Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:22:10 +0100
From: Levente Peres <sheridan@...sz.org>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Megaupload Anonymous hacker retaliation,
 nobody wins

Hi Marcio,

Thanks for your answer.

On 01/26/2012 02:07 PM, Marcio B. Jr. wrote:
>> I don't want to get into any
>> "conspiracy theory" - either one thinks that way or doesn't, but if you
>> look at the patterns, then let's just say that strong interest groups
>> somehow always seem to get past these democratic barriers to create
>> situations in which they can generate profit.
>
> "conspiracy theory"?? "let's just say"??
>
> That happens. It is, say, a fact.
I agree, unfortunately...

>> Fortunately, most of the
>> time they still need to play for the public and ask "nicely" first
>> before they can do whatever they damn well please.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Corporations do whatever they please, and that is achieved through
> propaganda, which in turn, prepares the masses to think they are being
> asked "nicely".
If we break it down then yes, it effectively comes down to this. However 
disgusting. But I don't believe this is so much black and white. I don't 
think they have managed to brainwash everyone so much yet so that they 
don't need some RPG to justify their actions. We can call this 
propaganda or whatever. But we still have some nerve and some power in 
our hands to say no to things that we don't like, and this constitutes 
our own "propaganda". And when we do say no loud enough, they usually 
back off and try another way. If this was not the case, actions like the 
previous blackouts wouldn't have meant a damn thing, the bills would 
have passed immediately. Why play around when you can just do it without 
consequence? I think "they", or rather, the pawns they control, do need 
our - however limited - approval for now, and we should take advantage 
of that.

>
>> But I feel that is
>> changing.
>
> Yes, it's getting internationally worst. Search for ACTA.
>
> One crackdown we're living in. Goal is: keeping knowledge away from the people.
Don't we know that over here with the EU scandal... Citizens here (and 
not just here, sadly) still think that our national bank is a "National" 
bank... some even go out as far as saying it is, as far as they honestly 
believe, answerable to the government or to the people. Then, just when 
a straightforward-looking thing, like an obligation for the president of 
the "National" bank having to take a sworn oath to the constitution 
creates an uproar among EU interests and we are suddenly branded almost 
fascists as a country because of this and similar issues, do some start 
to question what the heck is going on with the world they think they knew...

>
>> Yes, we have such thing
>> as democracy out there
>
> Where is it? Switzerland maybe? The kibbutzim of Israel?
I'm afraid I misphrased this. Let me try the other way... maybe seen 
just as wrong, but perhaps more correctly put... We have the fabric of 
democracy - filled for the most part, with pawns. Pawns we're being 
offered as a "choice". Hard to work a democracy or make any kind of 
serious vote when your only choice is, more often than not, pawn A and 
pawn B.

>> Lately, after Wikipedia and many others stood by the people, peacefully
>> but with great resolve, public will has won. Not necessarily because
>> that was the will of the people - to have none of PIPA etc... -
>
> Not the people as a whole (which would be ideal) but a small part of
> it who is trying to participate more often in wide scope decisions.

But this also shows that even if there're only a small part of 
"activists", people who are rather passive can still be influenced by 
their actions, change their view no matter what CNN noise propagates... 
thereby possibly negating the effect of the mainstream "washing 
machine". Even if only (for the sake of saying it) 10 people are 
shouting, many more could start to quietly agree with them and it will, 
inevitably, influence their future actions. And, for now at least, 
public opinion does matter, otherwise there would be no need for the 
propaganda system.

>
>> but more
>> likely because we have triggered this protection of "self interest" in
>> the officials.
>
> Which is still a "will".
A will, yes. But at least our will. We show them our will that unless 
they satisfy our needs now and again, we will not vote for them and they 
won't get money, very simply put. They still be stuck between two 
masters, but they will not be so easily convinced to ignore us.

>> Quite simply, elected ones got afraid of not being
>> re-elected, or just going too far and getting into something they cannot
>> handle with a popular face. They appeared to have no "valid" moral
>> reason anymore to cooperate with the passing, so they bailed out.
>
> That is not democracy but a rotten representative system. Masses were
> taught to accept it as fair.
No argument there... But unfortunately, it all comes down to human 
nature... As far as I've seen it, anyone having the "initiative" to be 
any kind of serious leader or official - respect goes out to the few 
exceptions - has the inherent capacity for greed. Greed is a heavy 
instinct, and it can be easily controlled. So my point is that we 
shouldn't shout at democracy necessarily, but try to figure out why 
almost everyone who wants to be a politician or "leader" is either a 
lickup or will be someday, and the rest just doesn't have the money or 
power to compete with them.

>
>> But these interest groups know that officials also have a
>> mandate to protect "security", which is a largely different matter.
>
> Man, why you keep separating "officials" from "interest groups"? They
> are the same thing. SAME THING.
So then let me make this more clear. Interest groups that I'm talking 
about are far more powerful than senators, prime ministers or even the 
president of the US. Officials are sometimes not even part of these 
groups, perhaps they're near them, but are not equals by far. They 
simply don't have the power or assets to really call themselves one of 
the "handful", so separation is warranted.

>
>> If
>> they can picture it so that security's being violated somehow, and start
>> making enough noise about "security" and telling people that "you could
>> be attacked next" as so on, then quite simply, people will start
>> demanding them to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.
>
> Naivety detected.
>
> Conglomerates' propaganda indoctrinates most of the people to see
> insecurity and fear where and when is appropriate.
Perhaps. But howevermuch they would like that, people are still far from 
fully "cattle" minded, otherwise not even the smallest victory for these 
peaceful protests would be possible. Yet it is happening again and 
again. If all these actions would be futile, and indoctrination would be 
infallible, we wouldn't be talking about the results of these protests 
and movements. Again, it's not only about the number of people who are 
"doing the work". it's important yes, and it has to reach a critical 
mass to be effective, agreed. But even those relatively few people can 
change the minds of "bystanders" or passivists, who are not completely 
braindead and who - when it will come to take some action, either big 
action like voting or small action like buying or not buying something, 
etc. - will remember these events if things not go their way.

Levente

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists