Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Science

Islamist Hackers Shut Down Egyptology Research Journal 564

Posted by timothy
from the didn't-go-down-like-that dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Radical Islamist hackers have been harassing Egyptologist Kate Phizackerley's online journal Egyptological and her blog KV64. Phizackerley and her team finally got tired of it and shut their online work down. As blogger Roger Pearse says, 'A bunch of violent scumbags... who never have contributed in any way to the web, have successfully interfered with the scientific effort of the entire human race... Next year there will be more.' How do we route around damage like this?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Islamist Hackers Shut Down Egyptology Research Journal

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:26AM (#42656389)

    No, you route the damage to the attacker. A predator drone should do nicely.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:29AM (#42656423)

    Doing Real Original, Newsworthy and Engaging Science.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:30AM (#42656435)

    We all want to be tolerant and politically correct, but the fact is that there is only one major religion left whose *mainstream* ideology is not only completely intolerant of other religions, but willing to use the violence and the power of the state against any opposing views. There may still be nutball factions in other religions, but only one religion still has the nutballs in the mainstream and ready to kill and oppress for their religion.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dmbasso (1052166)

      [...] but only one religion still has the nutballs in the mainstream and ready to kill and oppress for their religion.

      Hmmm... Santorum and Romney are 'nutballs' and pretty mainstream. And there are still a lot of oppression because of religious beliefs in a state that was supposed to be secular. The killings are more about the money, but the oppression is purely religious.
      So what 'one' religion you are talking about?

      I'm with Sam Harris, no religion is tolerable.

    • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:42AM (#42657341) Homepage Journal

      I have almost no desire to be politically correct. But, you're full of shit.

      Let's look at the numbers. There are about a billion Muslims. You seem to claim that mainstream Muslims go around killing people who disagree with their religion. Okay, so we'll dismiss the fringes of our mainstream bell curve, and say that there are half a billion mainstream Muslims. Roughly 1/4 of those are probably military aged males. 1/4 of half a billion would be something like 125 million.

      Mainstream, you say. Average Muslims. If 125 million Muslims have killed a nonbeliever in the past decade, or even the past two or three decades, it's been a well kept secret.

      How about we just accept the fact that those rat bastards are just as violent as we are, and leave it at that? I mean - we ARE a violent bunch. Why should it be so shocking that they are as violent as we are? Violence doesn't bother us in our entertainment. It doesn't bother us that a dozen or more people are murdered in each of our larger cities, each and every night. We barely flinch when we hear of yet another child abuse down the road.

      Are we really that horrified that another people can be as violent as we are?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by K. S. Kyosuke (729550)

        You seem to claim that mainstream Muslims go around killing people who disagree with their religion.

        They don't, but by the same token, they don't as much as raise their voice against it, because that would be un-Islamic. In a way, they silently condone it.

    • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @02:15PM (#42659153)

      Being "politically correct" is against Free Speech. That's why the Islamists push the politically correct buttons of Westerners to neutralize opposition - they don't want to you speak freely and criticize their genocidal and supremacist ideas. As long as you accept political correctness you will be afraid to offend Muslims. Speaking the truth always offends Muslims because they don't want the Free World to discover the truth about their evil ideology.

      Because of political correctness the Obama Administration has a censor list that bans the Pentagon and FBI from using words like "Islamist", "jihadi", "terrorist" etc. Stephen Coughlin has an excellent series discussing this is detail on Youtube. He shows how the US is winning all the fights on the battlefield but completely losing the "information battlespace" (a situation analagous to Vietnam, except that now the leftist elites in Obama's Administration oppose the war while the citizens can see the necessity of destroying all Islamists no matter what their brand-name is). Here's an example of an eye-opening Stephen Coughlin video (a briefing he has given the Pentagon):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhZe7eZK4dw [youtube.com]

      Although this should be no surprise. The Obama Administration has continued the Bush Administration's policy of outreach to muslims, and now has Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in positions of influence. See: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates [investigativeproject.org]
      and the ideologue Obama is informed but refuses to listen to warnings about the Brotherhood. The US Government is not acting in the strategic interest of the people!
      http://www.investigativeproject.org/3877/opposition-leader-obama-administration-downplayed [investigativeproject.org]

      Note that all Islamist groups have the same goals, they just believe in different means to achieve this goal. Therefore: Al Qaeda == Hamas == Hezbollah == Muslim Brotherhood == Salafis == Wahabbis == Boko Haram == Abu Sayyaf etc etc in ideological end-game goals. So when you hear Muslim Brotherhood you are correct in instantly translating that as "Al Qaeda" as they are ideologically end-goal equivalent.

