Jump to content

Hacking the Westboro Baptist Church's website, black hat or white hat?


cody t
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys! Just a curious question, would you consider hacking or DDOS'ing the Westboro Baptist Church's website, black hat hacking or white hat hacking? If you are not familiar, the Westboro Baptist Church is an EXTREMELY hateful little group in Topeka, Kansas. The group primarily attacks gays, and pretty much justifies everything they do through blaming gay people and America. They have protested hundreds of funerals of fallen soldiers and recently posted that they planed to attend the funerals of those who's lives were taken at the Sandy Hook tragedy (not sure if they actually went or not). I do know that "Anonymous", very recently, attacked their websites and twitter, posting the names, home adresses and phone numbers of those A**holes. What are your opinons on this? If you think its White hat hacking, what would your attack method be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your interpretation of white hat hacking is a bit off.

I ethically don't agree with either side, but on a personal note, those assholes got what they deserved.

Just looked up the definition of "white hat hacking" I guess my interpretation of white hat has been pretty far off:p lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hacking in general, is not so much a crime. A crime, is a crime no matter who or what the intent was though, if defined by law as a crime. Just the same, I agree with Mr Protocol, WBC, are idiots who got what they asked for. Literally. They've asked to be hacked in the past, thinking they would get help or be able to trap people. Hasn't turned out in the best for them.

You break the law, you still broke the law, regardless of what skills were used to do it. I personally hate censorship, but with respect to what the WBC does to others, they don't give people the option to decide if they want to hear their spewed hate, which to me, impedes my right to privacy, and pursuit of happiness by showing up at funerals spouting lies and harassing others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been mostly th3j3s3r and anons doing it with I'm sure, a lot of new supporters after the SandyHook incident and the WBC saying they would show up at funerals of the deceased children. One has to understand, most anons, are also FBI owned accounts or other law enforcement agencies, like Sabu, for those new to the scene, some don't yet already know, the twitter account is owned by the FBI, has been for like 2 years, but people still talk to it and get themselves arrested because they want to be hacktivists, but don't know any of the back story on who and what has transpired. I don't doubt, its someone just using the name, possibly even for purposes of entrapment. Could even be a ploy by the WBC, they've done weird shit like that in the past, like faked their site being hacked and blamed anonymous, which anonymous has called in to their radio show live, talked to them, and then during the show, shut their site down for real while on the air. One thing is for sure, you don't want to piss off anons either way, whether you agree with them or not, there are plenty of capable, and also in-capable people in their ranks who just want to go along for the ride.

Edited by digip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to add, isn't what the FBI is doing with Sabu's accounts considered entrapment? Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole situation surrounding it screams entrapment.

In a post 9/11 world and martial law of the patriot act, nothing is beyond abuse these days. The Sabu account is up, may not tweet any more, but people still follow and tweet at it, which if you want to have some 3 letter agency create a file with your name on it, thats one of the quickest ways to add yourself to the system...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still cannot believe the Patriot Act was enacted... It is for reasons such as the existence of that act that make me happy I don't live in the United States. Then again, how long will it be until something similar comes up here in Canada? With all the talks about internet censorship and regulation I am sure it is only time before something similar happens here. I just hope that when it does free-minded individuals will have the knowledge to stand up for themselves when accused.

As far as Canadian law is concerned as of this moment, the fact that a government organization owns such an account would be classified as entrapment, as far as my knowledge of the legal system here in Canada goes anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RANT:

Post 9/11; the constitution means nothing. Every law the Patriot Act imbues nullifies our Constitution. I have not read it all; but our rights as citizens in the US are horribly disfigured from what they once were and stood for. I think they are referred to as "exceptions". People, as a whole in the US, are so blind to the fact that up to this day, our rights as a "democracy" are diminished. It does not matter what the people say anymore; it is the congress men and women who want to fatten their pockets and make shady deals with corporate America (Not the same thing) that simultaneously makes both parties richer.

We are just along for the ride...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A two party system that only elects 1 of 2 evils as the lesser evils, is still choosing evil. We know this, but have no alternative right now. Until the two party system goes away, and we have real alternatives with viable candidates that get the same kind of lobbying and money backing that the big names in Washington DC get, really doesn't matter who we elect, because the congress, is still the same. I voted for Obama, twice. First time I wanted Hillary as president, but we didn't have that option. Second time, I didn't want either candidate, mainly because Obama has trumped Bush in many respects with even more extreme militaristic and police state roles, which find sickening, but of the two we had to vote for, Romney scares the shit out of me with what he might do as president, so the only choice I had was Obama. Not voting at all, is not an option, even if we're stuck with someone less than desirable on both ballots. For the most part though, I approve of most things Obama wants to try and do, its Congress though, that has been a complete and total clusterfuck since Bush's first term up till now, allowing the Patriot Act and formation of Homeland Security, solidified our nation as a police state. People have to understand this. And as far as 9/11 goes, I'm still not convinced we didn't play some role if not much of the role in allowing the planes to hit, nor do I think that an actual plane hit the Pentagon. There seems to be no reasonable evidence to support even a remote possibility, that a plane could have hit exactly where it did, knowing where the Pentagon data center was on that plot, and at the suppsoed 400knots, which if the plane could reach that speed, would have come apart in the air. Those planes aren't rated to go over 200 knots, not to mention for the FIRST time in history, NO BLACK BOX recoveries were made at the Trade Center, boxes made to withstand over 2000 degrees of burning jet fuel, there is no doubt in my mind they not only found them, but have them somewhere, and for security purposes, can not release the info.

