true soon enough.
 
2011-07-18 10:25:55 PM
They didn't got norton
 
2011-07-18 10:27:54 PM
really really cool for some reason
 
2011-07-18 10:28:22 PM
I am deeply disappointed in you, now off to bed without your Brussels sprouts!

And if you get his personal emails as well, you will be punished with an extra helping of pudding!
 
2011-07-18 10:28:29 PM
It would be even better if the fake article (or even just the headline) was written better.
Still funny, though.
 
2011-07-18 10:29:02 PM

kxs401:



I took criminal procedure last semester, and my recollection is that the exclusionary rule exists to protect individuals from government action. An illegal search by the police could lead to evidence being excluded, having a burglar steal your child porn and then turn it over to the police would not. Of course, this is in the US.


I've been trying to find something about this re the use in English Courts and can find nothing -other than it evolving from an early common law case- though, admittedly, I haven't done a lot of research tonight. I don't believe the equivalent exists in England. Are there any solicitors here who can help out?
 
2011-07-18 10:34:03 PM
Call me a cynic, but could News Corp be doing this to themselves so they can play the victim card?
 
2011-07-18 10:35:43 PM

Shaggy_C: They didn't got norton


They f*cked around and didn't got norton. I pull out the McAfee and get to scrollin'. You biatches got more viruses than Michael Bolton. Your computer looks like an AIDS-coated kangaroo marsupial abortion. I pull out the potion .. that's ninety bucks an hour to run malwarebytes and smoke a cig and bang yo wife in the shower cuz i shut the power out. you know what that's all about. Run a UPS, stupid biatches, I'ma empty that wallet out. BIATCH
 
2011-07-18 10:36:10 PM
This truly is the year of the hacker.
 
2011-07-18 10:36:28 PM
These must be the hackers that the Fox & Friends dopes are worried about. The ones that will cost them their jobs.
 
2011-07-18 10:37:00 PM

bigworld: Call me a cynic, but could News Corp be doing this to themselves so they can play the victim card?


I suppose that's possible. seems unlikely to me though.
 
2011-07-18 10:37:15 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2011-07-18 10:37:23 PM
I hope this isn't as lame as that time a month or two ago when some kid calling himself "Anonymous" claimed to have "damning" emails from Bank of America.
 
2011-07-18 10:37:31 PM
"and what seems to be a family album strewn across the floor, containing images from days gone by: some containing handpainted portraits of Murdoch in his early days, donning a top hat and monocle."

Definately 'Lulz' worthy.

I'm actually laughing my ass off.
 
2011-07-18 10:38:13 PM

eatin' fetus: They f*cked around and didn't got norton. I pull out the McAfee and get to scrollin'. You biatches got more viruses than Michael Bolton. Your computer looks like an AIDS-coated kangaroo marsupial abortion. I pull out the potion .. that's ninety bucks an hour to run malwarebytes and smoke a cig and bang yo wife in the shower cuz i shut the power out. you know what that's all about. Run a UPS, stupid biatches, I'ma empty that wallet out. BIATCH


I love it. Liter +1!
 
2011-07-18 10:38:28 PM
As glorious as this is, it's not as glorious as the LolzSec mascot dude. I just... I love him.
 
2011-07-18 10:39:03 PM
Atanna
That's farking hilarious! Kudos to LulzSec!

2.bp.blogspot.com

Seconded
 
2011-07-18 10:39:11 PM
Yeah, great.

Stop farking with my PBS.
 
2011-07-18 10:39:12 PM

bigworld: Call me a cynic, but could News Corp be doing this to themselves so they can play the victim card?


LulzSec tweeted it, so I think it's real...

Can't wait for the emails. Delicious.
 
2011-07-18 10:39:35 PM
LULZSEC?!?!

Oh.

forums.bit-tech.net
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report