I wonder how Antisec or LulzSec are supposed to bring about change. The interviewee talks about educating and changing people to fight corruption and abuse, but I'm not sure that is happening. For example, look at his involvement in the Tunisian revolution. He talked about disrupting the Tunesian government by defacing the prime ministers website. Did that actually help the Tunisians? I'm under the impression that the hard work got done by the protesters on the street, triggered by Mohamed Bouazizi when he burned himself.
I think it's not that different in democratic countries. Change comes about when enough people demand it and put pressure on their representatives. People have to be motivated to work together in large groups, since three letters demanding the same thing won't impress anyone, but a few thousand might. The work of lobbyists has to be countered, corruption has to be documented and brought to court, where hard evidence is a necessity. It takes lot of very demanding, hard work, without any direct gratification for a long time.
LulzSec/Antisec/Anonymous do nothing to help with that work. Instead, I fear that their actions will be used by politicians like Sarkozy to effect a policy of stronger internet regulation. In the end, these hacker groups might even do harm.
I strongly suggest you listen to the BBC Reith Lectures on at the moment, with Aung San Suu Kyi. It's a common fallacy that change comes through the mood of the people. It's only true when those in control of the guns (literally) decide to concede and pass power, accepting the will of the people.
We can see the same going on on Libya at the moment, as in Burma before - Libya will only be free once Muammar Gaddafi is gone, as until then he has shown that he can, and will oppose the people using violence. The only reason the campaign is still going on there, is because of an armed insurgency, backed by and working in conjunction with NATO armed forces.
Were it not for this, we'd have seen a similar situation to Burma, with the uprising crushed, and the descent of the protesters having to become non-violent and take decades to come to fruition, if ever.
It's complicated but I think he's right. What it does is it raises awareness - especially amongst younger crowd that is more interested in vandalism than political activism. In a way this is a gateway into the whole privacy/security/activist culture.
It will bring many young people over to the dark side, where they will slowly start learning about events and people participating and sacrificing for joint causes.
And many of these young, rebellious people are tomorrows leaders. Who may through sheer vandalism and rebellion, gain their first cause.
Personally I feel that you're being a bit too optimistic. LulzSec was much louder about the fact they did it for the 'lulz' rather than for any noble agenda. Encouraging people to log in to random people's FB account and ruin their relationships serves no purpose. Interestingly enough @Anon_central recently tweeted a qualification about their supporters (which has a great overlap with LulzSec), which to me shows that you're being too optimistic [1]. Especially considering that Anon is supposed to be more ethical compared to LulzSec..
Oh I don't think they are some kind of Interwebz Mother Theresa incarnate, they most obviously are not. And indeed the question of are their deeds more positive than negative in net appears not to be in their favor.
However if I retort to D&D classification. Nowadays Lawful Good can hardly achieve anything meaningful without tripping over themselves.
If general tech community is Chaotic Good. The Anon seem to be Chaotic Neutral, LulzSec appear to be Neutral Neutral (or True Neutral).
But that does not mean that no good can come of their actions. Its just more unpredictable. Which may be good - since the opressors cannot fight an enemy without agenda.
What you just did, in my country, is a rather serious fellony, and I'm struggling to see your point.
(EDIT: though I'm still struggling to see the point of the parent comment, the above was in response to a slightly different phrasing that might've gotten the worst of me. At any rate, I don't wish to persue this dicussion any further.)
Brazil. Without trial or hard evidence, you're not supposed to associate people of being that criminal persona. That'd be vexatious litigation and libel (or slander, or defamation — English is not my first language, I'm not sure which word is the appropriate one here).
But don't read it like me pointing at you and saying "in Brazil you'd get your arse fined for that!" Read it as: I was taught to believe that what you just did is very serious and so I'm trying to see the relevance of your comment.
If you think you have hard evidence that you know who commited a fellony, go tip the police. I wouldn't in good faith want to attach that much stigma to someone's name in a public forum when there's a risk, a real chance I might be wrong.
You've still left it up - in the UK that would be slanderous - and I do not feel this is the place for such gossip and name calling.
If that is his correct details - fine, but if not you are messing with someone's life and I don't really understand why you are doing that? If you went out and tracked this guy down, fair enough, but you are just repeating gossip.
