1st global cyberwar

[El Rojo]

i think the journos are going a bit mental with the hyperbole, but still, it sounds like the hackers are declaring for the revolution. hooray for internet libertarians! (?)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...lash-cyber-war



"They are anonymous and they are everywhere," he said. "They have day jobs. They are adults and kids. It is just a bunch of people."

personal favourite quotes from a US defence department suit shitting himself

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

This is indeed an interesting even, since these attacks on very powerful financial institutions are largely being done by random individuals, with little in the way of organizations. Proving that a 'vanguard' isn't needed to lead revolutionary activites.

[Stand Your Ground]

Wow. Let's see what they can crack. This could be bad though, gives the governments an excuse for internet regulation.

[El Rojo]

This could be bad though, gives the governments an excuse for internet regulation

at least someone caused some mischief whilst the internet was unregulated though. i dunno how this is gonna turn out, but i know im not using amazon this christmas!

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

at least someone caused some mischief whilst the internet was unregulated though. i dunno how this is gonna turn out, but i know im not using amazon this christmas!

If amazon is crashed (as is planned) they will loose millions of Dollars in profit.

[Spawn of Stalin]

This is indeed an interesting even, since these attacks on very powerful financial institutions are largely being done by random individuals, with little in the way of organizations. Proving that a 'vanguard' isn't needed to lead revolutionary activites.

Internet revolutions =/= real life revolutions

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Internet revolutions =/= real life revolutions

comprehension fail.

[El Rojo]

Internet revolutions =/= real life revolutions

quick conrades, to the interwebs!

i think Spawn's point is that since all capital is stored electronically, a hack to the banks can bring down banks

damned mystic stalinists - is this what you are saying?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Hmmm,

Speaking as someone somewhat involved in the Operation Leakspin, and Project Truth parts of Anonymous, the idea that this is somehow a global cyberwar is more rhetoric than actual fact.

What's really laughable is people saying that the Op. Payback individuals are "hackers". Hacking, or cracking, is implied to mean breaking into a computer system, all that the Op. Payback individuals are doing is flooding the servers with TCP information packets.

All that's really happening is that individuals are frustrated at companies and are doing a kind of virtual "sit-in" protest. Taking up slots on servers, refusing access or denying individuals service. The most obvious analogy here is that of the American Civil Rights movement and the sit-ins that they did at lunch counters. By filling up those lunch counters they denied service (literally) to individuals who wanted to eat. While also non-violently campaigning against segregation.

Perhaps my greatest fear in all of this, is that people are going to think "Oh sweet, a global cyberwar!" and adopt that as what they are doing, making it incredibly easy for Congresspersons to use this as an example of why their needs to be more restriction on the internet.

While "global cyberwar' does sound awesome, and all, it's an incredibly dangerous place for Anonymous, and all of us to be.

Internet revolutions =/= real life revolutions

If you want to ignore one of the largest hubs for communication and information that has ever existed in your process of organizing, go for it. To deny that thousands of people internationally DDoSing credit card companies, and corporate websites, as a fairly important development, is a mistake

As for me, I'm going to keep working on radicalizing those around me, be they offline or online.

[Ninel]

Internet revolutions =/= real life revolutions

These people are risking their freedom (i.e. imprisonment) for the freedom of speech on the internet, they are making it so that these people are not being oppressed. Internet Revolutions = Real life revolutions. Our school banned WikiLeaks on Friday (I know this as my friend accessed it in school on Thursday), they said it had content inappropriate for 11 year olds, so what? We can't leave children to be naive that life is completely happy all the time, these are real things and by keeping it from the children we are not helping them, we are making them more gulable and unintelligent.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Actually you have all misinterpreted me. What I meant was that while people getting pissed off enough to attack capitalism via the internet is ultimately a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that popular support for socialist revolution has heightened, and that central organisation is still required to create the required support. I apologise for being cryptic and will try to use plain English in future.

[Delenda Carthago]

Release the trollhounds!

[Widerstand]

Actually you have all misinterpreted me. What I meant was that while people getting pissed off enough to attack capitalism via the internet is ultimately a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that popular support for socialist revolution has heightened, and that central organisation is still required to create the required support. I apologise for being cryptic and will try to use plain English in future.

