NationStates Jolt Archive

One hacks a computer of a terrorist cell.

One finds info that in 36 hours they will blow a major dam in the wilderness of a big country, far away from nearest hamlet.

One decides to:

A) tell no one, go picknicking in the area, and happen to catch the event on his professional movie camera that s/he has just happened to tag along; then sell the footage. Tens of thousands of homes downstream are destroyed, but due to sufficient alert time nobody dies.

B) copy the illegally hacked site on CD and run for the nearest MOSAD/CIA/MI6/KGB/Whatnot, become a hero and receive a medal.

One hacks a computer of a terrorist cell.

One finds info that in 36 hours they will blow a major dam in the wilderness of a big country, far away from nearest hamlet.

One decides to:

A) tell no one, go picknicking in the area, and happen to catch the event on his professional movie camera that s/he has just happened to tag along; then sell the footage. Tens of thousands of homes downstream are destroyed, but due to sufficient alert time nobody dies.

B) copy the illegally hacked site on CD and run for the nearest MOSAD/CIA/MI6/KGB/Whatnot, become a hero and receive a medal.

What would the environmental impact of the dam's destruction be?

C) Anonymous tip off to the police from a public telephone.

C) Anonymous tip off to the police from a public telephone.

Seconded.

What would the environmental impact of the dam's destruction be?
Pretty big, I imagine. Dam lakes tend to be pretty full of fish and what not. And since it's int he wilderness, there's probably a lot of natural habitats on the other side that'll get flooded.
Seconded.

:)

I'd turn the bastards in. The stronger my reputation becomes for being able to uncover this kind of stuff, the more attractive I become to the CIA, FBI, and other powerful organizations. That in turn equals power, which in turn equals more cash...not to mention the love and admiration of the public which means even more money and power.

However, before you make your first contact with your local secret service agancy, you are a member of the public and the fact that you hack other people's computers is illegal.

Remember Miranda: you don't follow the law to the letter and read them the silly "rights", you must let them go -- no questions asked.

Pretty big, I imagine. Dam lakes tend to be pretty full of fish and what not. And since it's int he wilderness, there's probably a lot of natural habitats on the other side that'll get flooded.


I guess I'd turn them in, then.

However, before you make your first contact with your local secret service agancy, you are a member of the public and the fact that you hack other people's computers is illegal.

Remember Miranda: you don't follow the law to the letter and read them the silly "rights", you must let them go -- no questions asked.

If you don't read them their rights, then nothing they say is admissable in court. That doesn't mean you just let them leave. Just because they don't confess doesn't mean you can't get a conviction.

The time warp is strong in this one

I'd turn the bastards in. The stronger my reputation becomes for being able to uncover this kind of stuff, the more attractive I become to the CIA, FBI, and other powerful organizations. That in turn equals power, which in turn equals more cash...
Unless they decide that they'd rather arrest you before you 'stumble' across the skeletons in their closet.
not to mention the love and admiration of the public which means even more money and power.

And to make it even easier for the terrorists you foiled to kill you, you could wear something like this (http://blogspace.exjoburger.com/bullseye_sml.jpg) all the time.

C) Anonymous tip off to the police from a public telephone.

Agreed, reporting such a thing in person, including how i came across the information, is likely to raise suspicions about myself and i'd rather not end up being "interrogated".

I'd turn the bastards in. The stronger my reputation becomes for being able to uncover this kind of stuff, the more attractive I become to the CIA, FBI, and other powerful organizations. That in turn equals power, which in turn equals more cash...not to mention the love and admiration of the public which means even more money and power.

Or more likely some bureaucrat takes all the credit while the above is happening.

Unless they decide that they'd rather arrest you before you 'stumble' across the skeletons in their closet.


And to make it even easier for the terrorists you foiled to kill you, you could wear something like this (http://blogspace.exjoburger.com/bullseye_sml.jpg) all the time.

Yep. :p

I'd tip off the authorities.

People's homes would be destroyed otherwise.

Also, it might be a reservoir, in which case thousands of people would depend on water from behind the dam the terrorists would blow up.

Plus, chances are I probably completely disagree with the ideals of the terrorists.

I take both:

1) I anonymously mail the CD to the relevant authorities, from a box close enough that they get it the next day.

2) Confident in my government's ability to completely ignore such an obvious warning, I 'just happen' to be picnicking in the area (but in a spot which 'just happens' to be out of range of the blast/flooding), with my trusty video camera, when the bombs go off. I then sell the footage.

