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.
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.