None of this matters, because what these actions prove is that decentralized, yet synchronized and targeted action is definitely possible and quite effective considering how low profile it is. That this happens on the internet rather than in real life is easily explained by the nature of the conflict, and the nature of the internet being a fast, global information structure. I think it is definitely reasonable to assume that the internet could help spark global spontaneous uprisings in the future.

Also, the ad idea of centralization being somehow required to coordinate an event of this magnitude just ultimately went out the window (to be honest it did long time ago, as proven by mathematicians, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc. over and over).

What you are right about is that none of this has any communist connotations but rather carries on the "free information" trend we've seen from cyber activists, and in a sense the open source movement, since some time now.

[Nolan]

This is indeed an interesting even, since these attacks on very powerful financial institutions are largely being done by random individuals, with little in the way of organizations. Proving that a 'vanguard' isn't needed to lead revolutionary activites.

One new front = sweeping generalization of revolution now and throughout history.

Makes perfect sense.

[28350]

The term "Cyberwar" is very misleading, and just gets everyone hyped up. There are few valid parallels between actual war and mass, directed hacking.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

One new front = sweeping generalization of revolution now and throughout history.

Makes perfect sense.

Comprehension fail, again.

[Spawn of Stalin]

None of this matters, because what these actions prove is that decentralized, yet synchronized and targeted action is definitely possible and quite effective considering how low profile it is.

Hence my point....it is one thing for a few individuals to carry out attacks on the internet and be successful with no centralisation, it is entirely different when you are in the midst of a revolution, not only without any kind of centralisation (a party), but also with a significant number of people taking part in that revolution. I'm not saying it doesn't work, though obviously I have my opinions, I'm merely stating that these events happening on the internet do nothing to improve the prospects of the anti-party model of revolution. In the real world this is best compared to RAF style revolutionary terror, which we know works on a small scale with or without centralisation because both anarchists and Communists have used it, not that it really achieved much in most instances.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Hence my point....it is one thing for a few individuals to carry out attacks on the internet and be successful with no centralisation, it is entirely different when you are in the midst of a revolution, not only without any kind of centralisation (a party), but also with a significant number of people taking part in that revolution. I'm not saying it doesn't work, though obviously I have my opinions, I'm merely stating that these events happening on the internet do nothing to improve the prospects of the anti-party model of revolution. In the real world this is best compared to RAF style revolutionary terror, which we know works on a small scale with or without centralisation because both anarchists and Communists have used it, not that it really achieved much in most instances.

'centralized' revolutions achived much more..

[Widerstand]

Hence my point....it is one thing for a few individuals to carry out attacks on the internet and be successful with no centralisation, it is entirely different when you are in the midst of a revolution, not only without any kind of centralisation (a party), but also with a significant number of people taking part in that revolution. I'm not saying it doesn't work, though obviously I have my opinions, I'm merely stating that these events happening on the internet do nothing to improve the prospects of the anti-party model of revolution. In the real world this is best compared to RAF style revolutionary terror, which we know works on a small scale with or without centralisation because both anarchists and Communists have used it, not that it really achieved much in most instances.

RAF had more or less centralized structures though.

The RZ are a better example of decentralized terrorism. They also carried out far more attacks and had far less of their participants arrested.

The idea that you'd need a party to lead revolution isn't so absurd, but is wrong anyhow. You need a common goal, a unifying vision, some sort of bond in a revolution, else it'll quickly scatter into a lot of small, sometimes even contrary revolts and dissolve into nothingness. A party is one way of creating this bond, but it's by far not a necessity.

I think we should look at non-communist revolutions more, for example the French revolution. There was no single mass party, and it still managed to radically change society.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yes, RAF leadership believed in Marxism-Leninism, but like I said, I'm not here to debate whether or not having this kind of revolution is possible, I don't think it is in any meaningful sense, you obviously do, that's fine...~opinions~. But my point was that this attack on the internet doesn't in itself prove anything.

'centralized' revolutions achived much more..

Achieved more than random terror? In most cases, yes, they did, I think even an anarchist would admit that. That being said I don't think small-scale activity is a bad thing, this thing that's going on now is positive, and in in real life it can be positive too. Some acts do not achieve anything in the grand scheme of things, but should still be acknowledged as progressive.