Dams are pretty bad for the environment...destroy natural rivers, kill fish, etc.

I'd probably just ignore it. Besides, I can't hack.

Dams are pretty bad for the environment...destroy natural rivers, kill fish, etc.
Dams bursting a pretty bad for the environment too.

I'd probably just ignore it. Besides, I can't hack.

It's a hypothetical situation, it doesn't matter if you can really hack or not.

Dams bursting a pretty bad for the environment too.



It's a hypothetical situation, it doesn't matter if you can really hack or not.

Yeah, but the environment will recover in a few years after the dam is gone. If the dam stays, it will just continue to screw things up for the long term.

Yeah, but the environment will recover in a few years after the dam is gone. If the dam stays, it will just continue to screw things up for the long term.

So, the environment can't adapt to the dam being there(tell that to the fish that live in the dam's lake, btw), but it can adapt to the dam bursting?

So, the environment can't adapt to the dam being there(tell that to the fish that live in the dam's lake, btw), but it can adapt to the dam bursting?


....

Do you know anything about salmon? Salmon runs are 90% or so less today than what they were a century ago. Why? Dams. All their streams have been damed off, so they die when they return to spawn, and no new salmon are born...

....

Do you know anything about salmon? Salmon runs are 90% or so less today than what they were a century ago. Why? Dams. All their streams have been damed off, so they die when they return to spawn, and no new salmon are born...

That's nature for you. The rise of one species can often lead to the fall of another. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Further, one species is not an environment.

That's nature for you. The rise of one species can often lead to the fall of another. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Further, one species is not an environment.

But what else relies on the salmon? Bears, eagles, other birds, scavengers, etc.

But what else relies on the salmon? Bears, eagles, other birds, scavengers, etc.

Which will all either adapt or die. There is a big lake full of things for them to eat now. And if they don't eat those things, then something else will.

Whatever.

I'd still let the damn be blown to kingdom come.

Whatever.

I'd still let the damn be blown to kingdom come.

What if the lake is a reservoir that feeds a city full of people? You would let children die of dehydration for the sake of ideology?

However, before you make your first contact with your local secret service agancy, you are a member of the public and the fact that you hack other people's computers is illegal.

Remember Miranda: you don't follow the law to the letter and read them the silly "rights", you must let them go -- no questions asked.

Usually, you can cut a deal for immunity, if you're going to provide information about a larger crime than your own.

I'd turn them in, in exchange for immunity from prosecution (for the hacking charge), a new identity in a new location, and majority rights to the book and movie deal.

I choose money AND fame: I sell the CD to the police.

Well, I certainly wouldn't use a movie camera since film is expensive and tricky to use and not good for filming an event that can only happen once. Plus I have to have it developed, meaning I lose possession of it for a sensitive amount of time.

For $3k I can take a pro-sumer 3 chip camera up, or for $5k a full HD Panasonic HDX-200.

However, the footage of the event, plus the uncomfortable question of what I was doing camping down stream of a dam shooting with my camera, will not really yield that many riches. Unless I catch the explosion itself or footage of the culprits in the act I really only have something worth a little bit.

I believe, and I could be wrong but I don't feel like looking it up, that it was ruled that once footage becomes news it is public domain so you're not going to get continued royalties on the footage you have, so you only get that initial payday.

If the money is that important than you can try and convince a news outlet of the validity of your hacked information and sell that. Then you have your payday and your protected by source confidentiality that reporters follow.

It's the best of all possible solutions, you have your prescious payday, you're protected from uncomfortable questions, and the event is prevented-allowing the event to take place has, as been demonstrated in the last 6 years, would be used as an excuse to justify horrendous policy decisions and rights violating, power grabbing acts by our current government, so even if no one is killed in the attack (people work at dams at all hours) harm would be done if it was allowed to happen.

If it is a public outlet that finds it out instead of a law enforcement organization with ever-increasing powers all the better.

What if the lake is a reservoir that feeds a city full of people? You would let children die of dehydration for the sake of ideology?

What right does the city have to cause the destruction of a species?
What right does the city have to ruin environments?
What right does the cit have to take all the water for itself leaving all other living things to die?

The mighty Colorado river no longer even reaches the Ocean! Its lower portion is dry! Why? Too many dams and too much irrigation.


People would move away from a city without a water supply. Emergency water would also be shipped in until people left.

What right does the city have to cause the destruction of a species?
What right does the city have to ruin environments?
What right does the cit have to take all the water for itself leaving all other living things to die?
What right does a pride of lions have to slaughter the animals in their territory?
What right do they have to ruin that territory for other animals in doing so?
What right do they have to call the territory their in the first place?

