Re: [Full-disclosure] Megaupload Anonymous hacker retaliation, nobody wins

[Levente Peres <sheridan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/26/2012 03:04 AM, Marcio B. Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Levente Peres<sheridan@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>> This will give decision makers EXACTLY what they WANT.
>
> Those who have already given up democracy think that way.
Not necessarily. I strongly believe in the principle of democracy. In 
fact I'm from a country where people fought and died for it, similar to 
the US and many others. And I also hear simple people like me and 
politicians alike, talk about it, and cite it over again, but more often 
than not, I just don't see it happening. I don't want to get into any 
"conspiracy theory" - either one thinks that way or doesn't, but if you 
look at the patterns, then let's just say that strong interest groups 
somehow always seem to get past these democratic barriers to create 
situations in which they can generate profit. Fortunately, most of the 
time they still need to play for the public and ask "nicely" first 
before they can do whatever they damn well please. But I feel that is 
changing. They get more and more bold, for example, just yesterday I 
read Chris Dodd saying something like...

“Those who count on ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this 
industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them 
when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when 
you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me 
when my job is at stake.”

... in "plain daylight", on Fox News I believe. Yes, we have such thing 
as democracy out there - but we also have self-interest, and this 
self-interest also exists in officials, and it can be exploited.

Lately, after Wikipedia and many others stood by the people, peacefully 
but with great resolve, public will has won. Not necessarily because 
that was the will of the people - to have none of PIPA etc... - but more 
likely because we have triggered this protection of "self interest" in 
the officials. Quite simply, elected ones got afraid of not being 
re-elected, or just going too far and getting into something they cannot 
handle with a popular face. They appeared to have no "valid" moral 
reason anymore to cooperate with the passing, so they bailed out.

This is what peaceful show of resolve and public will has achieved and 
I'm immensely proud of that... I honestly believe that this is a very 
effective way to resist if enough people stand behind it, like with the 
blackouts. But these interest groups know that officials also have a 
mandate to protect "security", which is a largely different matter. If 
they can picture it so that security's being violated somehow, and start 
making enough noise about "security" and telling people that "you could 
be attacked next" as so on, then quite simply, people will start 
demanding them to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. "We 
want to be secure, now you are our officials, so do whatever needs to be 
done!" Not all people of course... not everyone will react this way. But 
just enough to allow them to move on, the "majority", or so they will 
make it appear trough mainstream media. That way they can proceed 
without loosing chance for re-election, in fact they may even be lauded 
as heros who can make hard decisions. A nice abuse of democratic 
principles. On the other hand, if this "threat" can be pumped up big 
enough to warrant an "attack on the country", then it's even worse. Then 
they won't need you to agree to/with anything, they can do whatever they 
want to do by definition of "protecting national security". This is why 
I believe that going to cyberwar (essentially: hard violence) over this 
or anything else is counter-effective.

Levente

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/