See Full Story
Many more verses have been added to the ballad of LulzSec lately. The hacker group has partnered with Anonymous for an agenda of world cyberchaos, vowed revenge on other hackers who disrupted an online gaming network -- this is after Lulz itself shot down a couple of other gaming networks -- and flipped off authorities who claimed to have caught one of their members. Its attacks do tend to illustrate the many weaknesses in the online security systems we trust with protecting our data, but the group continues to insist it does it all for laughs -- the lulz, as it were.
LulzSec's attack on the AZ DPS seems misguided to me. While there is an emotional link between SB1070 and the police, there is no practical link.
If they want to attack SB1070 they should be targeting the Legislature, Governor and Republican Party. These are the folks that should be appreciated or reviled for the law. And they are the ones who can repeal the law assuming the courts do not emasculate it.
LulzSec has shown significant technical skill and demonstrated the security holes in the systems. If only they applied the same effort when considering their targets.
The threats they opened individual officers to are real with serious consequences. Emotional distress, potential physical attacks on the officers and their families, economic disruption for officers who feel the only way to restore some sanity and safety for their families is to move.
All of this has been done to individuals who have absolutely no control over the law or its enforcement. (The law has a clause allowing any citizen to sue a department or officer suspected of not enforcing it. Even a frivolous lawsuit will cost its target hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend.)
BTW: I am an AZ resident who opposes SB1070 and is supporting the recall of Russell Pearce, the instigator of this law. And, no, it has no direct impact on me considering my ancestors immigrated from Holland to New Amsterdam well before the 13 colonies formed the United States.
I have to question the wisdom of opening the Pandora's box of 'anything goes' TLDs.
While this may be a bonanza for registrars, it seems to open up a nightmare of costs and confusion for website owners.
The costs of registering the new domains are a commercial issue with the organizations having to decide if it is economically viable to 'protect' their 'space'. Small companies, especially start-ups, are unlikely to be able to adequately protect the intellectual property of their name or products. Definitely not a good thing in my estimation.
The confusion of locating a company or product you 'heard about' will represent a significant barrier to sales. I can't speak to the rest of the world, but I often will type in 'company name'.com or 'organization'.org looking for a website I don't have the URL for. Quite often this works, I find the site and am able to research or purchase the item or service I was looking for. I am unlikely to be similarly successful typing in xxxxx.'company or product name'. Consequently, I am much less likely to even try and the website owner will likely not get my traffic.
I see no economic reason for ICANN to worry about either of these issues, but their decision is going to have a major impact on their 'users'.
Hulu, part of your update, interests me as an advertiser. http://admajoremblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/hulu-dancing.html Even though they seem to be in a precarious position, their work goes on. I'm interested in experimenting with ads on the new Android-based version. http://twitter.com/SteveS1