The mighty Colorado river no longer even reaches the Ocean! Its lower portion is dry! Why? Too many dams and too much irrigation.
What right does a river have to reach the ocean?

Let's face it, I'm a shallow bitch. And what more would I want than... *KACHING* money$$$$$ :)

Let's face it, I'm a shallow bitch. And what more would I want than... *KACHING* money$$$$$ :)

More money?

What right does a pride of lions have to slaughter the animals in their territory?
What right do they have to ruin that territory for other animals in doing so?
What right do they have to call the territory their in the first place?


What right does a river have to reach the ocean?

Every fucking right in the world. The lions hunt to live, and must have a territory to hunt.

The river has the right to run freely and be unpolluted because that is the way it has been. The river may change its course over time, but usually gradually. Rivers dry out naturally too, but over long periods of time, allowing living beings to adapt.

Humans do not need cities. Cities are an anomaly- they have only been on the globe for a few thousand years, while humanity has been here for over 100,000.

More money?

Oooo! You blew my mind! :eek:

I choose the path of anonymity. Post the details web-wide under an untraceable alias and let everyone else decide what to do about it.

Every fucking right in the world. The lions hunt to live, and must have a territory to hunt.

The river has the right to run freely and be unpolluted because that is the way it has been. The river may change its course over time, but usually gradually. Rivers dry out naturally too, but over long periods of time, allowing living beings to adapt.

Humans do not need cities. Cities are an anomaly- they have only been on the globe for a few thousand years, while humanity has been here for over 100,000.
So, every type of animal has a right to their way of living, except humans. Strange.
Oooo! You blew my mind! :eek:
It was great for me too, baby.
I choose the path of anonymity. Post the details web-wide under an untraceable alias and let everyone else decide what to do about it.

Posting warnings of terrorist attacks on /b/ for great justice.

So, every type of animal has a right to their way of living, except humans. Strange.


We aren't living in our natural state.

Meh, I would grab my surfboard, get in the valley and prepare for the ride of my life! (http://www.xarj.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/big-wave-surfing-extreme-jaws.jpg)

We aren't living in our natural state.

In a natural state you would have been dead long ago, falling off a tree where you spent most of the day right onto a lion.

However, before you make your first contact with your local secret service agancy, you are a member of the public and the fact that you hack other people's computers is illegal.

Remember Miranda: you don't follow the law to the letter and read them the silly "rights", you must let them go -- no questions asked.

Don't try to act like you understand US law. You haven't the slightest clue as to the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436), 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Granted the full case can be intimidating, but here (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/) is a good summary.

Don't try to act like you understand US law. You haven't the slightest clue as to the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436), 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

I don't suppose you know the answer to the question I posed (sort of) regarding the footage? I thought that there was a ruling or something regarding footage that becomes news that news agencies aren't obligated to pay for the footage so that there isn't a consistent payday but only the initial fee that the first news agency might pay for the footage? I'm not sure how to look it up or phrase that more clearly...

Every fucking right in the world. The lions hunt to live, and must have a territory to hunt.

The river has the right to run freely and be unpolluted because that is the way it has been. The river may change its course over time, but usually gradually. Rivers dry out naturally too, but over long periods of time, allowing living beings to adapt.

Humans do not need cities. Cities are an anomaly- they have only been on the globe for a few thousand years, while humanity has been here for over 100,000.
How the hell does a river even have rights? It's a inanimate object. It's not alive in any way whatsoever.
We aren't living in our natural state.
What do you even mean by our "natural state?" Not using tools or technology? Well, let me tell you, if humans didn't use tools, we'd all be dead, because that'd be casting away our evolutionary advantage. Lions evolved to be fast/strong enough to hunt their prey, elephants evolved to be big and hard to kill, and humans evolved the ability to change our environment to suit us and to use tools.
And anyway, I call you out on your hypocrisy: the computers are not "natural." The internet is not "natural." Medicine is not "natural." The list goes on. But you use all of these things, but whine that dams are not "natural." But of course, when you use things that are unnatural, it's okay, because it's so damn convenient, right?

Or more likely some bureaucrat takes all the credit while the above is happening.

I'd be the bureaucrat...

Dams are pretty bad for the environment...destroy natural rivers, kill fish, etc.

I'd probably just ignore it. Besides, I can't hack.

Yep you would ruin peoples lives just for fun. Let all their homes and belongings in the entire world juts go POOF, how noble of you.

