Urgent: skype vulnerability?

[Arlo Barnes]

That said, they clearly are not everybody, unless we all have some hidden memories. :P And Anonymous does have official channels to publish statements of intent, and has disavowed afiliation with other parties claiming to work on behalf of Anonymous; all of the confirmed Anonymous attacks have had a common thread (against scientologists, pedos, ...) and lastly, Anonymous and LulzSec are two different (though related), sometimes opposing organisations. I wish I could provide sources for all these points but I don't have any handy, I am sure you all can inform yourselves with various search engines better than I could.
-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

LulzSec is reputed to be a faction of/from Anon... and yes, I know someone makes statements of intent, deny involvement in this and that.  I would *like* to believe that there is a coherent sentiment in the human soul that is based mildly on the Archetype of the Trickster whose methods are Japing but whose intent is to educate and inform and inspire (whilst being entertained by the Jape itself).

My (relevant) point is that with that kind of distributed, self-motivated, activity... how could we possibly know that there aren't man Anonymous-Sympathetic individuals working on hardware doping, etc.  as part of their day jobs (or parallell/tangential to their day jobs) who might be on the edge of this.

This factor is what has me the most impressed with the *idea of* Anon... there is really no defense... it is more of a Meme than an Organization.  Obviously Snowden hasn't claimed any affiliation with them (as far as I know) but I'm pretty sure those who identify as Anon are cheering his efforts and maybe even benefitting from his disclosures.  

I once had a cat who caught a Robin.  A whole flock of Pinon Jays jumped the cat and made him drop the Robin.   I think of Anon as being a bit like that flock of Jays....  very likely to jump any cat who tries to eat something (another bird) that looks even a little familiar.   Like the non-Jewish germans who risked their lives to protect them from the the Nazis... etc.

I had hoped that Anon would have had more effect against the Mexican Drug Cartels than they apparently did.  Imagine the Cartels, the DEA *and* the Minute Men having their collective carpets hacked out from under them?  I suspect that the Mexican Cartels, while happy to exploit technology, really do live close enough to the earth as to not be easily disrupted by "mere" digital means... and I don't think Anonymous has spread beyond the digital sphere enough to be relevant.  Yet.

That said, they clearly are not everybody, unless we all have some hidden memories. :P And Anonymous does have official channels to publish statements of intent, and has disavowed afiliation with other parties claiming to work on behalf of Anonymous; all of the confirmed Anonymous attacks have had a common thread (against scientologists, pedos, ...) and lastly, Anonymous and LulzSec are two different (though related), sometimes opposing organisations. I wish I could provide sources for all these points but I don't have any handy, I am sure you all can inform yourselves with various search engines better than I could.
-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 9/16/13 9:41 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

My (relevant) point is that with that kind of distributed, self-motivated, activity... how could we possibly know that there aren't man Anonymous-Sympathetic individuals working on hardware doping, etc.  as part of their day jobs (or parallell/tangential to their day jobs) who might be on the edge of this.

It seems to me an organization like Anonymous has little to offer such a person, besides risk of identification.  Does such a person really want to risk their own Adrian Lamo when picking a fight with the Zetas cartel? 

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

Arlo Barnes wrote at 09/13/2013 08:38 PM:
Gary Schiltz wrote at 09/13/2013 05:41 PM:
>> Many people are quite willing to put up with a little less freedom
>> for a little more security. I'm not sure where I come down on the
>> issue of whether or not those who are so disposed deserve neither.
>>
> I think Mr. Franklin's point was that you get what you deserve (which
> is true only in narrow contexts) and they will certainly get neither.
> In other words, if you want something done right, do it yourself :P

I _think_ the actual quote is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  So, it's possible that the primary point is the trade-off between "essential" vs. "temporary".  If that's the right way to read it, then I am inclined to agree.  I'd even go so far as to say that you don't deserve safety at all if you give up essential safety for temporary safety ... or essential health for temporary health, etc.

I don't suppose it works for, say, celery... I'd gladly give up essential celery in exchange for some temporary celery.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. -- John McCarthy


--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
 From the frozen depths of a forgotten fjord,
 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

On 9/16/13 10:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

On 9/16/13 9:41 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

My (relevant) point is that with that kind of distributed, self-motivated, activity... how could we possibly know that there aren't man Anonymous-Sympathetic individuals working on hardware doping, etc.  as part of their day jobs (or parallell/tangential to their day jobs) who might be on the edge of this.

