v3rsus - editorial 2011

editorial
2011

Hacking The Planet

On June 25th, after 50 days of mayhem, LulzSec released their final statement and disappeared into the vast ocean that is the internet. But recently they came back for MurdochMeltdownMonday to take on The Sun. First the homepage of The Sun temporarily redirected users to a fake Murdoch death story and then to the LulzSec Twitter feed, and by the way LulzSec published the phone numbers of “journalists”, if you want to call employees of the Murdoch empire that. And once again the mainstream media had no idea what to make of it and quickly condemned LulzSec , along with all the "criminal" hackers, the “terrorist group” Anonymous, and even Louise Boat. But all these groups, and especially LulzSec, deserve more than that, because they are not insignificant, and not simply criminals. One of LulzSec’s stated intentions was to bring the AntiSec movement back. AntiSec? What is that and why would anybody be against security? Well, there are many good reasons to be against a false sense of security. The AntiSec movement, which originated in the end of the 90s, opposes the computer security industry, which publishes information of hacker activities to promote their security products. AntiSec is against the disclosure of information relating to hacks and distribution points of that information. Why is that? Well, because they are hackers, and they like to access information that is available, and they do, despite the claims of the computer security industry to deliver protection. Hacking has been part of the internet culture from the very beginning, and most hacks are never heard of in public. LulzSec changed that, and shared their rampage with over 300000 followers on Twitter, and that’s a good thing. They actually gave the average internet user an insight into what is really going on behind the surface of end-user-friendly websites: the hacks, the vast amount of information available and the feuds between different groups of hackers. They shared publicly what is accessible to every skilled hacker, and that in itself deserves some appreciation. We are living in a time of centralized media outlets that control the flow of information, of governments that fail to inform the public of their actions, and of corporations that don’t disclose unethical business practices. LulzSec demonstrated that the internet makes it possible to access and expose the information that is kept from the public, and the problem here is not that classified information could be published. The real problem is that information of public interest are classified. To say that hackers don’t have the right to access corporate or government information means to oppose transparency, but without transparency there will never be a true Democracy. That LulzSec threw out some user data, email addresses and passwords was necessary to get attention, and it worked. They may have inconvenienced some users, but the harm done by publishing that data is widely overrated. Hackers access and use data like that every day, without letting anybody know about it. So the real concern here is not that LulzSec published some personal data, but that all the personal data is accessible and not adequately protected, and that most people are not even aware of that. If anything the appearance of LulzSec presents the opportunity to think about how we use the internet, and about the responsibility that all users have in regards to what information they share and how they protect it. Using the same password for all your accounts isn’t too bright, and mindlessly giving away all your information and blindly trusting companies with your data isn’t either. The internet is much more than the websites that average internet users operate on and LulzSec pointed that out very well. So in all reality LulzSec actually did us all a service by going public, and if nothing else, they sure are the most entertaining thing on Twitter.

July 22, 2011

Celebrating The Death Of Osama Bin Laden?
by Father Dave
originally appeared on Fighting Fathers (May 4, 2011)

I find myself disturbed by all the partying going on as a result of the bloody death of Osama Bin Laden.
Indeed, I find myself disturbed on at least three fronts:

1. I don't feel comfortable celebrating the death of anyone. George W. Bush was responsible for even more civilian deaths than Bin Laden, yet if he was assassinated I wouldn't celebrate the fact (though I would like to see him brought to trial, along with Tony Blair, John Howard and others).

2. I'm still not entirely convinced that Bin Laden was killed quite so recently. Certainly in this 2007 video interview (mark 6:15) the late Benazir Bhutto states quite clearly what many of us believed - that the Al Quaeda leader was killed some time ago. The timing of this latest colourful assasination just seems too perfect for Mr Obama's upcoming re-election campaign.

3. Most seriously though I am deeply disturbed by the mentality of those celebrating - that now that Osama is dead the reign of terror is over!

Such thinking is both naive and dangerous - naive because it assumes that Al Quaeda is the work of just one mad-man, and dangerous because it assumes that all such terrorist violence has no other explanation beyond the man's madness! Regardless of the malignant nature of Bin Laden, the reason he and others like him are able to inspire so many to sacrifice their lives for their cause is because they can point to genuine injustices that grieve desperate people across the Islamic world. When Bin Laden rails against 'the West' for our materialism, greed, individualism and imperialism, such criticism are generally grounded in truth. Moreover, when preachers of violence point to the way countries such as the US and Australian have supported Israel's brutal military occupation of Palestine, there is little that can be said in our defense. I remember Tony Campolo saying years ago, "the problem with my President is that he thinks you can stop terrorism by killing terrorists. It's like thinking that you stop Malaria by killing mosquitoes." You stop the spread of malaria by cleaning up the swamps that breed the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Likewise, you stop the spread of terrorism by cleaning up the coalition-of-the-willing-sponsored disaster-areas that inspire people to declare war against the West. In short, if we want to stop terrorism, we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, make an even-handed response to Libya and Bahrain, and, most of all, play a positive role in bringing peace to Israel/Palestine. Moves like this would rob Bin Laden and his kin of their ammunition. Until this happens and the West stops executing violence against the East, we can stop dancing around in circles singing, "ding, dong, the wicked witch in dead". Al Quaeda isn't going to have any trouble replacing Bin Laden so long as the West continues cultivating the swamps that breed desperate men.

May 7, 2011

Apple Squeeze

It's been a year since the iPad was first released, and guess what: It's time for an upgrade!!! It really takes some balls to release a mobile device without a camera in 2010, when every other mobile device has got one. But it worked! All the iSheep lined up in front of the Apple store to be the first and hippest to get an iPad, just so that they can toss it a year later to get the iPad II with a camera, though the cameras are supposedly crappy. They have to be, so that Apple can sell an iPad III with better cameras next year. So maybe in 2013 you can finally buy the iPad version that could have already been released 3 years earlier. But only if Apple feels confident that they squeezed every penny possible out of their fashionable customers. And in the meantime rebel groups in The Congo keep enslaving and killing people to satisfy the ridiculously high Coltan demand of the electronic industry. How fucking hip is that?!

March 30, 2011