Comments:Hackers attack Church of Scientology website

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Mis-relation to 4chan

Insurgency wiki is not a spinoff of 4chan. Don't just try to mention 4chan in it without direct relation. Insurgency wiki, is as its name is, it's a wiki for insurgency.

What the hell is 4chan? Ebaums did it.

Down with Scientology

they are fanatical scum look at tom cruise he is brainwashed wtf is wrong wtih him lol17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)66.69.219.50

DOWN WITH SCIENTOLOGY !!!3

The power of collaboration

Here you can see what just a few communities can do together, it's getting a little scary if you ask me. 84.84.132.105 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article reads a lot like a group trying to piggyback on a current event (the Tom Cruise videos) with a common DDoS attack and using Wikinews as their press agency. AndroidCat 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

@androidcat - or, perhaps, the power of anon coming down like the storm of hellfury that it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.6.244 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This started long before Wikinews was involved aka wrote the story. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) "published" the article, though I've been working on it, and I defer to his judgment. Wilhelm 08:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

I admit that some of the early Scientology vs. Internet conflicts lacked hard sources too [1], but that was expected back when Mosaic was the browser of choice... :) AndroidCat 08:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as more sources develop (as long as it's not too long from now) they will be added to the article. Wilhelm 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

How did this turn yellow exactly? Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• How did what turn yellow? Wilhelm 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Anon non sequitur comments

LOL, anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.121.42 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Chanology is not allowed. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.186.6 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I love U anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.161.68 (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Budapest Times

• Church of Scientology website being attacked by hackers - Most interesting. Wilhelm 12:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

WOOHOO!

ebaumsworld finally done it!

That's to you scientology

ebaumsworld--213.42.21.53 13:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• watch yourself Anonymous1138

Very effective hack job...

I am so curious to see what comes of this, no website of any significants I know of has ever been effectively "shut down".

What if... could the site be down for the count?? Not likely, but what if it is KOed? And again every second round? Effectively getting ass kicked with it's "lights knocked out" repeatedly? Hm? Hmmm...Curious. High time for Scientology to stop acting like Bullies anyway. Lest someone finds that proverbial "... nine foot board fence". Jargon Scientologist and LRH refers to in a story told in His 'An Introduction To Scientology Ethics' book, [2] where on, as a young Hubbard, by climbing up top "a nine foot board fence" and waiting to pounce jumps feet first with a flurry of knuckles to beat up the biggest bullies who were giving the younger school mates at that time a hard time, thus "making the entire area safe again" for everyone. That said, I'm not sure who the "bully" is and who is walking away/around with a "black eye" The Church? Tom? ... Too early to say as dust settles. It is a sure bet rag-author/tabloid-journalist Andrew Mortin is neither bully or foe, a stupid simple Third Party rather,(see The Third Party Law via link above)He is so stupid He it is much more likely Mortin couldn't even climb a nine foot fence with any dexterity. It is more likely, as you can just imagine, slips, falls and castrates himself. Going over the top stays mostly ignored. As He should be. A bloody goof. --Anton 13:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not that unusual. You just don't hear about it that often. (its easier to launch a dos attack against a smaller site then a larger site). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i herd

I herd it was Ebaumsworld

i herd they did it for the lulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.133.151 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon just owned those naabz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.53.129 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hacking doesn't help

Hello. I'm one of the posters to alt.religion.scientology, Operation Clambake and the Ex-Scio message boards that have expressed disapproval of this. I'm not anonymous, posting under my real name there and on Wikipedia.

Critics of the Church of Scientology have been active on the Internet since 1995, and we have had a fair measure of success. It takes time and a lot of behind the scenes effort to oppose determined fanatics. An anarchist internet community attacking the cult for a few days is going to make no difference whatsoever, on the contrary it will give the cult a propaganda coup. There will be claims that our activities encourage religious bigotry and hatred against the 'Scientology religion'.

Ironically criticism of the cult on the Internet took off in 1996 when the cult tried to shut down alt.religion.scientology. The Usenet community stood by us then and has since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.180.131 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, we do not want the Church of Scientology's websites hacked or removed. They have as much right to be there as our sites. Freedom of speech is all about defending the rights of those you detest to oppose you, not about fighting for your own rights and ignoring those of others.

We disown these people. We have no reason to suppose they are not sincere, but they are not helping.
- Hartley Patterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.180.131 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• To Hartley Patterson -- This is not the best site to complain about this sort of thing, though of course you are free to make your comments. Most of us here at Wikinews (though I can't vouch for all the other anon-ips) mainly spend our time here writing articles about events as they happen. Not sure where else you could post your comments where those active in this incident would read them, perhaps Slashdot or somewhere else like that? Wilhelm 15:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Sorry to confuse you - the article is fine, it's the hackers I'm annoyed about. You've made the critics views clear enough I think. --Hartley Patterson 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• But why do nothing when you can at least piss them off?