....

Do you know anything about salmon? Salmon runs are 90% or so less today than what they were a century ago. Why? Dams. All their streams have been damed off, so they die when they return to spawn, and no new salmon are born...


It was more of overfishing in 18 and 19 hundreds than dams.

I don't think I could pull the first one off. My philosophy is to stay as far away from terrorists blowing up dams as possible. Turn 'em in.

Forget the fame, though, I'd rather not be targeted by terrorist death squads.

probably neither. i don't believe everything i see on the internet, even if it were to be something someone supposedly didn't want me to. nor do i have the guts, resources or ambition to do either one. nor likely stumble upon the highly questionably source of information in the first place.

if i was living on a downstream flood plain, i just might, either go around wearing a life jacket and just smile when people pointed and laughed at me for doing so, or just happen to take a small vacation out of the area for the duration.

of course if someone ASKED me why i was doing either, i would tell them that i had heard this from a rumer that i wasn't sure of exactly where or if i believed it entirely, but just thought i might be a good idea on general principals.

=^^=
.../\...

What makes you think that? If this sin't our natural state, then what is?

Gaseous. *nod*

We aren't living in our natural state.
What makes you think that? If this sin't our natural state, then what is?
Don't try to act like you understand US law. You haven't the slightest clue as to the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436), 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Granted the full case can be intimidating, but here (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/) is a good summary.

*hopes I wasn't horribly horribly wrong about it*

Tip off the police and get filthy rich through some other means *nods*

I just realized: if I could hack into the terrorists' computers, after I turned them in, I could then hack into their bank accounts and get rich that way. :)

*hopes I wasn't horribly horribly wrong about it*

Nope. You got it quite right. :cool:

In a natural state you would have been dead long ago, falling off a tree where you spent most of the day right onto a lion.

:D
That was a hilarious image.
*applause*

What do you even mean by our "natural state?" Not using tools or technology? Well, let me tell you, if humans didn't use tools, we'd all be dead, because that'd be casting away our evolutionary advantage. Lions evolved to be fast/strong enough to hunt their prey, elephants evolved to be big and hard to kill, and humans evolved the ability to change our environment to suit us and to use tools.
And anyway, I call you out on your hypocrisy: the computers are not "natural." The internet is not "natural." Medicine is not "natural." The list goes on. But you use all of these things, but whine that dams are not "natural." But of course, when you use things that are unnatural, it's okay, because it's so damn convenient, right?
I think our natural state should be not over-exploiting the Earth's natural resources and traveling down a nasty path towards our own destruction...but apparently our nature has proved me wrong.

I just realized: if I could hack into the terrorists' computers, after I turned them in, I could then hack into their bank accounts and get rich that way. :)

I don't imagine terrorists are very much concerned with keeping money in their accounts to collect interest for a very long time after it has been transferred to them.

I think our natural state should be not over-exploiting the Earth's natural resources and traveling down a nasty path towards our own destruction...but apparently our nature has proved me wrong.
Indeed. Our species, as a whole, is pretty much full of selfish bastards. Selfish bastards with little long term planning ability, at that.

I don't imagine terrorists are very much concerned with keeping money in their accounts to collect interest for a very long time after it has been transferred to them.

True, but I imagine if you get it at just the right time they might have enough money for a decent payday. If you don't, install some some of program into their computers that monitors for transactions and immediately steals them upon notice.

True, but I imagine if you get it at just the right time they might have enough money for a decent payday. If you don't, install some some of program into their computers that monitors for transactions and immediately steals them upon notice.

Provided they have authorised internet banking when they opened their account. Secure accounts can simply not be hacked, as they are permanently offline, in a bank's own system, on exclusive separate land-only lines of transmission, that have nothing to do with the world wide web, satelites, and whatnot.

Provided they have authorised internet banking when they opened their account. Secure accounts can simply not be hacked, as they are permanently offline, in a bank's own system, on exclusive separate land-only lines of transmission, that have nothing to do with the world wide web, satelites, and whatnot.

Hm. If they thwarted my attempts, I'd just get really mad and put gay porn on all their computers. See how their fellow religious nuts like that. That'd teach them not to put their money where I can't steal it. :D

Hm. If they thwarted my attempts, I'd just get really mad and put gay porn on all their computers. See how their fellow religious nuts like that. That'd teach them not to put their money where I can't steal it. :D

Oh, so you are assuming that terrorists from my example in the initial post are "religious nuts" -- even though I never said that.

