Japan Anonymous aims to fight download law by picking up litter Japan has set up a task force to battle Anonymous and potential cyber-espionage attacks. The move follows online protests by the hacktivist group against Japan's new law against illegal downloads on June 22. The Finance Ministry was forced to suspend one of its websites on 26 June after it "had been alerted that some of the …
This post has been deleted by its author
They should know better than this. Japan certainly can't afford to stay a modern state subsiting on rising fossil fuel costs. Nuclear power has provided a basis for steady development in Japan for the last several decades. And they want to turn their back on it just when a double disaster of a collossal earthquake and tsunami doesn't cause a nuclear disaster, thus showing how safe it is? No Anonymous. Don't pick that battle. Anonymous can be many things but luddites is one of the last things I would have expected!
They have to be commended for choosing a pacifistic means in order to present the general public an alternative vision of what the governments and corporation are "deciding" for us.
George Orwell would have cried had he learned that his novel was to become fact.
"Unfortunately, it looks like he got it right."
Actually, he didn't. 1984, written as a hysterical anti-Communist screed, got almost all of the important bits wrong.
Orwell saw governments as the problem, when as it turns out a great deal of the civil problems we face are likely more the responsibility of corporations than governments. He saw ubiquitous surveillance as being only a tool of oppression and nothing more; as it turns out, surveillance works just as well in the hands of private citizens against the government (why do you think the police freak out about it so much?). He believed that political powers would grow and grow until we were left with only two giant opposing nation-states; in reality, what we see is that nations, particularly totalitarian nations, often tend to fragment when their internal stress reaches a certain point. (Witness, for example, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent splintering of many countries in Eastern and Central Europe.) He saw a system that rigorously controlled the dissemination of information, but did not anticipate the fact that technology also works the other way, and can be used to exchange information in a grassroots way very rapidly, and is surprisingly difficult to contain--even when nations spend huge amounts of money and enact harsh laws attempting to contain it.
On the flip side, many of the most pressing problems we face, such as economic depression, currency and foreign debt woes, abuse of civil copyright and patent matters as blunt instruments of criminal policy, and so on, totally escaped him.
He had a very narrow focus on a very specific threat that he saw in a very specific way, and much as it has become a social metaphor to compare every governmental incursion or social ill with 1984, I don't think most of those comparisons stand up even to cursory inspection.
"Actually, he didn't. 1984, written as a hysterical anti-Communist screed, got almost all of the important bits wrong." - Actually, he may have, only we aren't there yet.
"Orwell saw governments as the problem, when as it turns out a great deal of the civil problems we face are likely more the responsibility of corporations than governments." - fast forward about a decade until the corporations are the government. Does it not concern you that British banking is in tatters and it is business as usual? Does it not concern you revelation after sick sad revelation (MPs, expenses, Murdoch, eurozone, it doesn't matter really, it's all the same) and it is business as usual? There will be a time when this spirals so far out of control it will be cival war or totalitarian regime. I give it ten years at the current rate.
"He saw ubiquitous surveillance as being only a tool of oppression and nothing more; as it turns out, surveillance works just as well in the hands of private citizens against the government" - while the government permits the citizens to make use of surveillance. In our dystopian future, Joe Average won't have access to such things as video cameras, and those preferred citizens that do have such things will know damn well to watch very carefully what they record and when. Cherish these days when every idiot with a smartphone has a portable video camera and every other idiot is happy to mug mindlessly at it for no purpose other than to look a pratt on YouTube.
Of course, it won't be a case of "we're banning video cameras". It will be to protect innocent young children from predatory adults, and how simple it is for any closet paedo to take endless hours of cute young girls frolicking in the daisies, or some Daily Fail pleasing cack like that.
"He believed that political powers would grow and grow until we were left with only two giant opposing nation-states;" - try America and Russia. Yeah, ho hum, that power play again. The current situation in Syria could have been dealt with a long time ago if those two hadn't started a pissing contest. Russia, by the way, will not be the USSR we know of old. It'll be Russia, China, and half the east of Europe.
