Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men

Posted by kdawson on Sat Jun 30, 2007 05:17 PM
from the can't-take-a-joke dept.
Censorship Businesses
tom_evil notes a story up on Infoshop.org about a parody site and the lack of a sense of humor in a large multinational. "One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno. Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

    Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

    • Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hotdiggitydawg (881316) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:26PM (#19702033)

      This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
      So take the power back then. Name and shame the ISP, and vote with your wallet.
    • his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

      Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.

      • Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30 2007, @06:02PM (#19702207)
        This shouldn't be moderated flamebait -- it's true enough. The US is *NOT* the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get shut down.

        Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)

        Yes, there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!

        • Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LGagnon (762015) on Saturday June 30 2007, @09:03PM (#19702865)
          This isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of corporations, which really is only that bad in America.

          • Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:43PM (#19702751)
            Right, but Piss Christ was paid for with tax payer money. the Danish cartoons were not. Say what you want, but don't expect the government to pay you for it.

            Also, my original point wasn't that Exxon kills more or less people, or even to do with terrorism. Just that it's ridiculous to claim the US is the only nation where this sort of thing goes on. Seriously -- try saying anything remotely anti-Islam in Iran. You are very free to criticize Bush, and Exxon, here (other than the pussy ISP in this case), but try badmouthing the Chinese government in China.

            I'm not even saying the US is without blame -- just that saying "Only in America" is really very ignorant. I'm sure if I tried I could find examples of worse happening in Europe.

                  • You cannot escape anything political on slashdot any more.

                    It wasn't always like that. If we have the courage to confront the root cause: it's global warming. Human brains only function well within a narrow range of temperature. Since Bush was elected, sending global temperatures skyrocketing, slashbots have been spewing sparks like so many malfunctioning androids.

                    Or maybe it's because, since the antitrust trial, Microsoft doesn't act that evil any more. Every religion needs a devil. (Almost every).

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TapeCutter (624760)
            " I do not wish to live in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of things on your own."

            So a "whites only" sign on the door is ok?

            • Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:46PM (#19702773)
              Absolutely.

              Then the asshole with said sign will be on display for what he is, the media will come around, and no one will ever go in there for fear of being associated with racism.

              • Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

                by benhocking (724439)
                That's exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it worked then, surely it would still work today!
    • Well...if you look at it, a corporation is an entity that is run by the strength and resources of many, many people, so technically, a corporation DOES have more weight than people.

      Don't you agree?

  • Blame game. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:23PM (#19702013)
    Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?

  • Cue all the apologists (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rkcallaghan (858110) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:25PM (#19702023)
    Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

    (Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)

    ~Rebecca

    • They Have A Right (Score:5, Funny)

      by mdsolar (1045926) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:43PM (#19702117) Homepage Journal
      Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html [blogspot.com] and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.

      It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
      --
      Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

      • Re:They Have A Right (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mikelieman (35628) on Saturday June 30 2007, @06:02PM (#19702209) Homepage
        These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.

        When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.

        It is very much like your drivers' license.

        You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.

        UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.

        Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.

        But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by metamatic (202216)

        Anything without government involvement is not censorship.

        That may be your own weird little definition of the word, but if you check a reputable dictionary, you'll find that "censorship" does not require that the censoring be performed by a government entity.

  • Nice trollish headline. It's hardly a hack, rather a cease-and-desist from an 800 lb gorilla. In other words, not news for nerds.

  • Soylent Green fuel (Score:4, Funny)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:28PM (#19702047)
    Apparently you they are starting a program where you can bring grandma into a recycling plant and exchange her for fuel. It's called Blue Hair to Green Fuel. They are hoping to show their carbon neutral environmental side.
  • Uh, usually I wouldn't note problems in the summary, but a missing quote mark at the start of the second last sentence makes it seem like Slashdot is the one claiming (as fact) that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year, and could easily be grounds for a libel suit. If an editor reads this comment, they may want to fix that.

    IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.

        • Re:Legal matters (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LehiNephi (695428) on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:40PM (#19702739) Journal
          Bingo! It's important to keep in mind a few things on this very touchy subject:
          • Exxon (or whatever other oil company) are not the ones burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil/gasoline/natural gas every year.
          • Even if they were burning so much fossil fuel, Exxon only represents about 2% of the global oil production. They're the biggest private (i.e. not state-owned) oil company.
          • Who's burning all that gas? Well, as I drive to work (in my 35 MPG civic), I'm surrounded by people driving Tahoe's, F150's, Escalades, Explorers, Durangos, enormous Dodge Rams, Tundras, etc. By some divine decree, every building in Houston is kept at a temperature around 70F (which most people agree is too cool for the summer). That's who's causing the 150k deaths per year.
  • Now I thought this had potential as a nutritional supplement. Buried just like the ceramic engine....
    --
    Rent solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

  • Nice headline, guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SEE (7681) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:48PM (#19702143) Homepage
    First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.

    Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".

    Third, there was no hacking involved.

    You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.

    • Re:Nice headline, guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SEE (7681) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:53PM (#19702165) Homepage
      Yes, bad form replying to myself here. But!

