There's always one idiot that tries to escape from a prison camp!

Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

So I made a rant thread just recently titled "Two families go for a picnic". Which, I don't think was understood by all in its meaning.

To break down the train of thought I am having I will post another example and then relate it to real world events.

There's always one idiot that tries to escape from a prison camp.

Three inmates are in a POW camp. They spend years thinking about their escape. With much discussion, they devise a plan and slowly build up the supplies needed to preform the task. After collecting contraband goods for years, and memorizing the plan so well that it becomes a biblical thought to them, something happens...

A newer prisoner arrives and after being there just a month, decides the camp isn't for him. He concocts a little scheme within a weekend, and with equal spontaneity, executes it. He figures once he is out of there, and lets his countrymen know where the camp's location is, he'll be a hero.

During the new prisoner's escape, guards are alerted and the prison camp is put on lock-down. Once the newer prisoner is found, the camp officials bring in work crews to eliminate weaknesses in the perimeter.

It just so happens, that because of the new modifications to the camp, the original group that had been devising their plan have to abort it now that minor changes ruined their assured escape.

Reality:

Hacktivist group AntiSec started the week with yet another intrusion on a government contractor, this time targeting Booz Allen Hamilton and posting what it claims are 90,000 military email addresses and passwords from the contractor online.

1

Winseck said a list of 40 attacks since March is "chock-a-block" with media companies such as Fox News, Sony, Disney and PBS, along with security companies such as Lockheed Martin, financial companies such as Visa and MasterCard, and law enforcement agencies such as the CIA and the Spanish national police.

Hackers are trying to send a message that those groups are all linked threats to "the open, free flow of information," Winseck said.

1

Doing it for the "lulz" or doing it for "freedom" ??

It doesn't matter what you believe when you are doing something (especially something that outright challenges authority). What matters is how you are perceived:

“This hacking stuff is really serious — it causes a lot of damage to both businesses and consumers. It’s good it’s getting attention because maybe organizations will start treating our information a little more carefully,” he said.

1

The U.K. government last year identified cybercrime as being second only to terrorism. .

1

But I'm an hero? I fought "the powers that be"...

Folk Heroes arise and last because of the consequences of their actions, selflessness of their lives. Or in some cases because they wielded absolute control.

What are the consequences of my actions?

Such a threat has made it necessary for a new alliance to form between businesses, the U.K. government and international police forces like the Europol.

The International Cyber Security Protection Alliance (ICSPA) has been set up to fight against cybercriminals on a global scale.

1

Key U.S. senator calls for special cyber security panel

Read more: www.montrealgazette.com...

Pentagon to unveil cybersecurity strategy

1

"I don't care what you say, we are revolutionaries"

1 in 4 hackers are FBI informants.

Nice editorial from you, Boncho, and the article. From your link:

...Using the threat of prosecution and the likelihood of long prison sentences, law enforcement has established a large base of otherwise underground technophiles to supplement investigations.

"Owing to the harsh penalties involved and the relative inexperience with the law that many hackers have, they are rather susceptible to intimidation," said Eric Corley, publisher of the hacker digest 2600.

Law enforcement's infiltration of the hacker underground has been so successful that the once brazen community is now fraught with "paranoia and mistrust," according to the report.

"It makes for very tense relationships. There are dozens and dozens of hackers who have been shopped by people they thought they trusted," said Cryptome's John Young…
www.infosecisland.com...

The article mentions the weasel Adrian Lamo...and let's not be so sure about the weasibility factor of another hacker who was busted and possibly turned: Assange.

All their talk of freedom of speech..and by their actions..LIMIT ours ..
They are criminals not hero's !

reply to post by The GUT

The article mentions the weasel Adrian Lamo...and let's not be so sure about the weasibility factor of another hacker who was busted and possibly turned: Assange.

Where are all the explosive leaks that he had been talking about before?

If Assange really wanted to be a hero, he would have dumped all the files to the public realm. The fact that he chose what he was releasing means that he was working angles for himself.

Originally posted by granpabobby
All their talk of freedom of speech..and by their actions..LIMIT ours ..
They are criminals not hero's !

Absolutely not... It is not anonymous who is limiting your freedom of speech, but the authorities. Why should we get angry at anonymous and other hackers? This is misplaced anger.

Yes, their actions may induce the authorities to crack down harder, but this is just another strike against the authorities and what they represent. In reality, we should be giving all support to the hackers and others like them who try to "escape the prison camp."

Personally, I'm skeptical that there really is a "grander escape plan" that is being thwarted due to these actions. The OP's entire post amounts to saying that we should be well-behaved sheep when we're penned in, and trust that some unnamed person or persons is actually trying very hard to escape in a very secretive way that never registers on our radars or makes the news or does anything to actually help us. Do you want to be sheep? Support the people that are actually fighting back for christ's sake!

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The GUT

The article mentions the weasel Adrian Lamo...and let's not be so sure about the weasibility factor of another hacker who was busted and possibly turned: Assange.

 

Where are all the explosive leaks that he had been talking about before?

If Assange really wanted to be a hero, he would have dumped all the files to the public realm. The fact that he chose what he was releasing means that he was working angles for himself.

This isn't true in the slightest. Wikileaks has continued with its same old program as always, leaking any documents they receive as long as they aren't original works. There is no reason to believe Assange has "gone over to the other side."

To date, wikileaks remains our strongest ally against TPTB. And please don't contribute to the media's agenda by making this about Assange- it isn't, and Wikileaks will go on just the same even if he is imprisoned and tortured by the US government as they have been planning.

Originally posted by The GUT
The article mentions the weasel Adrian Lamo...and let's not be so sure about the weasibility factor of another hacker who was busted and possibly turned: Assange.