Can you let me know what you planned to achieve with this?
There is a non-zero probability that you are wrong, and I don't see anywhere that you have demonstrated a willingness to take responsibility in the case that you are.
I was more impressed with Khalid who went to Egypt and faced the bullets. Breaking into web sites, exposing passwords, is like 'pirate radio' in that its relatively low risk for the participants.
I appreciate that you can't believe Sony or someone who says "we'll keep your data safe" but I have to believe there are better ways to get that information out without all the collateral damage. I continue to hope that folks find a way to elevate the discussion without the theatrics.
Tank man in Tianamen Square changed the world forever. But it wasn't the action itself that changed things but what he inspired in others.
The biggest threat to our world today isn't any single dictatorship or government. It is the corrupt intertwining of financial and political power. When corruption is revealed it inspires action in others.
This is the new frontier of activism. Physical protest is action on the ground that can only accomplish so much without the air support of information warfare.
How did Tank Man change the world forever?? Here in China, hardly anybody has ever seen the picture or heard of him. Unfortunately, he seems to be just a good campaigning picture in the West.
He changed how the West perceived China forever. He might not have changed things in China itself, but that picture has helped influence foreign policy ever since.
It raised the profile of human rights abuses in China, along with the whole Tiananmen Square incident, which has been on the agenda of every Western government since.
Yes, as I say, the photo is great for campaigning.
Only a few years later, half a million people was massacred with knifes(!) in Rhuanda, and nobody in the West really cared. So, the photo didn't really change anything. Its just good to lobby against China.
And talking about the "Tiananmen Masacre", only 20 years before that, the same thing happened in Mexico, and the West had no problem celebrating the Olympic Games a week(!) later, only 1 Kilometer(!) away from the place of the crime. The Mexican Gov't of the time used Snipers instead of tanks, though. Look up "Massacre of Tlatelolco".
Ironically, human rights abuses at that time where actually declining, having seen a peak towards the end of the Mao regime.
I don't see why this deserves the drive-by downvotes. I just think it's bullshit for calling people out for not doing "enough" when they are doing far more than the vast majority.
Becuase neither of you have any idea what members of your audience are doing in support of their ideals. It borders on ad hominem to suggest that Lulzsec has done more in support of their ideals than I have.
Perhaps the difference is subtle. Members of the Air Forces have been known to take abuse for being 'above' the fight. Once they blow up a building its really up to troops on the ground to finish the fight.
Similarly with the Arab spring, while it is undoubtedly helpful to disrupt the Government's use of and interference in , the Internet, it's the people who are willing to stand up and say "Here is the new way to run our country and I am willing to give my life to that ideal." who impress me more.
Just like it is more impressive (or makes more of an impact on me) when someone in the US chooses to actually serve in Government to fix it, or invests their time and energies in revitalizing the institutions that allow it to change to the will of the people.
In the original article Sabu states "When Tunisia filtered off its internet from the world, it was the Tunisians who came online using dial-up and literally allowed us to use their connections to tunnel through to re-deface the prime minister's websites. It was the most impressive thing I've seen: a revolution coinciding both physically and online. It was the first time I had proof that what Anonymous was doing was real and it was working."
I may be too old or too out of touch to appreciate how significant 'defacing the prime minister's website' was to the overall effort. When Khalid went to Egypt and stood in the square and rallied people to support the overthrowing of the corrupt government there I thought, "Here is a guy who is willing to put his life on the line for a cause he believes in." And I felt a great deal of respect for that. When Sabu mentions how great is was that Tunisians created dialup gateways that subverted the government infrastructure and they went in and scribbled on the Prime Minister's website, it just wasn't very impressive to me.
New Scientist has a thriving and coherent Tech element. Sabu's motivations may be heavily political but the purpose of the interview is to provide a direct insight into one of the key members of LulSec and help people understand that their motivations aren't exclusively 'for the lulz'.
Regardless of Sabu's motivation, I am confident that a huge percentage of New Scientist readers will find the article fascinating and thought provoking as I certainly did.
I gave a lot more credence to the article having read it on New Scientist as opposed to what my opinion may be if the same interview was published on Cracked or Fox News.
