Posted by
Marcus G. Daniels on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Urgent-skype-vulnerability-tp7583763p7583852.html
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