I upvoted this to pose a question to commenters. I think stuff like this, for hackers all the way to terrorists, just serves to boost the ego of people slamming stuff for personal reasons. We know why the hacks will continue regardless of what an affected party could’ve, should’ve done or whatever. However, all this talk about the attackers just reinforces the egotistical reasons they’re involved in the first place. That’s the problem I noticed.
So, the solution was never doing that. No submissions, profiles, whatever about those doing the attacks if it’s black hats. If we cover anything, we cover the where and how with recommendations for preventing it plus optional support for victims if that’s warranted. Leave off the name, statements, etc of the attackers. We can substitute “some low-life with more time than skill or worth” for any identifying info in this story. Not saying it will stop hacks but might decrease their frequency if it became widespread. At the least, we’re giving them the F U instead of “High five, crooked hacker guys!” Save the high fives for white hats that earn them.
No submissions, profiles, whatever about those doing the attacks if it’s black hats.
I don’t think this will work. People wanna know who did it. So people will go to where somebody tells them who did it.
Additionally, I don’t think ‘global infamy’ is the sole motivator here. Plenty of people do exceptional things for a sense of accomplishment, regardless of the validations given by others, and I think in the ‘hacker’ sphere this is even more represented.
This ‘psychological warfare’ tactic has been tried for decades against ‘trolls’ and you know how well it did.
I upvoted this to pose a question to commenters. I think stuff like this, for hackers all the way to terrorists, just serves to boost the ego of people slamming stuff for personal reasons. We know why the hacks will continue regardless of what an affected party could’ve, should’ve done or whatever. However, all this talk about the attackers just reinforces the egotistical reasons they’re involved in the first place. That’s the problem I noticed.
So, the solution was never doing that. No submissions, profiles, whatever about those doing the attacks if it’s black hats. If we cover anything, we cover the where and how with recommendations for preventing it plus optional support for victims if that’s warranted. Leave off the name, statements, etc of the attackers. We can substitute “some low-life with more time than skill or worth” for any identifying info in this story. Not saying it will stop hacks but might decrease their frequency if it became widespread. At the least, we’re giving them the F U instead of “High five, crooked hacker guys!” Save the high fives for white hats that earn them.
Thoughts?
I don’t think this will work. People wanna know who did it. So people will go to where somebody tells them who did it.
Additionally, I don’t think ‘global infamy’ is the sole motivator here. Plenty of people do exceptional things for a sense of accomplishment, regardless of the validations given by others, and I think in the ‘hacker’ sphere this is even more represented.
This ‘psychological warfare’ tactic has been tried for decades against ‘trolls’ and you know how well it did.
Yeah, good points. It’s wishful thinking. I still will practice it most of the time to spite them. ;)