      1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
      2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.

      Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?

  • nature of satire (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fermion (181285) on Saturday June 30 2007, @06:18PM (#19702289) Homepage Journal
    I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. The problem with this assumption is that if a person, even a head of state, murders 100 people, or even destroys massive property, such in the case Exxon Valdez, that person can be significantly inconvenienced, while corporation can evade punishment for ever. And if the corporation is given the ultimate punishment, as in the case of Arthur Anderson, the political reprecusions tend to much more significant than when the equivalent human thug is punished by state sponsored killing.

    On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?

    Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.

    It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.

    • Re:nature of satire (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tom (822) on Sunday July 01 2007, @05:16AM (#19705373) Homepage Journal

      I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law.
      You start your argument with a wrong assumption.

      Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.

  • Did the ISP do the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonwil (467024) on Saturday June 30 2007, @09:04PM (#19702875)
    Firstly, if the ISP received a DMCA section 512 take down notice for the content, they should give the customer the full details of that notice.

    Secondly, if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed)

  • grass--greener (Score:3, Informative)

    by nanosquid (1074949) on Sunday July 01 2007, @06:01AM (#19705579)
    At the end of July, Thing.net will terminate its contract with Broadview and move its operations to Germany, where internet
    expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,

    I think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark on your web site can make you subject to large fines.

    If you want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can host them on Flickr.

  • Just an example of the power of lawyers... (Score:3, Informative)

    by rdean400 (322321) on Sunday July 01 2007, @09:38AM (#19706905)
    The speed of the takedown has more to do with the power of lawyers than the power of corporations. If the ISP wants to take advantage of the "CYA" safe harbor afforded them by the DMCA and other similar laws, they have to comply with takedown notices without delay.

    If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.

    • because the retaliation was to disconnect them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by putch (469506) on Saturday June 30 2007, @05:58PM (#19702183) Homepage
      i dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.

      nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.

      that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MSTCrow5429 (642744)
        nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying.

        That's purely conjecture at this point.

        • Ok their internet connection was turned off at the request of unrevealed people, without a criminal charge or notification. There isn't even an attempt at establishing any kind of proper authority, just a command from someone powerful enough to make it happen. That's far worse than Exxon (or someone acting in Exxon's interests) being required to take this act publicly.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by The_Wilschon (782534)
            So, kind of like a MUD (toading), or IRC (kicking)... Somebody with superuser privileges took a dislike to them. At least used to happen all the time all over the internet. The difference is that now the channel op isn't "one of us".

        • Conjecture My Ass (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:28PM (#19702677)
          That's purely conjecture at this point.

          "Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com
          website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed
          from TheYesMen.org."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Oligonicella (659917)
        If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.

        I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".

        Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.

      • just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot


        1. Wait about three weeks.

        2. The terrorists used low tech non-functioning methods, and were noticeably inept. More of "your government at work" sort of stuff.

      • Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by the_womble (580291) on Saturday June 30 2007, @11:43PM (#19703789) Homepage Journal

        I just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot,
        Frankly, the UK attacks are not really newsworthy. No one killed, no real threat to anyone other than the bombers.

        These are my favourite type of terrorists: incompetent ones.

    • Re:Where are the facts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by canuck57 (662392) on Saturday June 30 2007, @06:18PM (#19702285)

      Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...

      And how many lives have been saved by oil, might I suggest many of millions each year that rely on the fuel to transport food and drugs...

      • In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html [blogspot.com], I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many people wishing to be duped by it.
        --
        Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

    • Re:150,000 deaths per year (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jollyreaper (513215) on Saturday June 30 2007, @09:10PM (#19702899)

      That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

      how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

      It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
      You weren't modded down for disbelieving in global warming, you were modded down for being dickish about it. Global warming cult members? Fine, I'll give you that, only so long as you concede membership in the Flat Earth Society.

      You know why people get pissed off with positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit. This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk, only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything else where they don't.

      When it comes right down to it, we're not talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the corporate-sponsored .1% find themselves on the other side. Then you end up with conservative flacks taking up the banner of the corporations as if that's the patriotic thing to do.

      I have no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda. I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we should be able to do better than France."
        • Hum... You Honor, how can you charge me with killing all those people? They were going to die anyway. Everyone does you know.

          But seriously, read the article and see if malnutrition is not mentioned.

          Are you thinking of the Gaia hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] as your control mechanism?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Khaed (544779)
          yeah, welcome to /. moderators: They think "Troll" is the same as "person who I disagree with."

          Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples). While flamebait is trying to instigate a flamewar, like: "vi is clearly better than emacs because it has a simpler interface" or "emacs is better because it has more features." Off-topic -- well, if you can't figure that one out, you ought not be m

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Gord (23773)
            Also, there are six billion people on this planet.

            6 billion in 1999, 6.7 billion now, scary isn't it.

            http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop [ibiblio.org]

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Guuge (719028)

            Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples).

            Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."

            Hmmm... that looks somehow familiar.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.