Should Cyber Vigilantes Be Cheered Or Feared 232
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Ted Samson raises several challenging questions in the wake of HBGary, first and foremost being, should the cyber vigilante acts of 'hacktivists' such as Anonymous be embraced? No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling, Samson writes, 'but also troubling is how quickly some members of Congress seek to use illegally acquired information to further their own political agenda.' The underlying message seems to be that cyber vigilantes may have more leeway than those who engage in equally illegal, though decidedly nontechnical methods to expose their targets."
none of the above? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the consequences are of great concern to these internet vigilantes. It's one thing to go after these people, but they're deathly afraid of the cyber police.
Re:none of the above? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."
Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists" [colbertnation.com] Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together [msn.com] to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?
Re:none of the above? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."
Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists" [colbertnation.com]
Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together [msn.com] to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?
It's simple really. This is mainstream (i.e. lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel, that which is easiest to sell, what has style but no substance, etc.) thought on the matter: if you are concerned about the government or members of the government acting completely outside of the law, with impunity, well then you're just another paranoid tin-foil hat-wearing insane nutter conspiracy type. You will be dismissed and ridiculed without ever testing the veracity of your claims. That's because we just don't like the way you sound, and that tie you're wearing pisses us off too.
But, if you're concerned about a group of online vandals who cause a lot of inconvenience to a few people, but nothing on the scale of abusive government with no effective checks and balances... well then, we approve of that. Those damned vigilantes. It's definitely okay to believe that a bunch of people with little no no association, organization, or preperation can conspire to bring down a Web site.
It's those insane morons who believe that a bunch of people who are from the same social class, who play golf with each other, who are in bed with the same special interests, who work similar jobs, who all benefit from a more powerful government, why it's madness to believe that they are anything other than saints who are acting in our interests. MADNESS I TELL YOU. What kind of idiot would believe a story like that? Clearly we must ridicule them immediately. We absolutely must, at all costs, ignore every historical precedent for such abuses of power, every self-interested motive of any authority figure involved, every precedent for past abuses of power our own government has perpetrated, and every lack of oversight and basic competency any public official has ever shown. After all, we have some nutters to ridicule.
Re: (Score:3)
If anonymous did unreasonably illegal things with total lack or respect for anybody and anything involved, people wouldn't believe it either.
The fact that they're mostly out doing relatively harmless things keeps it within the realm of believe.
Re:none of the above? (Score:5, Interesting)
The consequences are nothing but a pack of powers that be that are looking for a convenient excuse for something they are hell bent on imposing anyway.
They have the motive and means. The hacktivists only provide opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
The consequences are nothing but a pack of powers that be that are looking for a convenient excuse for something they are hell bent on imposing anyway.
They have the motive and means. The hacktivists only provide opportunity.
Sounds terribly familiar, but I just can't 9/11 place it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick! Add the <FNORD> tags before they notice!
My god... someone else fnord read that book? Amazing.
Hail Eris!
Re: (Score:2)
My god... someone else fnord read that book? Amazing.
Who hasn't?
Re: (Score:2)
It was a terribly act of terrorism that happened that day.
And the guys who flew the plains weren't nice either.
Re:none of the above? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those that wish for an Internet without Freedom, Privacy, Anonymity, Choice, or Competition do not need the existence and actions of Anonymous to create the foundation for their arguments.
I am cheering Anonymous for their actions with HBGary. However, I am cheering for the specific people that did this specific act.
Cheering for Anonymous is like modding an AC on Slashdot as +5 Insightful and then wondering why he was being such a dick two posts later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you hear yourself? Are you saying they shouldn't do anything worthwhile because there will be crackdowns on the rest of us? Have things gotten that bad?
The old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" only applies if you're not already in hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever we end up choosing to do about these so-called vigilantes, it shouldn't be rational.
Re:none of the above? (Score:4, Funny)
I am anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
You may jest, but Anonymous is a group of people that choose to act as a group.
It's an open ended army.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they have some hacker among their ranks. I am dubious when I see the choice of targets for their attacks. Some justified ones, but a lot of evildoers were not target of any campaign. Looking at the past years`events and correlating them to attacks seems to me that anonymous does not often read newspapers- which might be good - and not even alternative media. Strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be how you feel today or even several years ago, but consider that a lot of prominent hackers got their start doing the same script kiddie type of stuff.
