vodka.cobra wrote: johnny_7713 wrote:
zmatt wrote:IMO groups like this are the first of a new breed of activists. It seems that nowadays the best way to get a message across is through hacktivism. If you look at how corporate most of the media is, they can pick and chose how to report on things and with the excuse of national security the government seems to be trying to tighten its grip on the citizens. The one place where individuals or small groups seem to still have thew upper hand is cyberspace where the government is woefully ignorant. Whether or not you agree with Lulzsec (they seem to be making a lot of enemies) I think we can rest better knowing that at least in one way we can still hold abusive corporations and governments responsible for their actions.
I disagree, there are plenty of activists that get their message out just fine, through both legal and illegal means that are not hacking. Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, anti-globalists every G20 summit, etc.
Also can we please stop pretending groups like Lulzsec are 'holding abusive corporations and governments responsible for their actions'. Stealing sensitive customer information or e-mail / password combos for porn sites, especially if you recommend plastering that information all over facebook, has absolutely nothing to do with holding anyone responsible for anything (other than holding people responsible for secretly visiting porn sites).
I gotta be honest here: Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, G20 Summits? None of those matter to me. I'm too self-absorbed to give a damn about their message, just like practically every other American. They aren't making waves. They can be dusted under the rug and ignored without consequence.
If you ignore hacktivists, you're likely to get all of your online endeavors compromised.
So there is definitely a difference between the two, even if it's merely a subjective one.
Its not about whether or not you can ignore them. Its about accomplishing shit. Greenpeace has proven that they CAN affect the political environment
. What have Lulzsec / hactivists done?
Hactivists are like Al Queda. You can't ignore them because Al Queda will literally blow shit up and kill you. But the political power of Al Queda is waning. Peaceful and non-destructive protests won, and the Middle-Eastern revolutions are proof of that. Even when Mubarak shut down the Internet, ordered his men to fire on peaceful protesters, and everything, he was unable to stop the wave of rebellion.
The only thing Lulzsec and Anonymous has accomplished is give Obama some ammo to use for his "Internet Kill Switch
" that he's proposing through Congress. The Military-Industrial Complex is gearing up for "Cyberwar
", a completely vague and unidentified term that will surely cost the Taxpayers billions of dollars without fully understanding wtf is going on.
Look at the political spectrum. Anonymous's political viewpoints have been completely ignored. Manning is still in prison waiting trial. Wikileaks has lost power as the primary source of leaks (You've got OpenLeaks, and other News Media have opened up their own leak sites that have less political garbage associated with their name) and Assange is under house-arrest. Amazon has proven to be an extremely effective web-host capable of standing up to a DDOS attack. The successful DDOS attacks against Mastercard and Paypal haven't tarnished their reputation. The only thing they have proven is that America is woefully unprepared for a "Cyber-attack", whatever the fuck that means
Really, Anonymous and Lulzsec has given political leverage to the wrong people. They have empowered the wasteful spending of the military-industrial complex and have damaged free-speech activists. They have legitimized the claim that the President needs more control over the Internet. This is NOT
the direction I'd like to see the country go towards.
That is why you need a group like Greenpeace, people who analyze the political spectrum, who focus on convincing the correct
people and focus the efforts of protesters. Just going out and randomly hacking people doesn't help (WTF? Hacking PBS to "fight the man" is ridiculous. Even if they disagree with PBS's message towards Wikileaks, attacking non-profit foundations with some of the most in-depth media reports is just retarded.)
Fortunately, it seems like Lulzsec understands this. Perhaps this is the direction they want to go towards. Truth be told, the online environment IS
unprepared for cybercrime and internet hacking. They have proven that America is extremely weak from this standpoint. This is probably their true message, and empowering the President (or maybe just Security Consultants) to do things might have been their point overall. (ie: Internet Kill Switch, Legitimize the funding towards US CyberCommand
, increase public awareness to the damages that hackers can
cause...). Lulzsec has never claims an actual political goal, they just claim they're in it for the lulz.
Long story short. There is a difference between intimidating people, and actually stepping towards political victory. Sure, you can't ignore people who intimidate you. But you probably won't cater towards their viewpoints.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.