It seems to me an organization like Anonymous has little to offer such a person, besides risk of identification.  Does such a person really want to risk their own Adrian Lamo when picking a fight with the Zetas cartel? 

Anonymous has *nothing* to offer *anyone*  as an organization IMO.   What it offers, as a concept, is an inspiration and an awareness that a large, almost completely decoupled group of people can have a big effect.  

I'm sure that you are correct that the limited effect against the Cartels by Anon's call to action *is* based on the wide reaching and unforgiving threat they represent in their very nature.

   Without using the brush too broadly, I can imagine that *many* would be as reticent about taking on say... the US (or any country's) intelligence apparatus or any of the transnational corporations (look at what has come out about such interests in SoAm and Africa and the lengths they have probably gone to to maintain favorable conditions for extractive profits).

Using Snowden as an example, if we grant him the motivations he has claimed (whether they might be naive or not), he disturbed the water of the US National Security policy regarding spying on US Citizens in a way that surely thousands of others in similar positions to his might have.  His position was elite, but not unique.  

I don't fully appreciate your Adrian Lamo reference... are you saying that the Mannings (and Snowdens?) of the world need to think about the Lamos of the world when they act?   If we were playing Jeapordy, I guess the answer to "Adrian Lamo" is somewhere in a recursive chain of "Who is watching the Watchers?".

I don't like the idea of generating/cultivating a culture of fear and paranoia, but I suppose I *do* like noticing that the culture of fear and paranoia that already exists might be self-limiting through it's own nature?

- Steve



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Steve wrote:

``Anonymous has *nothing* to offer *anyone*  as an organization IMO. What
it offers, as a concept, is an inspiration and an awareness that a
large, almost completely decoupled group of people can have a big effect.''

An individual that knows they are passing a critical threshold of danger
doesn't need inspiration.

``I don't fully appreciate your Adrian Lamo reference... are you saying
that the Mannings (and Snowdens?) of the world need to think about the
Lamos of the world when they act?''

Besides the possibility of spies within the group, there's the possibility
that the group itself is an illusion.  People have different values and
cope with fear in different ways.  

There's less confusion in the case of governments or criminal
organizations: They will be ruthless in circling the wagons on people that
act unpredictably and threaten the group purpose.  Anonymous can't do that.

Marcus



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -
> Steve wrote:
>
> ``Anonymous has *nothing* to offer *anyone*  as an organization IMO. What
> it offers, as a concept, is an inspiration and an awareness that a
> large, almost completely decoupled group of people can have a big effect.''
>
> An individual that knows they are passing a critical threshold of danger
> doesn't need inspiration.
Hmmm...   I'm probably reading you 180 degrees out of phase somehow.  
What I *hear* is that you are suggesting either that Anonymous members
(whatever it means to be a member of a non-organization) are operating
out of fear or awareness of danger? I see them acting out of a
combination of an anti-establishment aesthetic (like the many movements
of the 60's, early 70's) and a certain righteous indignation ("that is
just WRONG!").  I could be wrong but I think most of the Anonymous folks
are relatively privileged middle-class youth with a peppering of
underprivileged high functionings and some older, more seasoned folks
not unlike the demographic of *this* list.
> ``I don't fully appreciate your Adrian Lamo reference... are you saying
> that the Mannings (and Snowdens?) of the world need to think about the
> Lamos of the world when they act?''
>
> Besides the possibility of spies within the group, there's the possibility
> that the group itself is an illusion.  People have different values and
> cope with fear in different ways.
I don't think either Manning nor Snowden started out acting out of fear,
though I'm sure there was plenty of fear available to both of them at
different times.  I suspect their actions were spurred by something like
righteous indignation (which might be a good cover for fear?).

I think you are referencing Lamo's similarity to Anonymous affiliates
but with his insular perspective having no affinity or loyalty to
them?   Again, I'm probably reading you all wrong.
> There's less confusion in the case of governments or criminal
> organizations: They will be ruthless in circling the wagons on people that
> act unpredictably and threaten the group purpose.
Well, they do have their own factionation and internal power struggles,
but I think I agree in principle that their *overt* organization
allows/supports this.
>   Anonymous can't do that.
To the extent that Anonymous *has* no group purpose, I think you are
correct.   But Anonymous *does* clearly mount temporary "Operations".    
Isn't their attack on HBGary an example of this?  I am sure I'm missing
something here.

