<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Hack</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/hack/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Obama: Against Free Speech Before He Was For It</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/obama-against-free-speech-before-he-was-for-it/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-against-free-speech-before-he-was-for-it</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/obama-against-free-speech-before-he-was-for-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 05:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As long as Muslims aren’t offended, he’s a free speech champion.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: #0433ff;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gall.obama_.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247885" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gall.obama_-406x350.jpg" alt="gall.obama" width="302" height="260" /></a><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/12/19/sony-the-interview-hackers-gop/20635449/">As far as Barack Obama is concerned,</a></span> Sony was wrong to capitulate to threats from North Korean hackers and pull the movie <i>The Interview</i>. “I wish they had spoken to me first,” said the free speech champion. “I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”</p>
<p>Remember: this is the same man who <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly"><span style="color: #0433ff;">said this</span></a> at the United Nations on September 25, 2012.  “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”</p>
<p>Why did he say this? Because he was blaming a video about Muhammad for the murderous jihad attacks on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. In that same speech, he called the video “crude and disgusting” and said: “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.”</p>
<p>Yet this was just empty verbiage. Before he made that speech, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/white-house-innocence-of-_n_1885684.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">the Obama White House asked Google to remove the Muhammad video from YouTube</span></a>. In fact, this was one of the first things the White House did, even as the Benghazi jihad attack was still going on. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/white-house-contacted-youtube-during-benghazi-attack-darrell-issa-says/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">ABC News</span></a> reported that “a still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a &#8220;controversial video.”</p>
<p>And it didn’t just believe this – it acted upon this belief. An email circulated among Obama Administration officials while the attack was still going on, entitled, “Update on Response to actions – Libya,” stated: “White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video.”</p>
<p>So the first thing Obama did in response to the Benghazi jihad attack was move to restrict the freedom of speech, and protect Muslims from material that some of them found offensive. Google refused this preposterous and unconstitutional request on free speech grounds, although later a court ordered the video removed.</p>
<p>In those days, Obama never warned anyone not to “get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”</p>
<p>Indeed, the most ominous aspect of the Benghazi jihad attack for the long term health of the United States as a free society was the Obama Administration’s desire to blame it all on our freedom of speech. Obama’s declaration that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” was essentially a call for the U.S. to censor itself and voluntarily restrict our freedom of speech so as not to say anything that offends Muslims.</p>
<p>Yet restriction of the freedom of speech creates a protected class (whichever group cannot be criticized), thereby destroying the principle of equality of rights for all people before the law, and paves the way for tyranny by making it possible to criminalize dissent.</p>
<p>But now that a free speech case doesn’t have to do with outraged Muslims, Obama is suddenly a champion of free expression. This isn’t about endangering people, either: the North Koreans are just as capable of going on a bloody rampage as Islamic jihadists are.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, Obama shows a strange solicitude for the sensibilities of Muslims that he doesn’t appear interested in offering to the North Koreans. And as long as he opposes the freedom of speech in any context, his support for it in any other context rings hollow.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/obama-against-free-speech-before-he-was-for-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thought Criminals Arrested after London Horror</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/brits-arrested-for-internet-comments-after-london-horror/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brits-arrested-for-internet-comments-after-london-horror</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/brits-arrested-for-internet-comments-after-london-horror/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 04:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Bawer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[backlash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[killing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rigby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soldier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woolwich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=191459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The anti-Muslim "backlash" isn't quite what the Left would have us believe it is. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Soldier-Killed-in-London-624x3511.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-191468" alt="Soldier-Killed-in-London-624x351" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Soldier-Killed-in-London-624x3511-424x350.jpg" width="254" height="210" /></a>Ever since 9/11, every time some place or another on the planet has been struck by a major jihadist act, the mainstream media have reliably come out with stories about “backlash” against Muslims. Not accounts of actual backlash, mind you, but pieces in which various academics, public officials, Muslim leaders, and other sensitive souls have been described as wringing their hands over the dreaded possibility that some of us boorish infidels might respond to this latest action by going on the warpath against innocent Muslims. If these “backlash” articles have been such a staple of post-9/11 journalism, it&#8217;s obviously because they&#8217;ve offered the media an opportunity to focus not on the innumerable Muslim-on-infidel atrocities that have actually taken place but, rather, on hypothetical, and violent, infidel-on-Muslim responses – and thus to persist in casting Muslims in the role of victim, even while the bodies of those they have slaughtered in Islam&#8217;s name have yet to go cold.</p>
