tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post5593267807839859477..comments2024-01-08T04:16:25.601-08:00Comments on Ché (What You Call Your) Pasa: Scott Horton Says It BetterChé Pasahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-1503175245076666812011-09-25T14:23:49.930-07:002011-09-25T14:23:49.930-07:00they'd rather take down Playstation Network an...<i>they'd rather take down Playstation Network and cost Sony millions.</i><br /><br />That seems to me the key. It's mostly mischief, not really intentional action. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/21/v-wireless/3851214/hacked-cybersecurity-firm-hbgary.html" rel="nofollow">HBGary is back</a>, apparently doing better than ever. <br /><br />SIPRnet was never secure, wasn't really intended to be. After Manning apparently handed over most of its content to WikiLeaks, though, it took months and months for the DoD and State to institute even mild security protocols for users of the network. That was what was shocking to me. <br /><br />I know from personal experience that the government is quite capable of securing its data if it wants to. <br /><br />So much of what passes for our economy is basically nothing more than automatic trades and speculation, all of which should be essentially "unpluggable" at the whim of some saboteur, but it's never happened, never even come close. I don't know whether anybody's tried. <br /><br />That's the chief vulnerability of our Ruling Class, which I'm sure they know.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-20266633339400358942011-09-25T08:59:09.692-07:002011-09-25T08:59:09.692-07:00Well, I'm not really sure. I'm strictly a...Well, I'm not really sure. I'm strictly an outsider looking at the activities of LULZsec and Anonymous. Of course, bringing down SIPRnet would encourage the government to implement better security, so that may be it. Poor security on SIPRnet makes it a good source of information. If you have a secret tunnel into a bank, it makes more sense to repeatedly rob it then to blow it up, I think.<br /><br />Or it might just not be interesting to them, they'd rather take down Playstation Network and cost Sony millions.<br /><br />They have done some interesting things related to government activities:<br /><br /><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars/1" rel="nofollow">Anonymous speaks: the inside story of the HBGary hack</a><br /><br />HPGary is typical of government privatization, pay more money for amateur night quality when setting something up inside the NSA would have done a better job.vampyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14660319794133128873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-10625120141119929442011-09-25T07:45:52.394-07:002011-09-25T07:45:52.394-07:00The question I've raised a few times is why ha...The question I've raised a few times is why haven't the electronic operations of Ruling Class been brought down yet by some of the many electro-frontier-saboteurs running around the globe?<br /><br />Those operations are as vulnerable as SIPRnet was (and I think still is) insecure. <br /><br />What would be the upshot if they were made to cease?<br /><br />Just wondering...Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-40784266225098491342011-09-24T18:37:23.931-07:002011-09-24T18:37:23.931-07:00People can build their own networks, if they want ...People can build their own networks, if they want to:<br /><br /><a href="http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox" rel="nofollow">Pirate Box: Simple Wireless Network in a Box</a><br /><br />(It's a cumulative thing, the more of these built the bigger the Darknet... but the bigger it is the more likely for government attacks.)<br /><br />Honestly, though, it just makes sense to continue to use the corporate network for now. People could use codes and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography" rel="nofollow">steganography</a>. <br /><br />The fact is, the corporate network is <i>pathetically</i> insecure. Passwords suck. I have a friend who worked for a big investment house. When she needed to access actually sensitive financial data, trust me she used token based security... <i>not</i> a password. Of course, your bank still has you using rather pathetic password to get into your life savings... but that's because you aren't really important.<br /><br /> I'll never have much fear of google or yahoo, after all they are providing people something <a href="http://menga.net/4831" rel="nofollow">"for free."</a> <br /><br />My Mom told me about the strangers with free candy when I was a child.vampyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14660319794133128873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-69966063455116656102011-09-23T09:03:16.336-07:002011-09-23T09:03:16.336-07:00Technology is an obvious key. While governments in...Technology is an obvious key. While governments in the past may have wanted panopticons, they couldn't achieve them. They simply didn't have the man-power to do it, and that man-power was needed to overcome space and time, especially across such a vast nation. <br /><br />Now it can. And we all help simply by doing what we do every day. <br /><br />Not sure if you heard about it, but Yahoo, apparently (not confirmed yet), was blocking some emails from being sent to alert folks regarding the occupation of Wall Street. We knew that they and Google scan emails, but ostensibly solely for ads. This was never going to be where it stopped. <br /><br />That's the worst kind of "public-private" partnership, etc.