Maybe a simple statement of what you are arguing against might clarify
for me, I might be missing your fundamental point?

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 9/17/13 12:08 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I'm probably reading you 180 degrees out of phase somehow.  What I
> *hear* is that you are suggesting either that Anonymous members
> (whatever it means to be a member of a non-organization) are operating
> out of fear or awareness of danger?
No, I'm speculating that someone like Lamo plays along until things get
rough, and then runs for cover once they start to mull over consequences
(like being an accomplice/accessory to espionage).

> I think you are referencing Lamo's similarity to Anonymous affiliates
> but with his insular perspective having no affinity or loyalty to them?
I'm not saying he's the good guy or the bad guy.  But I bet Anonymous
has enough people like that around that it is a risk to people deeper
into the operational end.   Hacker groupies and sunshine friends.

Similar example from Frontline the other day.  Story was about the death
with dignity movement, and one particular `underground' organization
that was pursued by the several states.  It was all very convincing to
the members of this organization (that gave guidance on suicide) until
they were arrested, and actually sat down with prosecutors to read the
statutes.  Once it became clear the risks of spending her life in
prison, one woman turned to be a witness for the prosecution.   Some
people will do that calculation in their head without even imminent
threats, like I think Lamo did.

> Maybe a simple statement of what you are arguing against might clarify
> for me, I might be missing your fundamental point?
Putting aside the systematic instrumentation of the internet by the NSA,
the GCHQ, etc. the few organizations that still have encryption-free
Wifi are at legal liability for the activity of their customers.   As
customers torrent porn, and other copyrighted material, the ISPs (some
of which also own media companies) are more than prepared to document
and threaten action.  For similar reasons, sooner or later the only
people running Tor services will be the NSA.  :-)

Anonymity, to the extent it is achievable at all, is not trivial. I
think it is a mistake to think that participating in questionably legal
internet activism can be insulated from a `normal' life.   If Anonymous
wants to endure, they'll have to help real organizations like the FSF,
EFF and the ACLU build the technical and legal tools to protect their
members.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -

 > No, I'm speculating that someone like Lamo plays along until things
get rough, and then runs for cover once they start to mull over
consequences (like being an accomplice/accessory to espionage).
...
 >  Hacker groupies and sunshine friends.
...
 > For similar reasons, sooner or later the only people running Tor
services will be the NSA.  :-)

Ok... I think I understand and generally agree that group(ies) like Anon
are on average pretty lightweight and fair-weather.

My hopeful side wants to believe that there is a huge distribution and
out there in the long tail are a few people with significant skills,
perspective and maybe even courage (at least in context). I'm not even
saying these people self-identify with Anonymous (or any other group)
but rather that they are watching the world's evolution and may feel
compelled to do one particular thing or another that could be pivotal.
> Anonymity, to the extent it is achievable at all, is not trivial. I
> think it is a mistake to think that participating in questionably
> legal internet activism can be insulated from a `normal' life.   If
> Anonymous wants to endure, they'll have to help real organizations
> like the FSF, EFF and the ACLU build the technical and legal tools to
> protect their members.
I agree that these above board, organized, "official" groups can and do
provide a significant role in "fighting the good fight", but I think the
ground-up, grass-roots sentiment is important, maybe even critical.   It
is vaguely like the difference between say... the Catholic (or any of  
the other pervasive, established) Church in Europe during WWII, or the
Vichy Gov't in France   vs the various underground resistance movements.

I may just be having flights of fancy from reading the first couple of
assignments in the Surveillance and Countermeasures reading list that
Owen sent around...   The bulk of the background on "Form and Function
of Terrorist Cells" seems to have come from the Allied resistance and
infiltration in Nazi occupied Europe in WWII.  The 1976 Rockefeller
Report to the President on "CIA Activities Within the United States"  
outlines a pretty good example of something one would *hope* ("wish" in
retrospect) that any one of the many many people who had to be complicit
in this would (have) blown a whistle on.   I'm sure anyone in that
era/circumstance trying to expose that particular activity would have
been treated at least as badly as (has been implied/threatened) Snowden...

I"m not really trusting that our oversight has been working... SSCI and
House Select Committee, etc...

- Steve


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

``[..] but rather that they are watching the world's evolution and may feel
compelled to do one particular thing or another that could be pivotal.''

Yup,

Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com