By the logic in the OP, Lamo should be praised as a hero who ratted out a dangerous, evildoing hacker.

Don't you see how this "lets all play nice, quiet and dumb" attitude just contributes to their control?

reply to post by wirehead

Absolutely not... It is not anonymous who is limiting your freedom of speech, but the authorities. Why should we get angry at anonymous and other hackers? This is misplaced anger.

I have tried to lay it out pretty simple.

Picture a small colony, with a resident grizzly bear.

Two options:

1. A group of kids go up and throw stones at the bear provoking it to attack.

2. Townspeople or elders devise a plan to relocate the bear.


If the actions of the hackers bring only more legislation and more security, what freedoms have they brought?

If a high percentage of hackers are informants, then who exactly is behind all the hacking?


Those are questions you should be asking yourself.

It is not a matter of being a "sheep", it's a matter of having a critical mind that thinks long term and how to go about making effective change.

reply to post by wirehead

By the logic in the OP, Lamo should be praised as a hero who ratted out a dangerous, evildoing hacker.

Don't you see how this "lets all play nice, quiet and dumb" attitude just contributes to their control?

Please quote me where I said hackers were "dangerous" and/or "evildoing".


Me quoting an article is not my words. Hence the quotations...

reply to post by wirehead

This isn't true in the slightest. Wikileaks has continued with its same old program as always, leaking any documents they receive as long as they aren't original works. There is no reason to believe Assange has "gone over to the other side."

To date, wikileaks remains our strongest ally against TPTB. And please don't contribute to the media's agenda by making this about Assange- it isn't, and Wikileaks will go on just the same even if he is imprisoned and tortured by the US government as they have been planning.

John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business.

Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents.

Young was speaking today to WND senior reporter Aaron Klein on Klein's radio program on New York's WABC Radio.

"I think it is a money-making operation, no doubt," Young said of WikiLeaks.

"It follows the model of a number of other business intelligence operations. Selling intelligence information is a very lucrative field, and so they are following that model, usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit," he told Klein.

"But they are far from being the only one that does that," Young added. "It's a well-known business model.

Source

Validity?

Originally posted by boncho

Validity?

Source?

Sounds like Cyberwar to me...

I'm still watching.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by boncho

Validity?

Source?

Fixed it, my apologies.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by wirehead

Absolutely not... It is not anonymous who is limiting your freedom of speech, but the authorities. Why should we get angry at anonymous and other hackers? This is misplaced anger.

 

Two options:

1. A group of kids go up and throw stones at the bear provoking it to attack.

2. Townspeople or elders devise a plan to relocate the bear.


If the actions of the hackers bring only more legislation and more security, what freedoms have they brought?

If a high percentage of hackers are informants, then who exactly is behind all the hacking?

Excellent. So what is this mythical "plan to relocate the bear" from the "elders?" exactly? Who else is doing anything?

On the other hand, from Wikileaks alone we have seen footage of US Military-committed atrocities in Iraq, US foreign policy documents first-hand, operation guidelines from guantanamo bay (nothing pretty, I assure you), the listed members of the prominent fascist party of the United Kingdom, climategate, etc

Do you really think we're better off not knowing this stuff? That without WikiLeaks, we'd be one step closer to some unknown, unmentioned, nebulous "grand plan of the elders" that has been secretly devised in the shadows because its authors are smart enough to not rock the boat?

As long as you continue to fight against wikileaks, you're doing the establishment's job for them.



Edit: And it's not the actions of the hackers that have brought about the legislation and security. IT'S YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. It's time to direct the anger toward those who are actually in control of your security, privacy, and legislation, and separate that from those who are working with what freedom we actually have left.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by wirehead

By the logic in the OP, Lamo should be praised as a hero who ratted out a dangerous, evildoing hacker.

Don't you see how this "lets all play nice, quiet and dumb" attitude just contributes to their control?

 

Please quote me where I said hackers were "dangerous" and/or "evildoing".


Me quoting an article is not my words. Hence the quotations...

Well, you blame hackers for the knee-jerk, reactionary crackdown. Wouldn't you then call them evil and or dangerous?

reply to post by wirehead

Do you really think we're better off not knowing this stuff? That without WikiLeaks, we'd be one step closer to some unknown, unmentioned, nebulous "grand plan of the elders" that has been secretly devised in the shadows because its authors are smart enough to not rock the boat?

I don't know what you knew before Wikileaks came about. But I know what I knew.... I suggest hitting the library once in awhile, there is more in there than most people realize.

As long as you continue to fight against wikileaks, you're doing the establishment's job for them.

Explain how being critical about an organization is "fighting against" them. Those are the same words that the government uses. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

On the other hand, from Wikileaks alone we have seen...

Smoke and Mirrors

reply to post by wirehead

Well, you blame hackers for the knee-jerk, reactionary crackdown. Wouldn't you then call them evil and or dangerous?

They are either two things:

1. Ignorant/misguided.

2. Complicit in the actions of the government.

Originally posted by boncho

On the other hand, from Wikileaks alone we have seen...

Smoke and Mirrors

I'd be more interested if you would care to explain what you mean by "smoke and mirrors" in relation to wikileaks' activities, rather than link to an explanation of what the idiom means. I know what "smoke and mirrors" means. Please tell me how what we've seen so far from WikiLeaks is smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by wirehead


Refer back to this post.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by wirehead

Well, you blame hackers for the knee-jerk, reactionary crackdown. Wouldn't you then call them evil and or dangerous?

 

They are either two things:

1. Ignorant/misguided.

2. Complicit in the actions of the government.

Yes, that was the point of your thread, and you've explained why you think that. I happen to disagree.