Silk Road forums
Discussion => Security => Topic started by: jacko on December 04, 2012, 02:20 pm
-
It just pisses me off when some fuckwit retard company undercuts me and steals my clients.
Revenge is imminent............. Im looking for someone that can retrieve client data from certain financial websites (not banks).......................
I looking for a very discrete individual, confidentially is paramount.
ssshhhhh
:) ;) :)
-
Are you serious? You're going as far as getting revenge on someone who stole your clients lol.
Customers will go where the best deal is. i.e. better quality for lower price. If this is how you deal with your shit then you deserve absolutely no clients!
Dank
-
You should read the book "Out of Business" by Dennis Fiery; or "21st Century Revenge" by Victor Santoro; or "Get Even" and Get Even 2" by George Hayduke. Or even "Screw the Bitch" by Dick hart (oh, wait, that's just for your ex-wife).
Ahh, those were the good old days of Loompanics!
goblin
-
I don't think this place is supposed to be like the BBS boards in Uplink, from what I've read DPR doesn't want this place to be a hub of illegal activity, just to give people have the freedom to bypass immoral laws.
I don't think corporate espionage counts as a moral but illegal activity, so hopefully the mods will delete this post.
-
Wah wah, oh, please! Freedom of expression is the only thing that separates a free people from an enslaved one. The most disgusting, vile, immoral and illegal thing can be expressed, and that is a sacred right.
In this country things started going downhill when the Hit Man trial happened. We must be willing to accept and encourage exchange of information no matter how much we may abhor said information. Info is power, the power to fight tyranny.
DPR agrees with this or he's no libertarian.
I'll climb down from the soapbox now, thank you.
goblin
-
Agreed.
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend til death your right to say it.
-
Wah wah, oh, please! Freedom of expression is the only thing that separates a free people from an enslaved one. The most disgusting, vile, immoral and illegal thing can be expressed, and that is a sacred right.
If my right to free expression extends to the right to key "CUNT" up the side of your car then I'll agree with you, otherwise this site is DPR's property and he has every right to say what can and can't be traded here. The sale of stolen goods, assassination contracts and other activities deemed immoral (by him) aren't allowed here.
We should probably take this to the philosophy subforum, but I also disagree with such an idealist view that all speech should be protected. At one end of the scale you have violent speech like popping someone's eardrum by screaming down their ear, that's pretty clear cut assault, then you have blackmail and death threats, then shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre closely followed by conspiring to commit acts which cause great harm. All of these ought to be illegal in my opinion, I see no reason to protect them just because they're made of words.
-
I CAN HELP IMA HACK 1337
send me a message u have to provide the right info and offer me somthing tho lol
-
I think we can agree that speech is one thing, and action (even that old canard of shouting fire in a crowded room) is quite another. Speech comes always first to a true believer of freedom. Action must be curtailed by the expectation that it will not harm other's property or health (and by others I do not mean just people, but the environment and animals as well).
But my rights are limited by that of those around me. My freedom is never absolute, nor should it be: it is circumscribed by the welfare and wellbeing, again, of those around me. It's just that information is never to be truncated, and is never to be feared. Information liberates, it does not box you in.
goblin
-
Well if you look at it objectively then all forms of speech are all actions, they're just babbling noises made by apes. The distinction is made because we think in words and thinking is done collectively by communicating, and too many times through history the censure of speech has been used to repress thought (mostly deeply personal religious thought) and this is where we get the American idea that it's vital to protect all forms of speech; people moved to America to get away from the church telling you what you can say and think.
This is where this almost religious stance on freedom of speech originates from, but like other religious beliefs it's a rather simplistic one. We can break it down with a thought experiment: if someone is to discover Langford's Basilisk (http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm), should the image be banned?
-
All I'm saying is everything is relative. All speech should be protected, except when it's to a "captive audience" (i.e., one that can't "turn it off" for any reason). For all others, if you don't like what you hear or read, then don't listen to it/don't read it/don't watch it. You have that much freedom. If you rely on the guvmint to ban something cause it may hurt someone's percious feelings, you are siding with tyrants. (And that goes for political correctness [ugh!] too.)
So yes, klansmen, rail all you want against blacks, furriners, jews, muslims or what have you: you have that right and no one has the right to make you shut up. If someone says that "hate speech" can "make" someone do a violent act, I say Bullshit!, that person has a mind, and the capacity to decide for himslef/herself what to do or not to do.
The violent TV show "made me do it" is absurd to the nth degree. Bring on all the information, no matter how warped; I welcome it.
goblin
-
All I'm saying is everything is relative. All speech should be protected, except when it's to a "captive audience" (i.e., one that can't "turn it off" for any reason). For all others, if you don't like what you hear or read, then don't listen to it/don't read it/don't watch it. You have that much freedom. If you rely on the guvmint to ban something cause it may hurt someone's percious feelings, you are siding with tyrants. (And that goes for political correctness [ugh!] too.)
I agree with this, nobody should have the right not to be offended. People can be offended over anything and this is harmful to discourse that changes opinions, potentially for the good of all.
So yes, klansmen, rail all you want against blacks, furriners, jews, muslims or what have you: you have that right and no one has the right to make you shut up. If someone says that "hate speech" can "make" someone do a violent act, I say Bullshit!, that person has a mind, and the capacity to decide for himslef/herself what to do or not to do.
That again is very America-centric. In Europe history has shown that that's not the case, it's a valid argument to say it would not have been possible for Hitler to exterminate the Jews if there were laws against hate speech at the time. It's also a valid to argue that preventing dangerous speech through law is the reason why fascism hasn't resurfaced in Europe. Nazism didn't vanish overnight after Germany was defeated but their ideals were slowly removed from society due to censorship.
Censorship is a powerful tool that can shape society for better or worse, we need to be careful who wields it and how but a fundamentalist "freedom is good, restriction is bad" view is way too simplistic, it focuses far too much on individual freedoms while allowing society to burn.
-
Wow, I don't see how two viewpoints could possibly be more different. To say that something dreadful is averted by using a dreadful methodology! I'd like to think that it doesn't depend on being xxx-centrist anything; there must be universally workable sets of actions and ideologies, after all we're all human. This is getting very heavy and beyond my mind almost. I wish someone else would chime in.
Yet in the end, I can't help but think that by liberating the individual, the best results will inevitably come. Isn't that the basis behind the French and American revolutions (before the terror and the imperialism?).