      As long you strive to be politically correct you will be against Free Speech. They are incompatible concepts. As long as the majority support political correctness (euphamistic and untruithful speech) over Free Speech (eg. telling the unvarnished truth) then the Islamist ideologues will win - and they are winning in the West (slowly changing the West to conform to their needs rather than the other way around) because those that are politically correct don't have the courage of their convictions to oppose Islamic supremacism.

      Unlike political correctness, Free Speech is all about the rigths of people to say things we don't want to hear and we may find offensive. If people were only able to stay stuff we agree with we wouldn't need Free Speech laws anyway. The right to speak and offend others *is* the core of Free Speech. That's why political correctness is completely anti-Free Speech. If you support policical correctness (or worse, condemn those who are not politically correct) then you are an opponent of Free Speech.

    • Horsefeathers. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Demena (966987)
      Christianity, Judaism Islam, they are all pretty much the same. The Abrhamaic God was a vengeful God. When you start with that basis you are going to have problems. Supposedly Christ's god was a loving God but his following was and is tainted by his predecessors.

      Why would any God worth his salt want to be "worshipped"? Any God I worship is going to have to be worthy of worship. I have yet to find one of those in any religion in the world.

      All religions are a threat. People may not like what I have to

  • by JSBiff (87824) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:31AM (#42656443) Journal

    Perhaps it would send a clearer message if we stopped celebrating some groups for hacking and DOS's websites of people, governments or companies we don't like?

    After all, if it's ok for Anonymous to harass websites who don't conform to "our" cultural preferences, then I suppose it's ok for anyone to harass any website they don't agree with. . .

    • by HaZardman27 (1521119) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:36AM (#42656493)
      To be fair, Anonymous typically only targets groups that fuck with them or people they don't think should be fucked with. From what I see here, Kate wasn't messing with anyone, she was just posting a journal.
      • by tnk1 (899206) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @12:17PM (#42657743)

        You know, of course, you're 100% wrong. Anonymous is whoever says they are Anonymous. That means that there are people who do what you say they do, and there are others in it for the lulz.

        Anonymous can be a bunch of Islamic kids DDoSing some blog. You start putting Anonymous on a pedestal, and it is going to piss on you from the higher vantage point. Because it can.

    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:36AM (#42656497) Homepage Journal

      I'm pretty sure that actually Anonymous's actions shutting down websites have been seen to be illegal, and widely condemned (if also widely praised by an entirely different set of people) when they've happened.

      Of more concern to me is the precedent any politician shows by attempting to shut down the dispersal of scientific information (or forced dispersal of anti-science propaganda) on religious grounds. That happens in too many countries, and unfortunately the West doesn't seem to be short of such zealots, even if certain areas of the world seem to have slightly more dangerous variants.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      There is no double standard : very few people support DDOSes as a legitimate way of protesting. However, many protest that it is punished more harshly than, say, vandalism inside a shop you disagree with.
      • by JSBiff (87824)

        Fair point, about the punishments compared to other crimes. Perhaps you are even right about their actually being no double standard, but it has appeared to me that in the tech community, there is some amount of approval for some of the actions of Anonymous and similar groups.

    • Slashdot just had a discussion on this exact issue: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/18/1846206/hacktivism-civil-disobedience-or-cyber-crime [slashdot.org]

  • Pretty Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pastafazou (648001) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:34AM (#42656473)
    stop pussy footing around Muslims. Tell them bluntly, they're entitled to their religion, but they're not entitled to force or enforce any of their beliefs and rules on anybody else. Religion is a personal choice. The minute their choice starts to impact others, they need to be warned. If they fail to heed the warning, put them in a cell.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Muslims are the least of our problems. Did you know the majority of complaints to the FCC are the result of one single Christian group trying to impose their standards of decency on the entire country?

    • Re:Pretty Simple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:00AM (#42656737)

      Can we stop pussy footing around Christians too? I'd like to stop them from legislating behavior.

    • Re:Pretty Simple (Score:5, Informative)

      by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:57AM (#42657551) Homepage

      Religion is a personal choice.

      The problem is the Koran explicitly says that, except for some very specific situations such as initial conversion into (never out of) Islam, it's not a personal choice, it's a social choice, so the community's decision on the matter is binding to all its members. What this means then, basically, is that requiring of a Muslim to adopt the (Christian, of all things) notion of religion as being a "personal-anything" (no matter the anything: for Islam, from lifestyle to politics, it is never personal), is actually asking him to give up Islam itself. Which is why Muslims tend to become upset when Western powers try to impose their individualist worldview on Islamic collectivist societies. It just doesn't mix well, no matter how much you try to soften the cultural blow.

  • They were in negotiations with the hackers, and the negotiations have stalled, so the hackers have told them they intended to attack the site again.

    By posting about it on Slashdot.

  • Technical solution (Score:4, Informative)

    by Yvanhoe (564877) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:36AM (#42656491) Journal
    Use something like http://ruhoh.com/ [ruhoh.com] for your blog : have all your content in an easy-to-mirror git database. Host a backup in github, have friends with backups.