Anonymous1138 —Preceding comment was added at 18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Beyond that point, it would seem that for many the time has come to fight fire with fire. They designate people as fair game, as suppressive persons, and harass and persecute them, abridging their basic human rights as outlined by the United Nations. Even internally, they've exploited and even killed their own believers by following their belief system, and they've done this globally, from Queensland to Germany to the United States. They are, as debunkers have know for years, some of the openly litigious, dangerous cults to have ever taken root on this planet, and until this day they have faced no opponent who was willing to turn the tables on them, mainly because there has been no previous opponent with the numbers, skills and resources to fight them in the same fashion they take on those designated as fair game/suppressive persons. However, they've brought their censorship and attack on free speech to people who literally believe in said right to free speech above all else, to people who have an absolute sense of Justice, so they have sealed their own fates. While we are thankful to the anti-cultists and debunkers who came before us and who have provided us with a wealth of information, it is time for their charade to end. They've had countless chances to come clean, work with the bounds of the law and to respect human rights. They've continued on their warped path instead. As the Old Testament would say, an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth.

—208.53.147.24 07:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Now is the time

This is the explosive climax of the scientology vs the internet war.

they will fall.

they will give in.

we are anon, we are legion.

On the planet Teegeeak born and raised in Volcanoes is where my Thetans spent most of their days, Being overpopulated and cool and all watching some brainwashing movies outside of DC8 making school Till a couple of Psychiatrists who were up to no good, started freezing aliens in my neighborhood, I got in one little explosion and my Overlord Got scared and said "your moving with the homospaiens on Earth, that planet with air" So I floated toward home but when I came near the Soul Catching devices trapped me like Ghostbuster gear. If anything I could say the in-flight movie was rare but I thought "nah forget it, Yo Xenu to to Earth if you care" I looked at my fleshy prison and I was finally there to sit on my throne as the Prince of the beasts with body hair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.242.186 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... Fresh Prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.236.56 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology

4chan does not allow /i/nvasion. In fact as I watched some proboards that were assembling this raid one or two said they posted it on a chan and got banned for it. Newgrounds used to have an invasion board long ago so they might have helped but the accredited attacker in all the youtube comments and small independent attack forums was Ebaumsworld.

very interesting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.132.34.60 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I read in a number of places that the plan was to say that Ebaumsworld was the "accredited attacker"... AndroidCat 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt Ebaumsworld have been saying that to deflect attention from themselves.

4chan are going to pull another "Fort Longcat" ban wave again... --212.2.181.13 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• How do you know this? Do you have a source of some kind? Wilhelm 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

This Ain't Hacking, Toto

This is not a hack; they are called script kiddies. The original lamer, sorry, I mean poster, contributes to giving hackers a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.141.81 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Moar liek...

"Hackers on steroids!" The "Internet Hate Machine" strikes again. ;) I'm surprised there's so many comments, hell, I think this is more then the time we reported on the Fox News website attack. --TUFKAAP 01:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We are the Future.

Universal connectivity is leading to the erosion of long held factional ideologies and conceptions of property. There is no sympathy for the willful ignorance of the faithful. There is no tolerance for the proselytizers or the evangelists. Those who turn away from truth are ridiculed. Those who attempt to hide truth are defeated. Those who attempt to distort truth are destroyed. The Church of Scientology was not the first. They won't be the last. The internet is now self-regulating. There is no law. There is only us.

All you anons and your comments here...

I must say that all you anon posters and your comments here are really funny. Thanks for making me laugh and brightening up my day a bit. Wilhelm 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

These script kiddies are fucking losers, morons, Republicans

Fredric Rice here, long time a.r.s newsgroup participant and a founding member of the ARSCC (wdne.)

This is fucking outright stupid. What are you, Republicans?

The Scientology crime syndicate is going down by inches thanks to the Internet and thanks to the crime syndicate's core criminals -- Helena Kobrin, Kendrick Moxon, Eliot Abelson (of the Gambino crime family fame) Ava P. and, of course, the frothingly insane Scientology kook rantings of Tom Cruise, Kirsty Alley, and the other remaining Scientology customers who are showing the world once again what happens to people who purchase too much Scientology.

This script kiddy fuckingly stupid assault against the crime syndicate's web site not only doesn't stop the criminal enterprise from rooking and swindleing "raw meat" prospective customers, it gives the criminal enterprise (finally) a legitimate excuse to proclaimng that they're "victims of terrorism" and no end of the crime syndicate's fraudulent accusations which they employ to try to pretetend they're some how a religion.

These stupid fucks attacking the crime syndicate's web servers need to be beaten, dragged off to prison, and get repeatedly ass raped by Tom Cruise and David Miscaviage until they agree to grow up and stop giving the crime syndicate everything they could have hoped for (short of their money.)

Good fucking grief.

My opinions only and only my opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.196.158 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

unwarranted self-importance. also, tl;dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.62.86 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never forget, never forgive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.26.8 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU XENU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.27 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS SCIENTOLOGY'S CLOSED DUE TO THETANS

I don't approve

If you look here you'll see the folks from a.r.s. don't think much of the coverage. Perhaps some of them should pass their email addresses on to scoop@wikinewsie.org to get quotes from them for future articles.

