What impetus would there be for changing the status quo if they didn't? If there's no financial risk to the companies involved, they're not going to spend money beefing up security - it's seen as a needless expense (because reducing costs is the key to higher profit folks!)Naeo said:Yes, things like the NHS incident and the hacking contest with the $10,000 prize were fairly noble, but what's not is basically everything else. I.E. everything where they've hacked into a company's servers/websites and released tens or hundreds of thousands of users' confidential data.
Yes, they are bringing to light the enormous issues America truly does have with cyber security, and for that, I have to give them some credit. But you think they could do it in a way that doesn't put people at serious risk.
what Lulzsec is doing, very clearly, is creating that financial risk - as the holders of the information, the companies involved are legally obliged to protect that information. If they've failed to do so, and information trusted to them by their consumers gets used/abused for nefarious purposes.... well, the financial equivalent of meeting Bubba for the first time during shower-hour would apply.
Incidentally, taking down Sony is a noble goal. Anyone who played console games before the late 90s will be able to tell you why.