Who Hacked the Violence Policy Center's Web Site?

Excerpts from a News Release from the Violence Policy Center

VPC Web Site Decimated by Pro-Gun Hacker
U.S. Newswire
19 Jun 14:30
VPC Web Site Decimated by Pro-Gun Hacker
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200, ext. 105
"WASHINGTON, June 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- This morning, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) learned that its Online Resource Center web site, www.vpc.org, was completely erased by a pro-gun hacker who replaced the site with one featuring a bomb, skull and crossbones, obscenities, and links to pro-gun web sites, including the National Rifle Association." [How do they know it was a pro-gun hacker and not a rogue gun control supporter?]
Executive Director Josh Sugarmann claims to have reported the incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If someone really did hack their Web site, this is 100 percent appropriate because this sort of thing has no place on the Internet-- whether it's done by a misguided gun rights supporter or a rogue gun control supporter who wants to make the pro-Second Amendment side look bad. I reported it, incidentally, to the site's host, Netfirms.com, in case Mr. Sugarmann didn't. That might help them check their server logs to see who broke in, or logged in, Friday morning. (I'm far from an expert on Net security-- more Dr. Watson than Mr. Holmes-- but they might log the IP address of anyone who enters to change a Web site. This might help identify the vandal's service provider.)
The news release continues, "The complete destruction of the VPC's Online Resource Center web site is the latest example of the extremism of the pro-gun fringe. ... This destruction of property and erasure of information is a gauge of the fear and desperation of pro-gunners and a measure of the lengths to which they will go.... The gun lobby promises us that their supporters are "law-abiding citizens." This act of Internet terrorism proves that such claims are hollow." [Again, Mr. Sugarmann, wouldn't it be embarrassing if the FBI (if you really did contact them) traces this to a rogue gun control supporter?]

Here is what the alleged vandal put at www.vpc.org

The PAGE INFO shows that the alleged vandalism took place on Friday, June 16, a little after 10:00 EST
Note: Per the VPC, the following image "belongs" to the vandal. If he/she wishes to complain about my posting it, he/she is welcome to expose his/her identity.
[Netfirms.com banner ad went here]


If you take my guns , I still have my computer. VPC just got shot in the head. Its really funny how this site tried to pose as an objective source when it is the same as handguncontrol.org. I think its kind of fucking stupid actually. - D0main Hijax

Mail

 



I have seen the "Fight It" image before. The vandal apparently copied (pirated?) it and changed it. The first frame was not "Government beats on citizens," it was a criminal being arrested. The third frame, "Dissidents rot in jail" was the criminal in jail. The fourth frame, of the joyful taxpayer giving up his money, was the criminal getting his parole notice; that's why he's happy. (The "parole notice" is excised from the paper he's holding.) The man in the fifth frame is not an FBI agent, he is the criminal going out to commit more crimes.

Is this black propaganda?

If sides A and B are at war, black propaganda is propaganda that Side A writes, but makes it look like it came from Side B. For example, during the Second World War, the Japanese (Side A) dropped "venereal disease prevention" leaflets that were supposedly signed by the U.S. Army (Side B) on the Filipinos. The leaflets warned American soldiers to avoid contact with the "promiscuous" Filipino women. The Japanese obviously wanted to make Filipinos angry at the Americans to reduce Filipino-American cooperation.

If so, it isn't even good black propaganda

The alleged vandal wrote, "If you take my guns , I still have my computer. VPC just got shot in the head."

Remember the Maine

Suppose a battleship, the U.S.S. Maine, is sitting in Havana in 1898. Let's say the U.S. symbolizes the Violence Policy Center, and Spain symbolizes the pro-Second Amendment side. Mr./Ms. X attaches a limpet mine to the battleship's hull and detonates it, which sets off the ship's ammunition supply, kills a couple of hundred American sailors, and sinks the ship. Mr./Ms. X then puts a Spanish flag (see the links to the NRA and so on above) on the wreck's site. Whose side do YOU think Mr./Ms. X is on?

  1. Spain
  2. Cuban revolutionaries who want the U.S. to declare war on Spain
  3. Ruthless associates of the Yellow Press (sensationalistic newspapers) who will sell more papers if there is a war
  4. Ruthless Yankee imperialists who want to invade Cuba (and the Philippines) and need an excuse
It ain't #1, that's for sure. Actually, deteriorating ammunition was the most likely cause of the Maine explosion; several battleships were sunk that way during the First World War, with no enemy ships or submarines involved. (No one put a Spanish flag on the Maine wreck either, I put that in to symbolize the progun links the alleged hacker added.)

And don't forget the Lusitania

The English ship Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat during the First World War, and many Americans who were aboard were killed. This enraged the United States and helped push us toward war with Germany. My European history book (A History of Modern Europe) says the Lusitania may well have been carrying munitions, which made her a legitimate military target. Germany even published warnings in the U.S. that urged Americans not to get on the ship. If Lusitania carried munitions, why did the English allow any civilians on board? Was it in Britain's interest to get the ship sunk with hundreds of American citizens aboard? Well, it was certainly in the VPC's interest to get its Web site "torpedoed" by an unknown Internet vandal, because it can make propaganda (with reckless disregard for the truth, as usual) about gun rights supporters.

Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising

The Soviet Union needs an excuse to start a war with NATO. Soviet agents detonate a bomb that kills dozens of Russian children, and a junior Politburo member was meant to be killed to make it look even better. (He escapes by luck.)

Why is the vandalized page still up four days later?

Sugarmann says the site was hacked in the morning on June 19. (The PAGE INFO function of Netscape Communicator says it was changed in the morning on June 16.) The allegedly vandalized page is still online in the evening on June 20! Is it in the VPC's interests to wave the bloody shirt to attract gullible sponsors and supporters to its cause, since it can't get them any other way?

Who Threatened Rosie O'Donnell?

When Rosie O'Donnell says, "You aren't allowed to own a gun and, if you do, I think you should go to jail," she means exactly that. You aren't allowed to own a gun. She, or her private security guard, is allowed to own a gun because she is a rich celebrity. The limousine liberals, the lords of the manor, the wealthy elite, are allowed to have guns, bodyguards, and gated communities because their lives are more important than yours. Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan is apparently allowed to shoot a trespasser with an unregistered handgun because he, like medieval lords of the manor, has the right to shoot or hang any peasants who poach or trespass on his land. You try shooting someone who is committing a nonviolent misdemeanor in Washington DC and see what happens to you. Similarly, as the rich-boy heir of a wealthy man (Joe Kennedy), Ted "A Blonde in Every Pond" Kennedy's bodyguard is allowed to escape prosecution for carrying a machine gun in Washington, DC. You try it and see what happens to you.
Rosie O'Donnell's supporters say she needs the security guard because a gun rights supporter threatened her child. How do they know it was a gun rights supporter-- unless, of course, they were with the person when he/she made the threat-- assuming there was any threat made at all? Why couldn't it have been a rogue gun control supporter? It would be very easy for such a person-- like the Million Mom March participants who physically menaced and assaulted Second Amendment Sisters during the recent demonstrations by both organizations-- to "do the Cause a service" by making an anonymous threat to Rosie O'Donnell. Of course, physical threats by anyone have no place in our society but, if the truth were to come out, it's far more likely that a fervent Million Mom Marcher made the threat than an NRA member.

The Stentorian's Second Amendment Rights Page