Eventually, they will mature. When that day comes, I think it's a safe bet that Anonymous will possess significantly more talent than they do today.
They wouldn't need to be embraced at all... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two wrongs don't make a right but one wrong can certainly undo another wrong and from that can emerge a right.
There of course is the case of citizen's arrest. So citizen's digital search and obtaining of evidence where it is publicly clear that perpetrators are committing criminal activities and yet for unknown reasons government and police fail to act in an manner to kerb those criminal activities and even in some cases support those activities. Then of course the evidence is presented to the public for
Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all... (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. No one ought to have sympathy with the corruption of a government. However, if so-called vigilantes have impunity then they could become a new oppressive regime.
Wow. You're right. If the government doesn't protect us, Anonymous will RULE THE COUNTRY, banishing all women from the internet and compelling people to put things in other things so that they may do things while they do things.
I guess having national ID cards and internet licenses is a small price to pay. I mean, I don't mind putting things in things, but I'll be damned if I'll then go do things while I do things. Where would it end?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You're right. If the government doesn't protect us, Anonymous will RULE THE COUNTRY, banishing all women from the internet and compelling people to put things in other things so that they may do things while they do things.
Oh, I don't know about banishing women. They do have the options of Tits before they GTFO.
Where would it end?
Last post, page 15. Unless somebody bumps.
False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the above.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. In the end, the appearance of vigilantes is a symptom of something else; I won't go so far as to say it's inevitable, but if it takes vigilantes before things come to light, your country got problems.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
The appearance of a few vigiliantes, despised by most, means little. The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill. The government condemns them regardless, because the government claims the privilege to dispense justice to be solely its own, but when the government claims that privilege then fails to fulfill the implicit duty, what do you expect?
Re:False dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.
I don't quite understand how a large number of people believing something makes it right. I mean, it might indicate that the government has angered them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are 'in the right.'
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
But in this case, the vigilantes are addressing behavior that the government is turning a blind eye to, not behavior that the government had addressed and approved of. It would be quite a different story if there had been a criminal investigation of HBGary and they were found innocent; however, certain parties within the government would seem to have known that they were acting illegally, and chose to do nothing.
And again, it still doesn't mean that the vigilantes are in the right. It just means that they're addressing (for better or for worse) a problem that the government should be addressing, but has failed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing criminals and other abusers to go unpunished and uninvestigated is the time-tested method of creating vigilantes where there otherwise were none.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the time tested method for creating vigilantes was blaming problems on a small group of people that the majority doesn't like anyways and so can get behind stringing up to work out their anger issues.
You could certainly make that case, yes.
I don't personally believe it, though it certainly does sound "standard practice" enough. By that I mean ... the (minority of) people who would encourage things to unfold that way, and so get the majority on board with the scapegoating ... they understand that this has a serious flaw. Understand that no objection of theirs is because the maneuver is too low, too heatless, too underhanded, but they are quite practical. It is Machiavellian politics. The only problen
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Individuals make stupid decisions, and hold stupid beliefs, on a regular basis. But when they become a giant mob, I'm supposed to believe that they're acting rationally and doing the right thing? Good luck with that. There's a reason most modern republics aren't direct-democracies. Constitutions don't just exist to protect "the people" from "the government" - they exist to protect the people from themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
A good case in point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey
The parents were for YEARS (and probably are still) harassed. And the dudes from south park owe them a public apology.
Vigilantes may target the wrong people even though they 'mean to do good'. People are morons. Sometimes they have power many times thank god they dont.
I'm sorry you chose to AC this comment, as I was not aware of the DNA development. Forensic exoneration is the best kind, and I'm glad to have learned this.
Thanks
Re: (Score:3)
The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.
The problem here is that it is far too easy to delude yourself into believing that the people are on your side. That you - and only you - have the right to speak for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but Muhamar Qadafi is the head of government, not a vigilante at all.
Re: (Score:2)
but when the government claims that privilege then fails to fulfill the implicit duty, what do you expect?
Batman?
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
How about "jeered"? A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante. And I'm pretty sure many of these poeple are doing it for the lulz rather than to do any sort of meaningful protest that will accomplish something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante.
