Why Are Hackers Becoming So Angry?

[zridling]

Glyn Moody asks: Why Are Hackers Becoming So Angry? Among the reasons:

-- "Political clout needed to abuse the narrow commercial scope of copyright protection," i.e., taxpayer monies paying for research that is then sold back to the public and institutions at exorbitant prices.

-- "Copyright maximalists have co-opted governments to attack ordinary citizens for sharing things, with huge collateral damage to basic liberties." (Severe copyright enforcement legislation like ACTA, HADOPI, the Digital Economy Act, La Ley Sinde, and the US PROTECT IP.)

Against this background of three-strikes legislation, plans for widespread Web censorship, huge fines for sharing files even when there is zero evidence any financial damage was caused by doing so, and disproportionate threats of extradition, I predict we will see many more such actions from angry hackers frustrated by the continuing abuse of existing legal, economic and political structures by a few powerful groups - particularly in the media world - for their own self-interest. As to why it seems to be mostly hackers that are angry in this way, the reason is simple. In addition to being well placed to understand the profound implications of the transition away from a closed, analogue world of scarcity, they are also one of the few groups that have the ability and means to fight back by harnessing the power of the open, digital abundance that is replacing it.
__________________________
I'd call that righteous anger.

[40hz]

Whenever people come to the realization that they are being denied due process and equal protection under the same laws they are ordered to obey, their only recourse is to either reform the system they live under - or rebel against it.

Since much of our current legal system is bought and paid for by special interests, it has become difficult (bordering on impossible) for the system to reform itself through the mechanisms that were instituted for it to do so.

As a result, people are seeking champions - and taking the law into their own hands.

This should come as no surprise to anybody in the Unites States, least of all its leaders. Because there's a historic precedent for it here. It's something every school child learns:

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Some of these government officials and sworn officers of the court (see below) need a refresher course.  

 

[worstje]

I've been reading articles originating from this article for the past 30 minutes. I always knew the world was screwed up, but this only emphasizes it.

Why don't they use all that money spent sueing to pay off debt? I bet that if one gave it a decade, the entire system would come to stand under a lot of stress, eventually leading to lower costs. (Then again, politicians would consider it an excuse to spend even more money they don't have...)

[Stoic Joker]

Whenever people come to the realization that they are being denied due process and equal protection under the same laws they are ordered to obey, their only recourse is to either reform the system they live under - or rebel against it.

-40hz (July 22, 2011, 08:01 AM)

Bingo!

It is, in reality, the people that are angry. As in "We the people". And in abiding by the law of averages...Many of those people accidentally just so happen to be really good with a computer (hehe). And seeing as none of us are really inclined to "take it" lying down given the nature of the beast which is mankind. Something is gonna have to give. Hence, being that the self elected target is a class that makes most mules appear quite accomodating...Slightly more extreme measures are required to get their attention. Necessity being a mother and all that.

[kyrathaba]

I find myself in agreement with the sentiments being expressed here. Thank goodness that, in addition to the laziness of the human animal, there are also specimens that are exceptional. I say more power to hackers who are using their skills to be modern-day revolutionaries.

[vlastimil]

I agree with the article. The attempts to undo all the good things that internet brought in the name of profit and control would make anyone angry, not just hackers.

Though, I do not think hacking web sites is the proper reaction. The "responsible hacker" should work on something positive and develop technologies that are resistant to misuse. I admire projects like freenet or bitcoin. While they have many drawbacks, others will be built upon their legacy and one day, we'll have the free internet back. The more the governments push against it, the sooner .

[wraith808]

Though, I do not think hacking web sites is the proper reaction. The "responsible hacker" should work on something positive and develop technologies that are resistant to misuse.

-vlastimil (July 22, 2011, 12:53 PM)

This is the part I agree with.  People compare this to other revolutionaries in other areas, but I think if true scrutiny was given to the similarities, there would be one key difference- the other people in question didn't have any other valid recourse within the strictures they'd been given.  There have been an abundance of constructive things within the system that have had real promise- the only problem has been they become part of the system rather than working to change it, IMO.  But they still serve as examples of the ability to work within the system.

[worstje]

I think it is short-sighted to say that if someone hacks a website and releases a small part of the data as proof of doing so is bad. Hackers have been criminalized again, again and again. There's very few ways for them to work in the system. When one finds a leak and report it, often it gets ignored - be it by idiots misinterpreting the seriousness of the matter or be it due to miscommunication. When they step into the media, they get charges filed against them with the police, or directly sued if their identity was known.

Commercial institutions only have one interest, and that is covering their own ass. Hackers that reak into their systems, no matter how well-intentioned and good-mannered in wanting to protect the privacy of the users of said systems, are the one to blame. Saying the evil hacker is the wrong party fixes that. Employing professional security analysis to find holes like those costs serious money, so all in all, it is a thankless job.

