Could Hacking or Cyberintrusion Have Been Part of the Game Plan?

I think that something is being missed here with this list. There's been so much talk about "attacking" those who the "Paranoid Masses (Cabal, headlined by Durova and SV)" think are "attacking" them. I have a funny feeling that these people might be using cyberintrusion to do their "revenge attacks". (taxonomy is Durova's) Food for thought. Lar, member of this list here, proudly talks about how he organized a team to hack Lego, out of a Lego fan online group he belongs to. Lego discovered it, but they didn't mind, and didn't prosecute.

Thoughts? Here are mine. People on the Sooper Sekrit List™ (no. 2 - and I mean "no. 2" in the Austin Powers sense) list include real programmers, and even in the Wikipedia community, the programmers aren't usually the big stars. Some "B list" people, with very good IT skills are in this list. Lar has bragged about hacking Lego in the media.

Lar in the Media, on his Lego Hack Intrusion (he's mentioned, or interviewed, in every article, Larry Pieniazek)

• Hacking's a snap in Legoland | CNET News.com
• Network Security Forum :: View topic - WAA YOU HACKED MY LEGO ...
• Lego Announcement Chat Board (where Lar coordinated the hack)
• Hacking Lego Digital Designer
• ZDNet article on the Lego Hacking

If Lar hacks Legoland for fun (and brags about the the press, unashamedly), to find out the newest bricks coming out, then what would you think his approach to handling cyberstalking would be, hmm? I'm guessing his approach is not psychological. And didn't Durova say she'd infiltrated some mailing lists here? What's to stop one of the 4-5 talented IT people here from authenticating on your computer as you?

Super Secret List No. 2 ™ Revealed in Durova Arbcom Case

1. Jimbo (not on the list, but he supposedly used to own it, sooo)
2. Cary Bass - WMF staff, Steward. Notoriously thick with and loyal to the corrupt of the corrupt.
3. Durova - Nancy Drew on crack. Without her magnifying glass. Bragged about "attacks"
4. FloNight - .. Hardcore cabalist
5. Gnangarra - .... IT or networking person
6. Herby - ...- .... IT or networking person
7. Jonathan Hochman - .... SEO consultant. IT background. "Fellow traveller" of the most paranoid.
8. JzG - .... IT or networking person.
9. Lar - .... IT or networking person. Bragged about hacking Lego.
10. Matthew Brown .. Hardcore cabalist
11. Sarah Ewart- .... IT or networking person
12. SlimVirgin... Ringleader who feels attacked and would justify extreme measures.

Why else would 4-5 of the people be networking engineers, or IT people? Some of these aren't the most prominent of the Cabal. This sounds insane. But aren't at least a few of these people arguably insane? Discuss.

Sleuthing, investigations, cyberstalking... Doing all these things requires technical knowledge.

Only if you want to do them without making monumental errors.

Yes, but not exactly. Both require an analytical mind. One is a necessary, condition for the other. But they are not exactly the same thing at all. You can have an analytical mind, and not know anything about computers, let alone cyberinvasion/intrusion. This is the case for many lawyers. Brilliant analysts, maybe not so tech-savvy.

A team of Slimvirgins and Durovas couldn't make a hacking squad (even with Jon Hochman giving instructions) with the world's best hacking instruction manual (if one exists) and Deep Blue™. But the team above, yes. The team above, has the reason (uber-paranoiac-aggressive-autovictims screaming for action (Durova and SV), the legitimacy (Bass and Wales), the hystrionics (JzG), creepy smug meta-IT savvy (JeHochman), and the rest are almost exclusively programmers. Wikipedia is rife with programmers, but they usually aren't the loudest or most involved of the cabalistas.

Has anyone here hired or managed a team before? This team's population is meaningful.

And when I said that Wales and Bass give the group legitimacy, and mean that it gives them the feeling of legitimacy, much like Wikipedia, in that they feel invulnerable. Stupidly. And would do something just.this.stupid.

Hacking is not bad. To hack is to find a clever solution to something,
usually of a technical nature, such as programming.

You do not speak of hacking. You speak of cracking, where one
breaks into something.

Also, just because Durova used a support group to hurt people
does not mean the rest of them did.

I'm well advised of the semantic arguments about using hacking to describe malicious cyberintrusion.
But like it or not, that's the common nomenclature at present. Read the Lar articles above. They didn't say "crack" they said "hack". Laymen, not technical people, say "hack" (even some technical people do). It's not my fault.

And just because it was a toy company, didn't make the cyberintrusion less serious. The interviewer for CNET was incredulous that Lego was so nice about it.

I'd prefer to focus on the message, not the word. Cyberintrusion then.

I don't get it. Hacking requires intelligence; anyone who could actually do this would realize that it's not worth blatantly breaking the law to get rid of a few people. It's possible that they're getting a bunch of technical evidence from somewhere we don't know about, but I really doubt that somewhere is the computers of people they don't like.

Using that logic, there would be no hackers, because they would be too smart to be dumb enough to break the law. Hackers think they are above the law. So does the cabal. And to an extent, both are right. Just the law hasn't recognized yet that this is an area that needs work. Because (noted above) lawyers and law makers aren't usually that technical.

It will come.

Back to the "they are too smart for that". If people here were smart, they'd be running Wikipedia like a well-oiled machine and the money would be flowing in. They'd not be insulting businesses, and humiliating government officials, which are prime sources of income. And the management processes would be well thought out, and implemented, not ignored. This place is a mess.

I think that it is very possible that this was how they were "responding" to perceived attacks. And I wouldn't put it past them. After the egregious things they've pulled in the past few years, what makes this so much less believable?

There isn't anything they could use that's unusual, except for a MAC address reader, which is the domain of law enforcement, which could cause them problems. They might be using it anyways. But what a ridiculous thing, in their position, to do that.