"in reality, what we see is that nations, particularly totalitarian nations, often tend to fragment when their internal stress reaches a certain point. (Witness, for example, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent splintering of many countries in Eastern and Central Europe.)" - witness North Korea. Witness Iraq before the invasion. Witness maybe Russia devolving into the USSR. If you are a totalitarian leader, you must rule with an iron fist and be willing to smite down those who oppose you, even if they are family. You rule absolutely with absolute fear. The countries you mention? It's mostly because the Soviet leadership got soft and the little countries saw there was another way. This doesn't mean totalitarian nations self-destruct, it just means some leaders are better at mass slaughter than others.
"and can be used to exchange information in a grassroots way very rapidly, and is surprisingly difficult to contain" - for the moment. However some countries have toyed with unplugging the Internet. I would imagine if you pulled the plug on that and ordered mobile networks shut down (put a gun to the right person's head, you'd e surprised how quickly things could happen) that would curtail a lot of the grassroots communications. Telephony can be monitored and/or restricted. Few people have a CB these days, and we all know the state media will be transmitting what we are supposed to hear (try: temporary media shut-down as al qaeda is planning a massive attack on bull...bull...bull...bull...bulll).
"On the flip side, many of the most pressing problems we face, such as economic depression, currency and foreign debt woes, abuse of civil copyright and patent matters as blunt instruments of criminal policy, and so on, totally escaped him."
We worry about economic depression because we have the freedoms to enjoy or fear it. If we reverted to being mere pawns in somebody else's game, we wouldn't have an economy as such. Only that which we are deemed entitled to. In the dystopian future, there will be no civil copyright or patent nonsense. Everything you may create will belong to the government (corporation).
"has become a social metaphor to compare every governmental incursion or social ill with 1984, I don't think most of those comparisons stand up even to cursory inspection." - that's because you are trying to compare NOW with the utter dystopia of 1984. Where we are now is about the crapsack world of "Robocop". We have not yet reached 1984, we still have some freedoms and the ability to think for ourselves once in a while...
Give it a decade. Then ask these questions again.
While I don't necessarily think that turning our back on nuclear power is the right thing to do (particularly in power-strapped Japan), I admire the idea of a protest *helping* rather than hindering the public. Sadly I can't see hackers/skiddies in western countries protesting by doing the same thing...
Yep cos the politicians take kickbacks and are now owned by the megacorps unless they want a sudden change of lifestyle.
Even today with open political corruption as good as actually being a reality TV show we still make the mistake of thinking politicians work for us and not themselves.
A politician's only employer is the one with the biggest payout.
I nearly wet myself laughing at that one! Did they really say that? How do they expect the public to take them seriously and consider them a voice of reason and knowledge on any matter when they obviously know nothing about the Worldwide tantrum group they have joined? Major, EPIC fail.
The haters should read up on copyright law to get a clue as to why it exists. Contrary to the beliefs of the young and dumb, we do not live in an "entitled universe". If you desire goods or services then you pay for them or you go without. No civilized country is going to tolerate piracy of copyright protected works.
I'm an artist. I've created a number of really stunning "works", if I may say so myself (snicker, snicker). However, I don't ever expect to get paid for them. I want to express something with my "works". In order to put food on the table, I know I actually need to create something that has value. You may say that art has value - only to the rich. The rich will spend money on art. The average person will not. You can see this throughout history. If you paint the ceiling of a cathedral for some rich dude, you'll get paid. If I paint on a piece of canvas, will I get paid? Perhaps, if someone *wants* to pay me. As an artist, I would never ask someone to pay for my "works." If they wanted to give me money or services because they enjoyed my "works", I would be flattered.
Obviously those pirating these "works" do not value them, or they would pay for them.
It's the publishers who want their slaves' "works" protected. I think most artists would be happy performing for audiences or creating all on their lonesome - if they had food on the table. Many lute player has roamed the continent entertaining people for place to lay his head, warm meal, and a pint. As an artist myself, I'm disgusted by those who are narcisistic and feel that they should be rich from foaming at the mouth. Do some real work or make something actually useful, then you might get paid. Farking egotistic loosers. No wonder they give so much head. Deep down inside, they know it's the only way they get the masses to worship them.
Sure the publishers are to blame for these laws, but the narcisitic artists are the pupets they use to get you to give them money - suckers...
I'm speaking mainly of pop culture here. Though the same can be said of any industry where the sale is overpriced. If it were not for pirates, you'd still be buying CDs like it was the 90's and for the same price.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
