The majority of the "hacking" going on by anonymous isn't even hacking. I know, it sounds kind of like Christians claiming the Westboro Baptist Church congregation aren't "real" Christians. If it is "real" hacking, then the term "hacking" has changed in the last 15 years. The "hacking" in recent news is primarily just running scripts and signing onto botnets, and that's part of the point to be made.
It doesn't take these ominous, spooky "hackers" to compromise so many systems, because the security utilized by these agencies (mastercard, visa, paypal, etc) is virtually non-existent. If we are to believe the press releases (note: I do not actually recommend trusting the press) this chicanery has been accomplished largely by 14 year-olds.
Centralized government requirements for security are WAAY behind what open-source independent collaboration has come up with for security.
Between bitcoin, Open-Transactions (by FellowTraveler *gasp* a pseudonymous individual, that's almost as bad as being Anonymous!), and the Loom network (https://loom.cc) the idea of "security" in the more traditional services (online banks, credit card services, and paypal) have been horribly shamed.
It also sheds greater light on the great security flaw of the internet itself. While there is great collaboration and a greater venue for free-speech than in past epochs, there is still a bottleneck in the flow: Internet Service Providers, and the hands of government that are firmly (and only becoming more firm) stationed around the bottleneck. "Oh, but we can access the internet over our phones, kindles, whatever!" And...how many companies own all of those? Internet access itself is centralized (look up how many providers there are in the U.S.), and subject to government abuse. Yes, I know "we're a constitutional republic" but so is the people's republic of China, among many other notable ones, and our "republic" or "democracy", whichever it is, is NOT protecting the people, providing common defense, or helping to "secure our liberties", it is playing that same sad age-old plot of buying the consent of the governed with their own money and oppressing them...giving us monopolistic controlled market options instead of allowing people to go about their own damn business. In nation-states with a lower population and a higher density of tax-payers, the perks offered by the state to buy consent seem pretty good. I understand why people allow their consent to be bought. Many people are coming to the understanding that we need to FREE THE INTERNET. Now we need to learn from past/current experiences that GOVERNMENT CAN/WILL NOT FREE THE INTERNET.
It doesn't take these ominous, spooky "hackers" to compromise so many systems, because the security utilized by these agencies (mastercard, visa, paypal, etc) is virtually non-existent. If we are to believe the press releases (note: I do not actually recommend trusting the press) this chicanery has been accomplished largely by 14 year-olds.
Centralized government requirements for security are WAAY behind what open-source independent collaboration has come up with for security.
Between bitcoin, Open-Transactions (by FellowTraveler *gasp* a pseudonymous individual, that's almost as bad as being Anonymous!), and the Loom network (https://loom.cc) the idea of "security" in the more traditional services (online banks, credit card services, and paypal) have been horribly shamed.
It also sheds greater light on the great security flaw of the internet itself. While there is great collaboration and a greater venue for free-speech than in past epochs, there is still a bottleneck in the flow: Internet Service Providers, and the hands of government that are firmly (and only becoming more firm) stationed around the bottleneck. "Oh, but we can access the internet over our phones, kindles, whatever!" And...how many companies own all of those? Internet access itself is centralized (look up how many providers there are in the U.S.), and subject to government abuse. Yes, I know "we're a constitutional republic" but so is the people's republic of China, among many other notable ones, and our "republic" or "democracy", whichever it is, is NOT protecting the people, providing common defense, or helping to "secure our liberties", it is playing that same sad age-old plot of buying the consent of the governed with their own money and oppressing them...giving us monopolistic controlled market options instead of allowing people to go about their own damn business. In nation-states with a lower population and a higher density of tax-payers, the perks offered by the state to buy consent seem pretty good. I understand why people allow their consent to be bought. Many people are coming to the understanding that we need to FREE THE INTERNET. Now we need to learn from past/current experiences that GOVERNMENT CAN/WILL NOT FREE THE INTERNET.
MondoNet and p2pnet are two open-source, peer-to-peer projects working at decentralizing internet connectivity itself. There are others of course, these are just the ones that show the most promise as far as I can see. Communications technology has progressed along a Moore's curve and is only more and more affordable to manufacture and purchase. In 1st world countries the population density of individuals with wifi and 3g devices (just to name a couple) is sufficient to support a decentralized server system. In the same way that bitcoin, namecoin (a decentralized domain system built on a bitcoin-like protocol), and p2p torrents do not depend on any individual users to stay online and broadcasting, we need an internet structure that cannot just be "turned off" by governments or corporations (as evidence, I call the Peoples Republic of China, among others to the stand). We understand, it's "for our own good", but nah...going through a litigation process to get this freedom of expression/association over the world is just not doing it for me.For those that are comfy and cozy in the current online-life model of facebook/twitter/gmail/youtube, don't worry! Having a decentralized open-source internet would not require you to change all your habits and normal routines. The goal is not to "replace" the current internet, it is to have a functioning infrastructure running in parallel that is not dependent on government approval. So that if/when any government shuts down the internet in the bit of geography they claim monopolistic control over, there is still internet access available to individuals, aside from the artificially regulated market (and thus not as cost-prohibitive)
Remember: If you trust the government, you are trusting people, and every worry that we have about people is only made worse when they're protected by a large centralized monopoly. Why not trust people (not at the exclusion of using your own judgment), and cut out the expensive/inefficient/centralized/corruption-prone middle-man, and KEEP LEARNING.
EDIT: It occurs to me that "hacker" is not synonymous with "cracker" There is a great difference, and it would behoove one to familiarize oneself with that difference. Apologies/regards to hackers for the nomenclature fubar
Remember: If you trust the government, you are trusting people, and every worry that we have about people is only made worse when they're protected by a large centralized monopoly. Why not trust people (not at the exclusion of using your own judgment), and cut out the expensive/inefficient/centralized/corruption-prone middle-man, and KEEP LEARNING.
EDIT: It occurs to me that "hacker" is not synonymous with "cracker" There is a great difference, and it would behoove one to familiarize oneself with that difference. Apologies/regards to hackers for the nomenclature fubar
Backing up my final point, may I present to you, former president of the USSA, Ronald Reagan
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEuiI2PbSWQ
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete