- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A high profile hacking group claims it has breached multiple FBI-related services and stolen data “on all FBI employees and applicants.” A representative of the group, called ShinyHunters, told 404 Media the data includes FBI agents’ names, home addresses, phone number, and information on their spouse.
The data breach could be massively significant and may have all sorts of national security and counterintelligence implications. Criminals from the same ecosystem as ShinyHunters have previously used hacked data like phone records to track, intimidate, and harass the FBI agents investigating them. The highly sensitive data could also be a boon to foreign intelligence agencies who want to better understand how one of the most important law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S. operates. And if the data fell into the hands of more criminals, FBI agents and their spouses could face serious threats to their safety.
“We hacked the FBI. We hold data on all FBI employees and applicants,” the representative of the group told 404 Media.
The representative provided 404 Media with a sample appearing to contain the personal data of 5,000 FBI employees. That data included an alleged address, phone number, date of birth, and in some cases details on their spouse.
Meh, these are the same fucks who breached the Canvas backend and held student data for ransom. I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like - they’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit.
That was fucked up and they are wrong for that but if they keep going after feds I’m all for them.
Wish they could leak the Epstein files (without pics and vids).
Their talents were wasted on Canvas if they have this kind of capability.
Either that or, the FBI’s database just has ultra piss poor security which sounds about right anymore.
If they were “going after” the feds, they’d release everything they got instead of bragging about what they got. Either they got nothing or they’re holding it for ransom, but if it’s the latter what are their demands? None of this is passing the smell test.
" don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like" - you should. This opens all of them up to blackmail and worse by foreign govts. Massive problem for both you, me, and everyone else. The first Tom cruise mission impossible movie was about this very same thing except it was the CIA.
Don’t take a fragment of a sentence out of context to make me say something I didn’t. What I said was that even if they attack someone I don’t like, I still won’t celebrate it because I know what their motivation is.
What you said was “I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like - they’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit.” not “even if they attack someone I don’t like, I still won’t celebrate it because I know what their motivation is.”.
In or out of context, "I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like"means the exact same thing. It’s a stand alone statement not impacted by your second sentence.
Your rephrasing makes more sense and the two parts of your sentence can not be separated without changing the meaning.
That’s just not true. The fact that it can form a complete sentence on its own doesn’t divorce its meaning from the surrounding context.
In my favourite example, “I want to make sure the children die with the parent” is a complete sentence, but outside of a programming context, it’s quite fucked up.
In this case, the sentence you quoted is equivalent to a parenthetical to add nuance to the second half you omitted: “They’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit (even if they target a government agency I don’t like).” It’s the opposite of a standalone statement: It’s the subordinate qualification to a different, standalone statement.
Just because you can quote it outside its context doesn’t mean that it’s independent of context.
wrong, the following statement had no impact on the first.
I’m really not sure why it seems like most people here think context matters, but you keep insisting that it doesn’t. The two parts of that second sentence, which you treat as separate statements, were literally linked with a dash. It’s also not like the statement or its parts stood alone:
The first sentence implies disapproval of the hackers’ previous antics. The second one first concedes that they also hit someone the commenter dislikes, which in that context is a clear setup for a “but”, which follows and makes it clear that this isn’t enough to redeem them, since the motive likely isn’t ideological nor political, but plain greed.
You’re taking a sentence in isolation and pretending its meaning is self-contained. That’s not how human language works.
It is syntactically two independent clauses (or a compound sentence) joined by an em dash rather than a single, indivisible thought. Each half contains its own subject and verb structure. Punctuation does not equate to inseparability. You assume second half acts as a pivot (“setup for a ‘but’”). But look at the actual words: there is no “but” or ideological reversal present. They were expressing two distinct emotional stances: a political/institutional cynicism (“I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like”) followed by a cynical motive attribution (“they’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit”).
You’re mistaking syntactical shape for semantic content. Independent clauses can still have context-dependent meaning. In fact, that’s the norm for sentences placed together. By being in sequence, all three statements are implicitly connected.
What’s more, the dash explicitly signals that the thoughts are connected. That’s a common use of dashes: juxtaposition of opposed thoughts. They’re dependent both by the implicit context-dependency and by virtue of being marked as dependent.
Figuring out how the distinct statements are connected and how these dependencies shape them is a fundamental linguistic puzzle. You didn’t find the solution, which isn’t a bit deal, but even when you had the solution explained to you, you keep insisting there is none.
“They hit someone I don’t like” is something you’d expect people to approve of, but in this context, it’s juxtaposed against both the preceding and succeeding statements of disapproval of their actions and motives respectively, which creates a contradiction: If they target someone you don’t like, aren’t you happy about that?
That contradiction is preemptively resolved by “I don’t care if … – …”. If you’re looking for words to pin the pivot to, those are the closest you’ll get. They express the semantic connection between the facts “they targeted someone I don’t like” and “I disapprove of their actions”: the former has no bearing on the latter.
I see your confusion here: “I don’t care if” isn’t actually part of the fact being presented. It’s not a distinct emotional stance, but rather part of the linguistic construct linking the independent statement “they target a government agency I don’t like” to the one following it. If anything, it’s the negation of an expected emotional stance.
Incorrect on all counts. “Whether they attack someone I hate or not doesn’t matter” is what the complete sentence conveys. Quit playing semantic games to make me say the opposite. Actually just get blocked for being an unserious bad faith poster.
By everyone do you mean in the globe, or is everyone limited to America.