<br /><br />BTW, found this on the Verso site, and followed several links into a wonderful world of ideas. <br /><br />http://mcaf.ee/q2hot<br /><br />I'd love to go to their conference. Always have been intrigued by the idea (and reality) of the Commons, and their notion of it not really being an issue of the state, or even "public" per se, as previously thought of. Need to get deeper into the weeds of their thought, but I'm liking what I read so far. A 21st century version/vision of C without the baggage of the past. No more statey state, etc. Well worth the look.Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-75210349933411141462011-09-22T21:15:32.691-07:002011-09-22T21:15:32.691-07:00Ah, dystopia. I haven't seen all of "Chil...Ah, dystopia. I haven't seen all of "Children of Men", only some of it -- maybe ten minutes or so of much shooting, running, urban destruction, war in the streets, calamity, birth of a baby, etc.<br /><br />It's a vision of Beirut back in the day, of Sarajevo, Srbrenica, Grozny, half of Africa, anywhere in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, on and on, and we should never think that we are immune. Ultimately, there will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. <br /><br />Visually, the effect is that of a sculpture -- so long as you are not in the midst of it. If you are, then I'm not too sure you notice it. People are so very adaptable, even in the ruins. It's just the way things tend to be. Sometimes worse, sometimes better. <br /><br />And we're all transients on this earth.<br /><br />I will have to see the whole movie though, and with the commentary.<br /><br />When I was searching for pictures of barricades, my thinking was that the government has barricaded itself away from the People, quite deliberately -- and fearfully. It's not just the terrorists they fear; it's you. And me. Your neighbors. Friends. And relations.<br /><br />All of us are ultimately suspect, all of us are to be feared, and so the government hides itself away from us. We don't know the half of what's going on. Even on the Inside, I'm convinced no one really knows the whole story.<br /><br />But the transitory sculpture I finally posted just grabbed me for its visual power and its ambiguity. Who is barricading what and from whom?<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />The surveillance technology may be relatively new, but not the program. We've gone through greater and lesser periods of surveillance but we've never been free of it, and the notion that we have isn't borne out by history.<br /><br />And most people think it's a good thing. They're not afraid of being tagged and followed. They have no idea, though, just how pervasive the Surveillance State really is. How many layers there are, how many opportunities for... well, let's say mischief. <br /><br />It's not paranoia to say that practically everything you do and say is monitored, everywhere you go is tracked, every purchase you make is recorded. There is so much raw data, though. Very little is sorted or useful in any rational way. But it is there, and if need be, it can be drawn on for all kinds of needs. Such as all the lefties who were raided and subpoenaed by Patrick Fitzgerald in his pursuit of suspicious visitors to the 2008 convention in St. Paul.<br /><br />As one example of many.<br /><br />No, there is little sense of doing social good within our government, but the truth is there has never been. <br /><br />So our government remains suspicious, fearful, behind its barricades, operating in secret, operating capriciously, operating in service to its sponsors. <br /><br />Not you. Not me.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-1008175164278098262011-09-22T09:26:07.530-07:002011-09-22T09:26:07.530-07:00Watched "Children of Men" again the othe...Watched "Children of Men" again the other night. One of the best movies in recent years. If you haven't seen it yet, it's a must. But watch it on DVD for the bonus features, which include commentary by Naomi Klein and Zizek, amongst other lefties. It's a rare collaboration between movie-maker and real lefty activists. <br /><br />Basically, the majority of the movie is set inside one big city-wide "sculpture" of the sort you mention above. <br /><br />. . . <br /><br />As for the surveillance. Chicken or egg stuff in a sense. The more government privatizes itself, the more it turns away from even minimal social good benefits, the more it needs heavy duty surveillance. Because the people have nothing good to associate with government, only bad. It becomes all Old Testament, Yahweh-volcano-god stuff, and nothing remotely like the Sermon on the Mount. <br /><br />It's doing everything it can, on purpose or not, to alienate the population, which will eventually result in mass revolts, which the government will have to stop via lethal force. The government may now fear internal revolt more than any external threats. But it never had to be. <br /><br />If both on the domestic and international front, it did nothing but concern itself with "social good", there would be little reason for "surveillance" in the first place. The only reason it doesn't do the obvious is economic. Duh, as the young kids used to say. <br /><br />Profit. It's not the devil made them do it. It's profit.Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.com