More like common vandals. If you wouldn't cheer em rampaging in a mob with fireaxes and making off with file cabinets you shouldn't be cheering them doing essentially the same smash and grab and sticking an i, cyber- or some such hip prefix that boils down to the same ol 'take something ordinary stick "on the Internet" on and call it new and fresh. (And probably patentable but that is a rant for another thread.)
They aren't vigilantes anymore when
Re: (Score:2)
That is so clearly across the moral line the only reason more people don't see it is they agree so strongly with Anonymous's stated political goals it blinds them.
You can't compare an amorphous, shifting multinational group like Anonymous with Batman, mainly because Anonymous has no stated political goals. What goals they do have are largely spur-of-the-moment, and tend to last only until the next big thing comes along to garner their attention. That's actually what makes them so dangerous: they're not predictable in any particular regard (like Batman invariably is, and which is always used against him) and somewhere amongst that morass of script-kiddies is some real
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except the police didn't come after batman, a (as-yet-unhired) mercenary was after them, proposing to use illegal means themselves.
The act of self-preservation does not make one a criminal. What was likely to happen to those HB Gary noted as being part of Anonymous? (And would they target a: social engineer griefers, b: those who had actually engaged in cracking or script-kiddee-hood or c: everyone period on 4chan making them all possibly unemployable and/or through gross misrepresentation putting every l
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't vigilantes anymore when they attack someone for the sole reason they were investigating them.
I think that is only half true. The reality is they uncovered some Serious Wrongdoing. Whether or not that was any one individual's intent, the Anon cloud seems to employ the Streisand effect to broadcast some major inequities.
On the other hand, they also go after kids on "the facebook" and hassle random people in video streaming and god knows what else. I find it very peculiar that these types of actions never make the big media coverage. If my tinfoil hat was not at a jaunty angle, but rather attached by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?
By your very argument then Anonymous would be common thieves and vandals for breaking into HBGary property, stealing documents, defacing their website, and destroying property (backups). If you want to make it "the same thing as if it happened in real life" they would not be protesters, but common criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?
That's only true up to a point. The HBGary incident involved breaking into email accounts and (iirc) the remote wiping of an iPad. While hilariously funny, these actions exceed that of sit-in/slow down protesters.
Not vigilantes (Score:2)
A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante. And I'm pretty sure many of these poeple are doing it for the lulz rather than to do any sort of meaningful protest that will accomplish something.
And vigilantes are a lawless mob controlled by their hate, going after victims that probably haven't even done anything wrong.
So let's not call them vigilantes then.
Cyber protesters, cyber revolutionaries, cyber resistance ??
And my personal favorite: the secret order of the cyber knights.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have the wrong definition of vigilante. Vigilantes go after people who they feel are escaping justice and try to enact extra-legal justice, often against people who probably are guilty. This is the correct and appropriate word I meant to use.
Varies Over Time (Re:False dichotomy) (Score:2)
None of the above.
Agreed. Historically, organizations vary in their quality and relevance over time. They tend to start out fresh and idealistic, then end up having outlived their usefulness. Anonymous, being an "un-organization" might be able to avoid this fate. I suspect, by the time, if ever, Anonymous has become stale, another such media-stunt group will adopt their methods and pick up such activities under their own banner.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous might have been inspired by "Luther Blisset" itself.
Transparency is always good... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some laws need to be broken. Also, this kind of corruption needs to be exposed, no matter how.
Isn't it weird that a group of anonymous vigilantes is more transparent than a government that's supposed to serve the people, or companies that work for that government or for politicians involved in it?
Re:Transparency is always good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Be less interesting to read thats for sure though.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no functional difference between an AC and a pseudonym account. If real names were enforced here there'd be a lot fewer douchebags.
Says the AC. ^Real Name^ And just to spite you about there being less douche-bags this way? - Suck it ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "douchebag"
Now define "douchebag" taking into account the increased influence governments could bring upon slash dotters identified by their real names.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, the document was written to protect the citizens - us - against any tyranny of the Government.
HTH!
Depends on the specific case, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of HB Gary - they did everyone (especially those who pay for HBGary's services - meaning mostly taxpayers) a great service by exposing a security company apparently so fraudulent it had no business in the computer security field.
