Fwd: [Infowarrior] - Hackers are being radicalised by government policy

[Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () gmail com>]

FYI,

- ferg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
Date: Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:43 AM
Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hackers are being radicalised by government policy
To:


Hackers are being radicalised by government policy

LulzSec is not an isolated phenomenon – official efforts to control
the internet are increasing online radicalisation

               • Loz Kaye
               • guardian.co.uk,        Tuesday 28 June 2011 11.00 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/28/radical-hackers-lulzsec-governments

Now that the LulzSec boat has sailed over the horizon, it seems a good
moment to take stock of the past weeks' "hacktivism" frenzy. We've
been bombarded with images of oddballs lurking in murky chatrooms –
geeky teenagers who are simultaneously global cyber-villains. Given
the reporting, we'd be forgiven for thinking that it's all about the
personal obsessions of a few nerds. This would be to ignore the wider
context.

LulzSec wasn't an isolated or unique phenomenon. People with
passionate beliefs have been using new technological tools to effect
change out of a sense of powerlessness. In the last year, I've watched
38 Degrees using the strength of association online to change
government policy, WikiLeaks force transparency on those who'd rather
run from it, even the  amorphous mass that is Anonymous taking a stand
on whatever issue they feel deserves their attention.

These tools are now themselves under attack. Lord Mandelson's last
gift to us, the Digital Economy Act, is just one of a raft of "three
strikes laws" worldwide that threaten to cut off households from the
web. Buried in the coalition's Prevent strategy is the assertion that
"internet filtering across the public estate is essential". Nor is it
solely a British issue; Nicolas Sarkozy called for global online
governance at the eG8 in his attempt to civilise the "wild west" of
the web.

We're starting to see what this civilising process entails. Open
Rights Group revealed that Ed Vaizey and lobbyists held a secret
meeting discussing the future of web blocking powers. There was no
public oversight and no one asked the net natives. Vaizey has relented
a little via Twitter, consenting to open up the discussion – the
Pirate Party and I welcome that invitation. It will take more,
however, than getting a few NGOs around a table to ease the real sense
of anger poisoning the online community.

What even the MoD insists on calling "cyberspace" has become contested
territory. Many recent events have been fuelled by a fear that the
internet is under siege by governments hell-bent on restricting its
subversive potential. Nato has added to this perception with violent
rhetoric and an expressed desire to penetrate Anonymous. No surprise
the response has been "Well, penetrate you, Nato".

We've reached a critical juncture: either we sail headlong into
escalating confrontation, or we attempt to change tack and reduce the
tension by finding a democratic way forward, one that preserves our
right to free association. From anonymous bloggers in Iran, to those
using Twitter and Facebook in Tahrir Square and even teenagers in the
bedrooms of Essex, there is a common thread. A feeling of persecution
and dismay that our freedoms are being suppressed.

These concerns haven't gone unnoticed; a recent report by the UN
special rapporteur on free expression, Frank La Rue, explicitly
criticised legislation including the Digital Economy Act, considering
it to be a violation of freedom of speech. This broadside from La Rue
has finally spurred our MPs into action. An early day motion calling
for a review of the most invasive provisions of the Digital Economy
Act has been sponsored by Julian Huppert. It is supported by only 26
of his colleagues, which seems to show that there are only a few in
the Commons prepared to stand up for an online constituency.

In the days ahead it may prove that the real headline last Saturday
was not the disbanding of LulzSec, but the fact that ISP Telstra was
pulling out of an agreement with the Australian government to
implement web filtering due to worries about hacking. This was
portrayed as a significant victory. As long as it seems that direct
action is more effective than democratic engagement, it's clear that
the former will appear a more attractive option to many. The official
line that the internet is a dangerous territory to be subdued is
responsible for an alarming radicalisation. This is not just an issue
for the tabloids' oddballs and nerds, it's an issue for everyone who
believes in the fundamental importance of freedom.

It's time for governments to turn their ship around and plot a new course.
_______________________________________________
Infowarrior mailing list
Infowarrior () attrition org
https://attrition.org/mailman/listinfo/infowarrior



-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.