[burgerbrain]

"So in this little metaphor, the people play the role of the hostages, the government plays the role of the kidnappers (lawless criminals) and LulzSec play the role of the government (the good guys trying to save you)

Interesting. Confusing, but interesting."

Yes, you do seem rather confused.

"you appear to be mistakenly thinking that LulzSec is her to protect you"

I am under no such illusion. However, I do recognize that the enemy of my far far far more powerful enemy is.. well.. as good a friend as any.

[gdcbyers]

So the abuses LulzSec perpetrates are acceptable because they aren't as powerful as the big bad evil government? Or because they appear to hate the government as much as you?

I also could not help but notice you ignored my other points and questions, so ill sum it up.

How has anything LulzSec done been constructive to the cause you claim they represent?

[burgerbrain]

I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause.

It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons.

As for them attacking non-government targets? I didn't address this at first because you are making too many assumptions about myself for it to be very interesting, however since you asked: 1) See the above. 2) Doesn't effect me, so I don't give a shit. 3) Funny as hell.

[gdcbyers]

> I don't claim LulzSec represents any cause. > It is offtopic, but I respect LulzSec specifically because I think they have the potential to drive home the concepts and ramifications of computer security, a topic which I find particularly interesting and important for personal reasons.

You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you?

> I didn't address this at first because you are making too many assumptions about myself for it to be very interesting

Please quote me on unfounded assumption about you or your views

> Doesn't effect me, so I don't give a shit.

I think this is the most telling response you've made. You might have well as said "Human rights are not important, unless they are mine" because thats how it reads.

[burgerbrain]

"You justify violating individuals privacy in order to further the cause of computer security? That is an acceptable trade off to you?"

Yes. Does that bother you? Because I don't care.

[gdcbyers]

Well, I think that about sums things up. burgerbrain doesn't "give a shit" about your rights, only his own! But we should still respect his option for some reason I can't think of right now.

[burgerbrain]

Oh whoa is you. I don't respect the rights of multinational corporations. The horror!