They could eaasily be ultra-left anti-theological "nuts" like Brigatte Rosse or Bader-Mainhoff a mere (odd) decade ago.

In the latter of the two, straight boys were incouraged and at times even outright forced to have gay sex by their kinky female leader, in order to be radical in their deconstruction of societal norms. They weren't gay as such, but MSM, and iumagery of gay sex would NOT be shocking to them at all.

So your prejudiced assumption that terrorists are "religious nuts" tells me more about you than you think.

Many terrorists are religious nuts.

For example, people who bomb abortion clinics. They are religious nuts.

Not all terrorists are, but a good portion of them surely are extremists of some religious sect.

Many terrorists are religious nuts.

For example, people who bomb abortion clinics. They are religious nuts.

Not all terrorists are, but a good portion of them surely are extremists of some religious sect.

Obviously you are projecting your limited Weltanschauung as the only one. In the United Statelets religion is still very much a driving force. Why, in that country over 50% of people believe there is a "god". -- And moreover JUST ONE!!! And male!!! In Europe not more than 6-7% of people believe in that.

Religion in Europe is dead except for the re-vamped Islam in Bosnia and Albania (and among Albanians in Kosovo) and re-vampoed Roman-Catholicism in post-Communism Poland, Slovenia, and Croatia.

Protestant and Orthodox post-Communist countries, such as e.g. Estonia and Bulgaria, are not even half as conservative and certainly have no religious nuts, let alone with terrorist proclivities.

The "old EU" is completely agnostic.

European terrorists (who, BTW, do not set abortion clinics aflame, for abortions are routinely carried out in gynaecological/obstetrician hospital units, anyway) are therefore never "religous" nuts or religious anything.

Obviously you are projecting your limited Weltanschauung as the only one. In the United Statelets religion is still very much a driving force. Why, in that country over 50% of people believe there is a "god". -- And moreover JUST ONE!!! And male!!! In Europe not more than 6-7% of people believe in that.
Flamebait.
Furthermore, what people in the USA believe personally has nothing to do with it (unless of course said person is a terrorist). And no, I do not believe in one male god. I'm no Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Religion in Europe is dead except for the re-vamped Islam in Bosnia and Albania (and among Albanians in Kosovo) and re-vampoed Roman-Catholicism in post-Communism Poland, Slovenia, and Croatia.
And this is relevant how? Re-vampoed isn't even a word.

Protestant and Orthodox post-Communist countries, such as e.g. Estonia and Bulgaria, are not even half as conservative and certainly have no religious nuts, let alone with terrorist proclivities.
I never said they did. However, you seem to deny the existence of any religious nuts there. If there exists but one, you're incorrect. And I doubt there is a single country without a single religious nut-case.

The "old EU" is completely agnostic.
Who called it the "old EU"? I don't think anyone on this thread did until yourself. And factually, that is wrong as the European Union came about fairly recently, pretty much just in the last half century.

European terrorists (who, BTW, do not set abortion clinics aflame, for abortions are routinely carried out in gynaecological/obstetrician hospital units, anyway) are therefore never "religous" nuts or religious anything.

I never said anything about European terrorists. I was talking about terrorists as a whole. Do you deny that there are many terrorists in the world who are religious nuts? I didn't say most, or all. Just many.

Also, I'd watch it if I were you, the mods have already warned you once for flamebaiting, and they don't usually take kindly to repeat offenders.

What makes you think that? If this sin't our natural state, then what is?




The fact the humans have lived as hunter-gatherers for 99% of our history. Our natural state is hunter-gather societies in small nomadic bands.

C) Anonymous tip off to the police from a public telephone.

I agree, but would go further to wipe the prints off of the phone after I use it and maybe using a voice modulation device. :p

The fact the humans have lived as hunter-gatherers for 99% of our history. Our natural state is hunter-gather societies in small nomadic bands.

Where do you mark the beginning of our history?

How is being nomadic any more natural than settling down in one territory?

Well, seeing that New Zealand anti-terrorism laws have been referred to as complicated by the Solicitor-General and deemed useless, I would have to go with the video footage one. If our anti-terrorism laws had not been deemed useless, then I would have turned them in, making up a story that indicates I was not hacking.

Where do you mark the beginning of our history?

How is being nomadic any more natural than settling down in one territory?

Ever since hominids came into existence. Most hunter-gatherers were nomadic. It was rare that a band could stay in one place for extended periods of time. An exception, however, were Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest. Although some tribes did domesticate certain plants, such as tobacco. So they were not 100% hunter-gatherers.