I agree totally with the comments that this is the wrong way to go about it. Ridicule is far more effective and you can't ridicule something you can't see. That was why the CoS was so keen to see the Cruise video offline. I watched it and conclude Scientology teaches you to babble incoherently.

On the other hand, Ebaumsworld obviously teaches you to be a better script kiddie. This wasn't "hackers", "Internet idiots" yes.

Simple really. Denying someone the right to speech is also denying them the right to make a fool of themselves. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again, see my comment on the talkpage for the article. It was very likely not anything at all to do with Ebaumsworld. It would certainly be nice to get some quotes from the a.r.s folks directly - but you can always take a quote straight from the newsgroup postings - provided you don't accidentally quote a Office of Special Affairs agent. Wilhelm 10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not forgive. We do not forget. We are legion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.174.232 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rules 1 and 2 also 4chan had nothing to do with this hack it was other groups on a /I/ wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.248.3 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• At this point ARS looks like the people supporting the Clinton campaign. Conventional, old, and bitter about being forced to pass the torch to a (more effective, more savvy) next generation. Anonymous would, I'm certain, prefer to have the support of all anti-Scientology advocates. But with or without approval, the war will, doubtless, go forward. There is a very important comment from the preceding post. "you can't ridicule something you can't see." Which is precisely why Anonymous is doing what they're doing. It is the goal of the Scientologists to hide this information from the public. Anonymous will destroy their communications, disrupt their inner workings.. and steal their data. We've already seen this. If they have any other "crazy videos" they would be wise to delete them and destroy the hard drives that stored them. Anonymous is everywhere, and they do have the ability and the willpower to conduct "IRL operations." Also, the "Church" has apparently posted a $5000 reward for information on any of these Anonymous raiders. However, it's hard for them to get that message to the world.. because the site which they used to post this information disappeared within minutes. And the email which they provided for "tips" was vandalised, spammed, and possibly compromised. Enjoy!

pwnd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.23.238 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no information about Scientology on it's homepage, apart from common knowledge (Dianetics, LRH, CoS locations) but nothing about what Scientology actually is. You have to pay them extortiate (literally) sums of money to get information that has, thankfully, been put up elsewhere. It shows that Scientology is nothing but a scam, a money-making exercise that has been going on too long. It has, and does, do terrible things, lies, and uses tactics that no other group would dare in today's society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.197.246 (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good.

Scientology, the cult of narrow minded, brainwashing, self imposed saviors of the world. Based on pure propaganda, and their ability to attract Hollywood's morons. Their following of ignorance should be despised on the internet, as it is a place of knowledge, a place where you can argue about anything, with anyone, and sound smart via a quick read through on the subjects Wikipedia page. Not only do I think it's hilarious that their site got taken down I think its great that hackers are there to take them down a peg, and not submit to the censorship of one of their followers moronic acts. The video should stay, hell it should be featured just to show the cerebral black hole that is Scientology.

-Johnonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.104.129 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The ARSCC isn't difficult to contact

The long-time ARSCC people aren't difficult to contact. I'm at frice@skeptictank.org and overwhelmingly I oppose this stupid script kiddy nonsense. We see in the mainstream media that just as the ARSCC predicted, the MSM is spinning this scriptie attack as an attack against a religion. Tory reported in a.r.s that she saw Channel 9 news depict it as an assault against free speech. Good fucking grief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.142.146 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that their site just couldn't take the extra visits. They could indeed have been legit visits and their server just couldn't take the increased traffic. Or it could have been a Denial of Service attack. There's no way to prove it either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodic zodiac (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Website

Honestly, I think that their site just couldn't take the extra visits. They could indeed have been legit visits and their server just couldn't take the increased traffic. Or it could have been a Denial of Service attack. There's no way to prove it either way. Why are they so quick to blame hackers when it could've just been their OWN DAMN STUPIDITY?

I don't care what Scientologist's believe. I just have a problem with their actions against anyone who protests them. People protest the Catholic church but do they brainwash people, extort money from them, blackmail, force women to have abortions, try to invade national governments? NO! Yes, the Vatican is technically it's own country and is run by the pope of the Catholic church, but that doesn't count.

Anonymous

We are anonymous. We fight the Church of Scientology because it is an evil organization. On Febuary the tenth, we opened the public eye to the truth, the truth that the CoS is a cult based on money and science-fiction.

We will rise again on the 15th of March, the birthdate of Scientology's founder, to protest again.

Beware the Ides of March. We are Anonymous. We do not forgive. And now, no one will ever forget.

3/15/08.

Expect us.

---Anonymous

—71.255.190.151 14:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "generaattori johtopäätös johde..."

generaattori johtopäätös johdetaan iankaikkisen aavistus 0 poistaa vaalimiseen william tiedettä co aamupalaa tiedosta keltaisen pohdiskella basisti bakteeri banaani batman —91.152.228.94 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)