<p>Yet the fabled “backlash” has never really materialized –  not, at least, on anything remotely resembling the scale that the media have repeatedly predicted. On the contrary, with a very small number of minor, isolated exceptions, people in the non-Muslim world have routinely responded to Muslim violence with civilized restraint. Indeed, it&#8217;s hard to think of anything that more dramatically reflects the difference between the Islamic and Western cultures than the contrast between the brutality and scale of the jihadist attacks on the West in recent years and the extraordinarily low level and modest scale of actions taken against Muslim targets in revenge. This refusal of non-Muslims to take an eye-for-an-eye approach in response to jihadist acts is a remarkable testament to the native tolerance of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims – and, indeed, to the black-and-white distinction between pretty much every other religion in the world and Islam, which, alone among major faiths, instructs its adherents to see offense everywhere and to respond even to the merest cartoon with murderous violence on a global scale.</p>
<p>Yet now, it seems, things have changed. In the aftermath of the the brutal slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby on a London street, the British media have finally had a few cases of real “backlash” to report on. Or so, at least, that country&#8217;s newspapers would have us believe. “Woolwich attack provokes anti-Muslim backlash across UK,” blared a <i>Telegraph </i><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10080300/Woolwich-attack-provokes-anti-Muslim-backlash-across-UK.html">headline</a>. “The murder of soldier Lee Rigby has provoked a backlash of anger across the UK,” the <i>Daily</i> <i>Mail</i> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330809/Lee-Rigby-death-11-people-UK-arrested-making-racist-anti-religious-comments-online-British-soldiers-death.html">reported</a>. “Woolwich murder sparks anti-Muslim backlash,” a headline at the BBC website <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664835">proclaimed</a>.</p>
<p>For all these references to a nationwide “backlash,” however, details were scarce. Newspapers provided particulars on only one genuinely serious-sounding offense. On Sunday, two men “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woolwich-backlash-two-arrested-after-grimsby-mosque-attack-8633335.html%20%20">hurled petrol bombs</a>” at a mosque in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. (The police, taking the crime seriously, apprehended the perpetrators without delay.) Although the <i>Independent</i> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woolwich-backlash-ten-attacks-on-mosques-since-murder-of-drummer-lee-rigby-8633594.html">maintained</a> on Tuesday that there had been no fewer than ten “Islamophobic attacks” on mosques since the Rigby killing, one searched in vain for specifics – which led one to wonder just what “attacks” meant in this context. (Bombs? Or slices of bacon tossed on the sidewalk?) “Fears that Muslim communities across the country are facing a sustained wave of attacks and intimidation,” began a <i>Guardian</i> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/28/woolwich-murder-200-islamophobic-incidences">article</a>, “have intensified after it emerged that almost 200 Islamophobic incidents had been reported since the murder of British soldier Drummer Lee Rigby.” What were all these “incidents”? The article didn&#8217;t say.</p>
<p>The <i>Mail </i>mentioned another “incident,” one in which two men had been charged with “religiously aggravated threatening behaviour” at a London fast-food joint. But, again, no details. (Had they pulled a knife on somebody? Or gotten a drop of mustard on a Koran?)</p>
<p>Stateside, the <i>New York Times, </i>which gave the Stockholm riots short shrift, found <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/world/europe/anti-muslim-threats-rise-in-britain-after-soldiers-killing.html?_r=0">space</a> to report the claim by Fiyaz Mughal, head of a group called Faith Matters, “that graffiti had been scrawled on mosques and Muslim-owned businesses and that women’s head scarves had been yanked off.” Assuming these charges were true (and there&#8217;s good reason not to immediately accept their veracity, given the inflationary accusations leveled on such occasions by the likes of CAIR), the conduct in question is most assuredly inappropriate – but, needless to say, hardly in a league with decapitation. (Curiously, while the <i>Times </i>article was headlined “Call for Calm after 3 New Arrests in British Soldier&#8217;s Death,” and was devoted mostly to those arrests, its <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/world/europe/anti-muslim-threats-rise-in-britain-after-soldiers-killing.html?_r=0">URL</a>, as if to reflect the <i>Times</i>&#8216;s real preoccupations, was about “anti-muslim-threats.”)</p>
<p>As it turned out, when the <i>Telegraph, Mail, </i>and innumerable smaller papers referred to a nationwide “backlash,” what they meant was not a wave of beatings, bombings, or anything like that. What they were talking about was, mostly, this: people around the United Kingdom had been exercising what they thought was their right to free speech by posting on Facebook and other social media comments that were critical of Islam. Period. And the British government – this is by far the most important part – was treating these speech acts as crimes<i>.</i> Why wasn&#8217;t <i>that</i> the headline – that British authorities were using the Rigby murder as an excuse not to finally take action against the countless Muslim “refugees,” “asylum seekers,” and so forth within its borders whom it has long known to be threats to public safety, but, rather, to clamp down on those few solid citizens who, in the wake of the murder, had dared to tweet the truth about the Religion of Peace?</p>
<p>But no: the British media were going along with the whole chilling business – reporting on criticism of Islam as if it was indeed a high crime, and reporting on the arrests of those who had engaged in such criticism as if arresting people for such acts were perfectly justifiable.</p>
