Cyber Attacks/Terrorism

Oh, it wasn't being secretly discussed by shady organization. It was secretly discussed (and attempted to be secretly passed) by... let's see... the US goverment (Obama approved!), European Union and Canada, to name a few

edited 4th Jun '11 3:12:49 PM by nzm1536

Hmm, yes, still not getting pass for whatever reason probably because people like their privacy (and Obama approved of some of those? Going to need a source). Meantime, if it actually does get passed, there's nothing stopping people from getting really freaking pissed at the new laws and then having the momentum to get them removed, because then people will actually give a damn. That's something hackers can't really seem to do, make people give a damn, probably because as a movement on the whole, they're unable to become one major force and instead are just a bunch of randomly rolling around balls hoping to hit a major chord.

You know that it wouldn't be easy to step back once such a big international treaty is established? And I agree, hackers are disorganized. The thing is, there aren't many common goals for all the hackers except of not letting the internet become controlled and censored

And they can't even agree on how to do that. Come on, they're hackers, they can deal with the idiots who are doing the stupid shit that's make everything more difficult. Now, if you don't mind me saying, removing this sort of stuff is neither difficult, not impossible, especially by US standard. If you've successfully pissed off enough people, they will keep coming and protesting. Example? Civil Rights Movement. Plus, you've got things called counter bills that can get to be really popular and repeal previous bills. You know, things that people can quickly respond with using large numbers because they're pissed that they can't use Google anymore.

The problem here is that the majority of people is unaware of further implications of proposed laws and the proponents handwave them with populism about fighting piracy and child porn. I've tried to convince some people who don't know internet beyond facebook and youtube and it obviously backfired because they simply don't understand it

Well, a appel to the human rights council would actually remove it in EU.....
But beyond that, ACTA is a good example on how idiotic the political process is setup. Because it is visible in contrast to those shady groups Usht reffers too :P

Then make it popular. You've got the right to sling mud and yell stupid shit that the public will get as much as the popularists do. You've only got strange people worming their way into your rights and privacy, watching every single thing you do. Shouldn't be that hard. More so, you don't have to understand the implications, you just have to express that it's bad. Go put that Charisma stat to use, it's what politics are for and it should be enough reason for you to get the other lazy, internet dwellers off their butts and actually into some action instead of fulfilling half of the stereotypes out there. Don't like the Patriot Act? Time to get really, really noisy and fight for your rights directly.

I don't give a fuck about Patriot Act TBH, too much shit in my country.

And again, it's not like we don't try to get heard. The problem is, for those who don't use the internet outside of social network, what we talk about is beyond comprehension. Try explaining someone who knows shit about the interwebz what would be wrong with being forced to use real name everywhere. Just try it

You'll get robbed blind by the internet banditos and they'll be able to track you down in real life and mug and rape you.

EDIT: Of course, this falls into "Why should they give a damn?".

edited 4th Jun '11 3:46:26 PM by Usht

It won't work as those people mostly use Facebook so that they put their rl name on the internet all the time

So yeah? Why should they care? We aren't measuring your intelligence score here, we're measuring your charisma score.

Well, I for one thinks Usht is being obvious to the fact he is advocating murder and heresy. :P

How about downfall of thousand internet communities and giant financial costs for every company that has business online but allows for using nicknames?

edited 4th Jun '11 3:50:13 PM by nzm1536

...she... I'm a girl, last I checked.

Anyway, last I checked, that won't result in the downfall of You Tube or Face Book, so you've still failed to make me care. Gotta any little chord or string in the people's heart that you can strike?

How about immortal censorship? Or invasion of privacy?

wrong thread

edited 4th Jun '11 3:54:37 PM by Signed

Nope, we don't care about that. Had it for 10 years, but we still manage to get by.

edited 4th Jun '11 3:55:11 PM by Enkufka

@Signed, lolwut now?

Anyway, nzm, now go demonize those points a bit, assign them to a group and go wild. Then make yourself some lemonade and see if it flies farther than hacking Sony repeatedly. Play your cards right and with a little luck and it'll hit people over the head.

I had multiple tabs open, and in another forum I was also chatting in, someone mistook a girl with a dude in her avatar as a guy because of her avatar...so I meant to say that a person's gender is usually opposite to his/her avatar's.

In conclusion....I support what they're doing to the FBI and other secretive government run organization, but I don't support them further attacking a recovering Sony and releasing personal infos out for the internet to grab.

edited 4th Jun '11 4:00:49 PM by Signed

We've tried it with ACTA. It will probably be repeated on next opportunity, but I still think ethical hacktivism is a good self-defense mechanism

edited 4th Jun '11 3:59:36 PM by nzm1536

Great, last I checked, ACTA has a site. Seems like a pretty blatant target to put up these sort of messages, but you're still likely to look like criminals and vandals without having a large amount of public support in the first place.

edited 4th Jun '11 4:10:02 PM by Usht

The option is to... well........ wait around for something terrible to happen.
( First they came and took the communists, I was not a communist, so I did not object
Then they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I did not object
Then they came for me, and they took me, for there was no one left to raise their voice for me)
The problem is that you have the people who care, and the sheeps. The sheeps will not object until we are in a police state, but then they will be to oppressed to even be able to resist.
I think cyber attacks is a really good thing, because it is protests, on the internet.

The problem is the people who start fires just to get attention, and instead convince the rest of the people that they're a bunch of pyromaniacs.

So I realize I sound like I'm against the hackers in this case. I'm not, but there's definitely smarter ways to go about this. The thing is, people need a face to see that embodies such movements. Martin Luther King, for example. Without that, you're effectively stuck. Anonymous is not a face, they're just a collection of individuals which the world thinks is made up of super criminals and fourteens olds jacking off, which isn't the best image ever. And it needs to be someone people won't hate, or at least be split down the center with like Geohot (I believe was how it was spelled). The point is, if this movement is ever to take off, it needs a face that will make it important to the public and then everything else can more easily follow since they will then have a unified measure of what is or is not an ethical hacktivist.

edited 4th Jun '11 4:12:50 PM by Usht

Some of it might be problematic as unified hacktivist ideology would be against the basic ideas of internet culture and hacking. I remember how Why We Protest tried to put on left-wing ideology which... didn't end well