    There is probably a legal solution too, after all, we do complain that this kind of moves are considered like high-level terrorist intrusions. I still find the punishments disproportionate, but they do exist, use the legal process.
  • by Jawnn (445279) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:42AM (#42656543)
    Religious fundamentalists = "damage". I like that. Of course I'm sad that such damage exists and must be "routed around", but the whole idea of the "damage" metaphor applied to fundamentalists nut-jobs in the context of an enlightened world is just so deliciously apropos. Mind you, this is not a rant against religion, per se, but it is a forthright statement, blunt and loud, about anti-social fuck-wits who think that their religious beliefs justify their behavior.
    • by vlm (69642)

      anti-social fuck-wits who think that their religious beliefs justify their behavior

      thats the best possible outcome, but more likely it'll turn into our own homegrown teabillies vs the muslims battle.

      I wish I could route around the local teabillies as damage...

  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:44AM (#42656561)

    Just as they have already destroyed those Buddhist statues, and many other such artifacts.

    They even want to destroy the pyrimids in Egypt.

    IMO: Muslims are even more anti-science than Christians.

    • by Bieeanda (961632)
      Do you have trouble fitting such a wide brush through doorways?
    • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:08AM (#42656835)

      Radical Muslims are anti-science, just as are radical Christians.

      Islam inherently promotes scientific inquiry.

      From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God).

      This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.

      During the Middle Age the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was a far more advanced center of science than anything in Europe. It's where al-Kwarizmi wrote the al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala. Hint: the word algebra is taken from al-jabr. And al-Kwarizmi became the word algorithm.

      The first empiricists and theoretical physicists are regarded to be Muslims.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Haytham [wikipedia.org]

      It was only when the sons of Genghis Khan rode into Baghdad that this golden age came to an end.

      • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @02:30PM (#42659351)

        You are wrong. There was a Golden Age of Islamic science but it was shut down over 700 years ago because the questions started to get too uncomfortable for the Caliph in Bagdad. Now it is forbidden to question, Allah requires your unquestioning obedience. That is as anti-science as you can get. Therefore your post is incorrect, you are misinformed, and as a result you are spreading incorrect information. You might want to stop doing that.

        Note that the current theological view of Muslims is that there *are no laws of nature and everything that happens in the will of Allah*. Hence, there is no gravity, only Allah causes things to fall by his will. Allah could just as easily cause something not to fall. Because they believe there are no natural laws Muslims believe it is more profitable to study the sunnah (Qur'an and hadiths) and avoid hellfire of the afterlife than diabolical books about science that the Westerners have. This follows the philosophy set by Al Ghazali: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/imam-al-ghazali-on-studying-science/ [suhaibwebb.com]

        The reason Al-Ghazali opposed science and reason is precisely why we embrace it. He opposed it because it would lead people away from Allah. We like science because it allows people to develop reason and reject superstition and false constructs (eg. the fictions of Allah/God/Yaweh/Krishna etc for which there is *zero reputable scientific evidence*).

        So, the current theology of Islam is completely anti-science. It wasn't always that way (when the Muslims were reading Greek and Roman texts) but is now.

  • Cloudflare...

  • Security is hard to do for someone who isn't proficient in it. If she wants a blog that can't be hacked, she should either hire a professional or use one of the thousands of blogging services (that is assuming it was a real hack and not just a DoS, these Egyptologists don't seem to understand the difference between the two).

  • By giving in and shutting down their journal they've just sent a clear message to the hackers that their approach works.

    Ah well lets see how long before they start attacking /.

  • Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)

    by seyyah (986027) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:02AM (#42656763)

    Is there any evidence whatsoever that it was "Islamist Hackers" that shut down the journal? What happened to the "negotiations with the hacker"?

    Why was the blog hosted by Blogger shut down? Surely it wasn't being hacked was it?

    Something seems out of place...

  • by swb (14022) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:09AM (#42656847)

    At one point in history, Western culture was as religiously zealous as many Islamists are today -- the Inquisition, wars, Salem witch trials, etc.

    But at some point the larger culture and its leaders turned away from this kind of mindset. Sure, we still have money & publicity seeking zealots on TV and a few anti-abortion protesters were inclined toward violence, but overall the West hasn't seen the level of religious extremism that grips the Islamic world today.

    Even Islamic countries with established governments and no ongoing military conflict have laws that would make the Inquisition leaders blush -- amputations, beheadings, really severe laws against expression which could even remotely be considered blasphemous. And not just in the Middle East, either.

    So, despite counter-factual examples in the West and despite the benefits of science, Islamic culture remains highly punitive and opposed to change, yet the West changed when information wasn't as easily available and science wasn't nearly as advanced. Why?

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

Working...