<p>As of last Friday, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330809/Lee-Rigby-death-11-people-UK-arrested-making-racist-anti-religious-comments-online-British-soldiers-death.html">according</a> to the <i>Mail, </i>eleven persons had been picked up for anti-Muslim speech crimes. Among them were two Bristol men, aged 22 and 23, who had posted tweets “of an allegedly racist or anti-religious nature” and who had been taken into custody “under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred.” The <i>Mail </i>quoted a detective inspector as saying that the men&#8217;s tweets, which had been “directed against a section of our community,” were “completely unacceptable,” as they “cause&#8230;harm to our community.” The cop warned: “People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.”</p>
<p>He wasn&#8217;t alone in issuing such warnings. In connection with a similar arrest in Surrey, a police superintendent said: “Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress.” Another arrest, for posting an “offensive, indecent or menacing message” on Facebook, took place in Sussex. And another in Hampshire. And in what seemed to be related developments, the websites of several British newspapers, departing from their usual practice, blocked comments on articles related to the Rigby murder. Meanwhile, the English Defence League held a big march in London to protest both the murder and the Islamization of Britain that had made it possible. But where was the huge London rally of “moderate Muslims” condemning the murder? (Isn&#8217;t it interesting that almost nobody even bothers to ask that question anymore?)</p>
<p>On Monday, as if to remind everybody of the difference between “offensive”  statements and actual physical violence, three Muslim inmates in Full Sutton Prison <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/403128/Terror-unit-steps-in-as-Islamic-convicts-break-guard-s-jaw-after-pray-for-Lee-Rigby-plea?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+daily-express-uk-news+(Daily+Express+::+UK+Feed)%20">responded</a> to an ill-advised suggestion that they pray for Rigby by beating a guard within an inch of his life. The beating lasted five hours. One of the attackers called for his fellow inmates to join in a holy war. On the same day <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10082647/War-memorials-vandalised.html">came</a> the news that two war memorials in London had been defaced by unidentified vandals. And on Saturday, a Muslim convert, apparently inspired by the Rigby murder, stabbed a French soldier on the street of a Paris suburb.</p>
<p>It also emerged that at least one of the perpetrators of the Rigby killing, Michael Adebolajo, had been known to the British police for years – had, in fact, been arrested in Kenya in 2010 for joining a terrorist group, only to be <a href="http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1537820/kenya-freed-adebolajo-on-uk-advice-lawyer/?cs=12">freed</a> on the recommendation of the British High Commissioner. Although that intervention by the Brits was not surprising, given the disinclination of U.K. authorities to round up even its most egregious Muslim enemies, it was hard not to notice the stark contrast between those authorities&#8217; tolerance of bloodthirsty Islamic rhetoric within their borders (or sphere of influence) and the alacrity with which they&#8217;ve apprehended apparently peaceable citizens simply for telling the truth about Islam on Facebook or Twitter.</p>
<p>As the days went by, and the stories in the British papers about the Rigby murder and its aftermath gradually diminished in number and prominence, one thing lingered: the sad, newly intensified awareness that dhimmitude in Britain is growing apace and has become well-nigh reflexive. In other words, jihad (both hard and soft) is working like a charm. Are you old enough to remember the world before, say, the <i>Satanic Verses </i>fatwa? If so, can you imagine British police officials, way back then, ever making statements of the kind made in the past few days by those cops in Bristol and Surrey – statements warning that individuals making comments that cause “harm” or “distress” to Muslims will be subject to arrest and punishment? Such a thing would have been inconceivable in Churchill&#8217;s Britain, or Thatcher&#8217;s. The grim fact, alas, is that if the Rigby murder and its aftermath demonstrate anything, it&#8217;s that Islam is still very much on the march in Britain – and free speech increasingly in retreat.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/brits-arrested-for-internet-comments-after-london-horror/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>111</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones &#8211; WSJ.com</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-wsj-com/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-wsj-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-wsj-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurgents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence officials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intercept]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iranian-backed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[live video feeds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[militants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predator drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shelf software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shiite fighters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SkyGrabber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wsj]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=42362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON &#8212; Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations. Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON &#8212; Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.</p>
<p>Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes&#8217; systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber &#8212; available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet &#8212; to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read">Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones &#8211; WSJ.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-wsj-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 519/543 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 03:56:15 by W3 Total Cache -->