Search "Black Flag Operations", and go watch Jessie Ventura's two episodes on 9/11, one about the Twin Towers, the other about the Pentagon incident. Thats the kind of stuff, that should scare the shit out of anyone, even the most patriotic, right wing conservative gun toting Americans out there. If they can't see it, well, thats half the problem with where we are today, as Americans, and as world leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said digip. My apologies for turning this conversation in a very different direction than which it started. I have never fully understood how or why the American political system is still in place. While no system is perfect, and the one here is definitely flawed in some ways, it is vastly superior to the way things are handled in America. At least ere I can vote for the green party, the NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Marijuana (yes there is a marijuana party here), and any other political party that decides to run. Last year I actually voted for the Marijuana party. Not because I want to smoke pot, never have and never will, but because I didn't want to vote for the conservatives because they always win the area of Canada I live in and truthfully none of the parties interested me. In Canada all parties that are running for government get some money to spend on their campaign, this value is dependent on how many votes the party has received in the preceding years. Yes this is unfair, but it helps everyone out anyway. So I voted for the Marijuana party, suffice it to say, they did not win.

To add to digip's recommendations for 9/11 documentaries I would highly recommend Zeitgeist. It is an excellent documentary about the state of the U.S. Economy, 9/11 and right wing conservative Christian beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to re-rail the thread...

It's actually a mix between the two that you stated. The Westboro Baptist Church hacking was a gray-hat act.

White hat: Network security professionals who hack to improve security

Gray hat: Taking down Neo Nazi sites or hacking other sites that some people would agree is "okay" and some would disagree

Black hat: Hurr durr, I have your credit card number.

As indicated by the thread, it's a gray-hat act. A majority of the people in America (if not the world) would agree that with all the hate that the WBC is spewing, they need to be silenced. It takes a special kind of special to think that God sent the gunman to kill innocent children because "fags could now get married in Connecticut." But, at the same time, silencing them would be an infringement on free speech. You're allowed to say whatever you want in this country as long as it doesn't invoke mass panic. First amendment. So, you hit on the topic on people who abuse their rights. Should people who abuse their rights have them taken away? The government isn't going to because it would just give the WBC more to bitch about. So, you have a group that wants to protest the death of innocent children and a government who won't do anything about it. Where does that leave you?

The best kind of justice. Vigilante justice.

Writing this post I realize that Anonymous reminds me of Batman. They're the heroes we deserve, just not the heroes we need right now. So we'll hunt them. Because they can take it. Because they're not our hero. They're a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Hacker.

Sorry for the cheesiness.

Vigilante justice will always have the people who support it and people who are against it. It really depends on the action. Either way, though, vigilante justice is vigilante justice. It's illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Search "Black Flag Operations", and go watch Jessie Ventura's two episodes on 9/11, one about the Twin Towers, the other about the Pentagon incident. Thats the kind of stuff, that should scare the shit out of anyone, even the most patriotic, right wing conservative gun toting Americans out there. If they can't see it, well, thats half the problem with where we are today, as Americans, and as world leaders.

The internment camps on US soil and the massive data centers are a bit unnerving. Razor wire fences and playground equipment. Next it will be dogs and cats living together; total anarchy (jk). But, in all seriousness, Democracy killed itself when we started printing our own money.

Digip, do you think that if JFK passed the law that every dollar printed in the US should be backed up by an equal amount of precious metal, we would still be headed off the "fiscal cliff"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internment camps on US soil and the massive data centers are a bit unnerving. Razor wire fences and playground equipment. Next it will be dogs and cats living together; total anarchy (jk). But, in all seriousness, Democracy killed itself when we started printing our own money.

Digip, do you think that if JFK passed the law that every dollar printed in the US should be backed up by an equal amount of precious metal, we would still be headed off the "fiscal cliff"?

I think we should have listened to Thomas Jefferson, and never allowed the formation of Big Banks and the Federal Reserve to begin with. Most people see the name "Federal" and think its the government, but to some respect, the Federal Reserve is its own entity, with a label slapped on it to make it feel like its part of the government. It wasn't created with the inception of our government, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Most people think we've always had the Federal Reserve, but in reality, it didn't get implemented until 1913, during the depression era. The fact is, the more money the banks need, the more money we print, and that in itself is a downward spiral thats been happening for decades.

There is a reason gold is a stable currency. Its rare, and a precious metal you can't just "print" or pull out of thin air, and only so much of it to go around, and why they store large stock piles of it in all countries around the world. The price of gold fluctuates drastically on a daily basis(my wife works in a cash for gold store), but its still worth more to countries and the governments than paper money itself. JFK was on to something, but the Federal Reserve Bank and large banks in general, that aren't independently owned and operated, but instead owned by corporations who funnel money into government to begin with, and get all their money from the Federal Reserve instead of independent backers, keep that process in perpetual motion. We should have never bailed out the banks. Government had too much invested though to let them fail, because too many in government had their own 401k and stocks tied up in banks, so they didn't want to lose all their own payouts. Look at my Hak5 avatar. Know who that guy is? Thats Henry Paulson. He left office at the end of the Bush term and was one of the spearheads of the bank bailouts. Reason being? He was a stock holder at Goldman Sachs and also worked for them since 1974, was a partner of the company before working as United States Secretary of the Treasury. Had the banks went under just before he left office, he would have lost his 401k and all his retirement stocks, etc. So you tell me, is the system fixed, or should it be able to run free and regulate itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you tell me, is the system fixed, or should it be able to run free and regulate itself?

The fix is not going to leave a good taste in a lot of our policy makers mouths; but an entire overhaul of our Government and the ways it receives money. Maybe, all of Congress should receive the Median income level. Kind of like "Trading Spaces"... except there is no Eddie Murphy; but Charlie Wrangle. I always wondered who was in your pic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...