If it were my own web sites, I'd very much hope that if someone found an exploit, they'd let me know by visibly defacing my homepage, rather than just ignoring the vulnerability and leaving me vulnerable until some less scrupulous hacker finds it next.
I hope the law would take intent into consideration a lot in those cases. If the intent was to inform HB Gary and HB Gary customers that their security knowledge sucked, IMHO they did a service to all by demonstrating that. OTOH, if their intent was to steal people's credit cards or something from HB Gary, they should be gone after just like any other credit card thief should.
Re: (Score:3)
But HBGary is not a fraudulent security company. Claiming that just because they did several things wrong makes them "fraudulent" is absurd.
The uncovered e-mails suggest HBGary is quite good at finding and exploiting Windows bugs to provide various forms of security and/or spy services. Creepy, yes, but not fraudulent by any means.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are tank manufacturers unethical?
At the point where the tanks (exploits and security holes, in this case) are used to harass and subdue opposition amongst the citizenry and the manufacturer has no issue with it, they are. The gov't answers to the people, not the other way around. When the people are angry enough to start speaking out, you don't turn your arsenal on them. Unless you wanna live in China or Libya or Bahrain or Iran....I can go on, but I shouldn't need to.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, they are apparently better at being the bad guy than they are at stopping the bad guy. Apparently if you want the law broken, HB Gary is the go-to company.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, they are apparently better at being the bad guy than they are at stopping the bad guy. Apparently if you want the law broken, HB Gary is the go-to company.
Well, like Stephen Colbert said, the idiots stuck their collective dick into a hornet's nest. I'm sure Aaron Barr and Co. were more than a little surprised when it turned out that his rather direct challenge (and threat) to Anonymous resulted in a demonstration of blackhattery that was on par with his own. He should have known better, and taken steps.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three problems, Anon:
But, go ahead and read them [92.241.162.216]. Come back when you've found out which ones were faked.
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly don't think that Anon is sophisticated enough to fake e-mails and they certainly aren't sophisticated enough to do it well. I
Re: (Score:2)
It's still just as cheeky either way.
Cheered (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Police investigating a murder?!? What is this world coming to? Will no one think of the murderers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It all depends on whether or not the chain of evidence is corrupted. Policing isn't like the movies where 'data' shows up and people go WHOO! Get the DA, lay dem charges! WHOOO!
Didn't we use to call them Journalists? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now their Cyber Vigilantes. Should be asking if Upton Sinclair should be cheered or feared?
Wow, a funny mod. How grim. And true.
Re: (Score:3)
Their? :P
Sometimes cheered (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes cheered and sometimes booed, better question is why the press is always so binary and void of grey areas.
Re: (Score:2)
...and the answer is that that's what the readership wants.
Re: (Score:2)
...and the answer is that that's what the readership wants.
The readership will eat what they're given. It's what the ad revenue dictates.
The press black and white? (Score:2)
...better question is why the press is always so binary and void of grey areas.
I don' t know. But here in the studio we have our two experts, Dr. Good and Dr. Evil.
Cyber? (Score:2)
I hate 'cyber' being used for everything. Cybervigilantes should be treated just the same as normal Vigilantes.
Just because they're not riding around with a colt full of silver bullets and instead are behind a computer screen doesn't make any difference.
Re: (Score:3)
In any case, Anonymous is not a vigilante group; that description is more fitting for a group like perverted justice. Anonymous is just a bunch of protesters who are using the Internet for their protest. I see no difference between Anonymous and a campaign to bombard politicians or businesses with mail and telephone calls (especially since t
No worse... (Score:2)
It's no worse than using evidence collected by torture...
Depends on how quiet they stay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both? (Score:2)
Maybe a little of both - cheers and fears. I think they fill a void that isn't being addressed by any existing group in this day and age. And just maybe they will help bring a balance back to the notion that governments need to fear the people (seemingly lost on most western leaders) more than people fearing their government. If Anon (et al) shine a much needed light on that, then cheer away I say.