How does breaking into private systems and releasing customers personal information expose abuse and corruption or promote human rights?
Does Sony commit human rights atrocities I am not aware of?
The exposed poor security in select system, perhaps. Does that amount to abuse, corruption or human rights violations? Hardly, irresponsibility at worst.
I think that the point is, because they did it, someone else could - they released the info so people could change their passwords, as opposed to using that information for nefarious purposes. It's quite common for companies as large as Sony to simply ignore things like this until they become a problem. So they're making it a problem, but one that is transparent.
"they released the info so people could change their passwords"
They didn't need to release it for people to change their passwords. Wouldn't proving they compromised the database have be enough? Why does releasing innocent people's information constitute some kind of act of heroism? They did use it for nefarious purposes. They used it for their own personal gain (media/hype/pleasure/whatever). Don't be fooled into thinking they some how did this with your best interest at heart. Not having your info released was what was in your best interest.
They are no more transparent about their operations then Sony is. I find it hard to take people who preach about transparency well wearing the mask of anonymity seriously.
To hold these kids up as an example of "social justice" or some kind of "social movement" or even "security movement" is ludicrous. They are criminals. The only direct benefit of their actions was their own recognition, something the community seemed all too willing to give them.
You really think Sony is now going to be more open about their security practices? Dream on space cadet.
The interviewer should have asked what he thought of Stuxnet.
I am very curious to hear what these 'hacktivists' think of white hats in the military and how they will try to weasel their way around an answer that justifies such military action.
Sabu has already called private-sector white hats "terrorists" when he launched AntiSec, so military white hats don't have much of a chance of gaining his approval.
He seems to be the empty rebel with an appeal for the rhetoric of early 20th-century anarchists and mid-century Leninists but no coherent ideology to back it up. His political motivation is all about "fighting the power" as the old phrase goes. I doubt he considers the US military as being capable of doing good, since it exists to protect the wealthy and their interests. He would see Stuxnet as an act of oppression against the freedom of the people of Iran. If Iran had developed the same virus to sabotage a US nuke plant used for building weapons, he would be for it.
> "Disrupt the government of Tunisia," they said, and we did. We infiltrated the prime minister's site and defaced it externally.
This is about as "disruptive" as smearing "penis" on a Tunisian government building but I love how they sell off their website "hacks" as amazing and courageous acts of human rights.
> I mean, we're talking about the potential of crashing stocks or spreading damaging rumours.
Well, Assange is way ahead of you with the Bank of America shenanigans...
While things like this don't disrupt the functioning of most of the people in the government, it definitely has a fairly significant impact on the mental state of the senior leadership of many organizations.
Having your public website defaced and on the news puts you in the spotlight. It also pushes senior leadership, who generally dont understand what it means, into thinking that actual operational systems could just as easily be destroyed or messed with ("what else could they do").
Don't underestimate the importance and impact of a technical PSYOP against non-technical folks. If nothing else, I bet it provided a 1-2 hour distraction from 'work' for the senior leadership involved.
He has not been arrested due to rape charges, to begin with, because said charges have not been brought up. That said, had he been arrested, he couldn't have refused to show up for any hearings.
My English is perhaps not 100% when it comes to describing legal matters like this, so I'll just quote Wikipedia to clarify what I was trying to say.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange :
On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into two sexual encounters involving Assange. Assange has said allegations of wrongdoing are "without basis", describing all the sexual encounters as consensual. In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning. Assange appealed the EAW, and a District Judge (Magistrate's Court) in England ruled that Assange should be extradited. Assange has appealed the extradition decision.
I think it's not that different in democratic countries. Change comes about when enough people demand it and put pressure on their representatives. People have to be motivated to work together in large groups, since three letters demanding the same thing won't impress anyone, but a few thousand might. The work of lobbyists has to be countered, corruption has to be documented and brought to court, where hard evidence is a necessity. It takes lot of very demanding, hard work, without any direct gratification for a long time.
LulzSec/Antisec/Anonymous do nothing to help with that work. Instead, I fear that their actions will be used by politicians like Sarkozy to effect a policy of stronger internet regulation. In the end, these hacker groups might even do harm.