Mind you, I am not condoning hackers immediately publishing entire databases without regard for law or proper moral justification. But if you take five minutes to look into the media, you can find countless examples of hackers that played nice yet got into serious trouble for it. Look at that, and you'll find working within the system to improve said system is a very difficult job for people with these insights and skills.

[40hz]

It is, in reality, the people that are angry.

-Stoic Joker (July 22, 2011, 11:33 AM)

I think Stoic hits on an important point here.

One of the reasons why enforcement actions are having so little impact (at least so far) is because there is a lot of popular support for many of Anonymous' activities.

I think it's particularly telling when so many otherwise law-abiding people aren't moved to absolute outrage by most of these "hacking" and media "piracy" behaviors. Or at least not as much as those in power might wish.

I've been told the only differences between a traitor, a rebel, and a revolutionary are:

• who you asked
• whether or not they were successful
• and the amount of popular support they received regardless of the outcome

I think a clear message is being sent. The people are getting fed up with paid-for government 'representatives' passing industry-drafted laws rather than representing the interests of the people who elected them. So even though most people would not normally condone the activities of movements like Anonymous, many of their pranks (and that's really what they are since their chief intent is to embarrass rather than bring about direct change) still bring a smile to the lips of people who would otherwise condemn such behaviors.

And that's a dangerous thing if you're in power. Because it's only one small step away from the general public deciding that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - even if they don't completely condone the actions of so-called hackers and pirates.

Anonymous is a symptom of a much large problem. It is not the problem itself...

To borrow a phrase attributed to Rasputin: Let those with wit to understand this - understand this.

[wraith808]

Look at that, and you'll find working within the system to improve said system is a very difficult job for people with these insights and skills.

-worstje (July 22, 2011, 02:02 PM)

I think this quote will shed a lot of light on the true level of belief.  When people took to the streets in Egypt and the other countries of the Arab Summer, they took a difficult route because that was the only way to get things accomplished, and was based on something they believed in.  People died for their cause, and did so because they believed- but didn't cause harm to someone else doing so.  They broke the law of their country, but not the reasonable laws of the world at large.  Is the use of hacking as a tactic because its too hard to work on the inside, rather than it not being feasible?  Are the laws that are broken reasonable to be broken to the world at large because they're too restrictive to any attempt at change?

I've been told the only differences between a traitor, a rebel, and a revolutionary are:

• who you asked
• whether or not they were successful
• and the amount of popular support they received regardless of the outcome
  

-40hz (July 22, 2011, 03:57 PM)

I think there are a couple more factors not enumerated, i.e. the timing of the asking, and who is doing the asking.

[zridling]

And when someone honest tries to hold corporations and politicians to their lies, they promptly get asked to leave the building:

Cenk Uygur and the ethos of corporate-owned media
http://www.salon.com.../21/uygur/index.html

From the same magazine: An interview with a LulzSec member:
http://www.salon.com...mous_chat/index.html

[Stoic Joker]

I've been told the only differences between a traitor, a rebel, and a revolutionary are:

• who you asked
• whether or not they were successful
• and the amount of popular support they received regardless of the outcome
  

-40hz (July 22, 2011, 03:57 PM)

I think there are a couple more factors not enumerated, i.e. the timing of the asking, and who is doing the asking.

-wraith808 (July 22, 2011, 04:23 PM)

Nope, that part is completely irrelevant. It is all a matter of observation and people talking among themselves (no power plays or players in sight).

You mentioned Egypt. When the people there revolted and took to the streets, the world at large said Hay, good for you.

Conversely, when the tali-ban decided to make a point it was much less well received.

Tis really quite that simple.

[wraith808]

I've been told the only differences between a traitor, a rebel, and a revolutionary are:

• who you asked
• whether or not they were successful
• and the amount of popular support they received regardless of the outcome
  

-40hz (July 22, 2011, 03:57 PM)

I think there are a couple more factors not enumerated, i.e. the timing of the asking, and who is doing the asking.

-wraith808 (July 22, 2011, 04:23 PM)

Nope, that part is completely irrelevant. It is all a matter of observation and people talking among themselves (no power plays or players in sight).

You mentioned Egypt. When the people there revolted and took to the streets, the world at large said Hay, good for you.

Conversely, when the tali-ban decided to make a point it was much less well received.

Tis really quite that simple.

-Stoic Joker (July 22, 2011, 05:26 PM)

Those parts are not irrelevant, as shown by how different anonymous surveys are than ones that are not, and the difference in someone asked about a revolution before and after it happens that is in the middle of the revolution.

And when someone honest tries to hold corporations and politicians to their lies, they promptly get asked to leave the building:

-zridling (July 22, 2011, 05:26 PM)

In some cases, yes (note the addendum at the bottom).  But if you truly believe in it, then you don't want to work there anyway, no?  So why not ask?