Results 1 to 8 of 8
If true this is happening far more rapidly than i expected. I'm gonna have to figure out TOR ASAP
if that shit hits the fan, tor won't save your ass.
because what worth is anonymity when you cannot register anywhere because everyone demands your identity card and can report you to the police if they suspect you might not entirely like obama?
who will save your ass?
the docu is legit, but the newspaper publishing that has a somewhat rightard slant (like if their right leg was blown off).
the pdf contains that and more and is 100% legit.
i think it is made as a way of controlling the masses.
to prevent a european spring.
haCk tHe pLanEt
Jah, mon.
Rastafari will rise up against Babylon.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Tor is one alternative. Freenet, I2P and Gnunet are others. Join the Anonymous usergroup for more info on these technologies.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
It's tough to give good simple solid advice on this since the medium itself cuts through so many social roles, social aspects -- as an early-adopting, homegrown computer user in the '70s and '80s, one would have this hacker mentality expressed here (and also the corresponding social status, for whatever that may be worth). This would be the inclination, I surmise.
But what about our current, common, *mainstream* use of zippy, present-day, fully Inter-networked information devices -- ?
The nerd patina has mostly melted into the crowd, and the act of intentionally whisking oneself away into an individualistic one-to-one interfacing of oneself to device and world is now an everyday, commonplace occurrence -- a fact of now-modern social life, work life, intimate life, political life, creative life, etc.
Smartphones and tablets have extended this digital social connectivity down to the pocket or bag, with bulky displays, keyboards, and mice no longer a 'must'.
The thought of the least bit of a clamp-down on the technology itself should be immediately dismissed as absurd, for any of a vast number of valid reasons, easily derived from the categories just mentioned -- it would be like trying to close down interstate expressways just because someone drove a car on them in the midst of an allegedly criminal act.
We should treat this politically, from a *revolutionary* standpoint -- the contradictions of capitalism are continuing to pressurize more and more, and we can see it transparently in the tech industry, where its cutting-edge nature positions it side-by-side with cutting-edge investments (think Silicon Valley), and at one time *was* cutting-edge.
So what *was* cutting-edge in the '90s has now evolved into today's massively common, cheap, and powerful digital tech tools that equates to massive everyday capacity for ongoing social use -- social networking sites, to state the obvious.
The *political* component to this is a newly entrenched mainstream population that now uses -- and is used to using -- the net in an at-will kind of way.
The *technical* component to this is a mode of universal operation -- the digital one -- that is implicitly based on the 'Copy' command, so to speak. Data is routinely duplicated, as for the purpose of transmission, and so routing a copy of an original file, as to additional destination(s), is a trifling and effortless action for both person and machine, even over vast distances and to numerous, far-flung, and random (but interest-based) readers, viewers, and participants.
Looking at it historically I think the tipping point came fairly quickly -- the amount of usefulness of any regular computer plateaued suddenly, as now all computers for the average consumer are vastly into the overkill range. (Fairly recent Linux software developments have made older PC hardware 'rejuvenatable' and brought new, broader scopes of usefulness to machines both old and new.)
We know from basic Marxism that, for the capitalist, fixed costs -- as into technology -- increasingly see diminished returns, putting real-people *labor* costs / wages into the spotlight.
Should the capitalist continue to invest in technology that, despite its still-increasing physical brawn, cannot be of any additional surplus-squeezing benefit -- ? With the commons of communication now as common as the phone or TV, how could this paradigm conceivably be changed to the extent to where it is either [1] deleteriously hobbled, or [2] financially benefitted from, at the investor level. Sure, there will always be the service sector, but today's ease-of-use has brought sophisticated abilities to anyone who can get online and learn from a magazine.
With diminished investment comes lessened development -- another internal contradiction and vicious spiral to take note of, a complement to capital's overall crisis of growth (GDP).
Lessened development means that a social condition of stratification is more difficult for the ruling class to maintain, since all basic digital capabilities are almost readily available to anyone. Information to and from the ongoing human endeavor on the planet earth is now able to be in a an ongoing constant positive feedback loop, with attentions addressing topics as-needed, as on here at RevLeft.
This is unprecedented in human history and should now be considered as vital to everyday social life as water is to biology. Public opinion repelled the SOPA / PIPA assault, and that attack's timing -- and this new one -- should be indicators to us that the ruling class is really scrounging and can't find anything less-desperate than something that played out and was concluded in the '90s.
The fact that the political superstructure is having to take offensive offensive measures against the public and its best interests reveals that it is capable of nothing better going-forward. The reaction against the Internet commons is a defensive retaliatory lashing-out from a material position of self-preservation -- how can *any* function of oversight justify their social existence any longer? There is no longer any valid argument for any 'professional'-type hierarchy anymore when the bourgeoisie's financial economic system has proven itself to be insolvent, and its once-priestly modern bureaucracies of administration (and that for all of academia and private property) are demonstrably superfluous from a use-value perspective in today's ocean of digital recordkeeping tools and capacities.
So, given this material-development stagnation, massive floating bubbles now dominate the economic and political landscape, practically quivering to be popped -- but the process begins anew as long as capital liquidity funds yet another agonizing round of 'Musical Chairs'.
We need to retain our claim to the digital commons, at the most common denominator, inherently superseding much of conventional bourgeois law and sensibilities over 'property' and its definition.
The digital 'Copy' function is a profound technological development that can't be dealt with using conventional conceptions of property and ownership. How would one both legally *ban* and technically *disable* the 'copy' function of a machine that inherently utilizes and leverages that very capability -- ?
Could this be the very rock that the bourgeoisie founders on, since it will always prove impossible to heal the schism -- ? (Meaning that the issue is of inescapable significance since it concerns the definition of 'property' itself, yet can't be controlled or enforced that well.)(And the *economic* component is one that puts content creators directly in line with consumers, making the managerial role functionally extraneous -- though it lingers on because private property continues to maintain its rule.)