As far as WBC goes, never forget that anyone (literally) can claim something in the name of Anon (think of l
More like protesters (Score:2)
Nothing has changed in 30 years. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always "their (cyber) terrorist" and "our (cyber) freedom fighters/freedom watchdogs." Whenever it's not serving the agenda of those in power, it's always "theirs." When it does, it's always "ours."
Re:Nothing has changed in 30 years. (Score:5, Funny)
much more ably illuminated in blackadder :-)
Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
Information is information. (Score:4, Interesting)
So why is the fact that some people made use of that information "troubling"?? I would be troubled if they didn't.
Is anybody complaining that people shouldn't use information that was exposed by WikiLeaks? No? Why not? How is that different from information that was exposed by anybody else? WikiLeaks did not commit any crimes, but somebody did.
Re: (Score:2)
I will say, however, that I might be willing to turn a blind eye to minor "bending" of the law, if its intent is to expose government or corporate corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
"...one of the issues is that if you allow the use of the information - you encourage further unethical acts in later cases... (the old Slippery slope)"
You have a good general point. But in this particular case, somebody was complaining about government information that was leaked, being used by people in government... that seems pretty bizarre to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The pentagon papers ( or at least last I checked were) officially classified well after they became public. Didn't prevent people using them. Because we don't know what the Nazi's results were, we may never know if they were thrown out because in truth, they would have perpetrated more evil, or provided great insight into doing useless things.
I think, if it were to happen with today's information systems, the Nazi era of medical records would be impossible to contain, right or wrong. You can burn paper,
Re: (Score:2)
Designs for workable but crude fission and fusion bombs have been in encyclopedias for many years.
Perspective and scale (Score:2)
The problem is one of definition and scale.
We've all been taught to oppose vigilante actions, and rightly so. We believe that vigilantism is bad at a gut level, and people use that bias to sway public opinion to their own ends.
Vigilantism is when you pass penalty judgement on someone outside of the legal process, for example hanging someone for stealing cattle. The actions of the hackers don't fall under the definition because no one was hurt and no penalties were passed out.
This is simply one group committ
Re: (Score:2)
The actions of the hackers don't fall under the definition because no one was hurt and no penalties were passed out.
That is arguable. A CEO stepped down. A company is now plummeting in terms of value.
On the flipside, should that company ever have been worth that much?
So, what we really need to discuss here isn't so much is it okay to be a vigilante, but rather look at each case and determine it on the merits of that single example - and evaluate it on a "Does the end justify the means?" scale.
Here, the means were illegal in some way, but does the end - showing how corrupt, morally and ethically disgusting a company is -
Unfortunate (Score:3)
I would LIKE to not feel a need to cheer for them. I would like to have police and courts interested in the best interests of society and individuals within it, but apparently that's not the case, so I just have to be grateful for anyone willing to fill the vacuum. The press used to do some of this for us when something fell through the cracks, but they don't seem all that interested in hard core investigation any more.
So, I guess as long as DOJ, DHS, FBI, et al are too busy working for the mouse and the *AA to take care of these things and the press are too afraid they might not get invited to the next ball, it'll have to be Anon and Wikileaks.
Wrong question (Score:2)
Meanwhile back in the article. (Score:2)
For example, would supporters of Anonymous view this situation differently if a group of masked men and women broke into HBGary, Berico, and Palanti in the dead of night, stole computers or drives containing the various damning files, and shipped them to a contact in the House of Representatives?
That's like comparing Deep Throat with G. Gordon Liddy.
One is an informant, the other is a hired thug. Whatever happened to asking about motive?
Well, let's weigh their motivations (Score:3)
I cheer people who support truth-bearers any way they can.
So I cheer the vigilantes.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be a criminal even if you only victimize criminals. Vigilantes, despite their aura, are almost always in violation of the law when they act. Vigilantes rob their targets of Due Process, which is what helps corporations and rich people get off scot free, but it does also protect the innocent in the majority of cases.
As far as Anonymous goes, I really haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing that the component members who executed the actual attacks are in violation of a law or three.
Vigilantes know
Re: (Score:2)
Any type of activist is a good. It sure beats the usual sheepish (american) who is content with letting 400 people have everything, while they sit and watch NCIS and eat big macs.
I'm guessing you meant "sheeplike", not "sheepish", and what do you have against Big Macs? Or NCIS?