TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ANONYMOUS STUXNET, ONE OF THE MOST WORM 'DANGEROUS EVER ORGANIZED FOR REFINERY STRIKE, industries and even uranium enrichment plant. THERE IS A PROJECT INVOLVING Wikileaks ANONYMOUS AND WITH THE GOAL OF MAKING THE INDEPENDENT CYBERSPACE?
Di Mattia Paolinelli
They hit Wikileaks, and Wikileaks has run multiplied. They hit the Anonymous and also they have multiplied. Then came another poor myopic groped in vain to launch yet another blow. So now the result is that Anonymous are stronger than before and are even more afraid.
Finally in apparently lackluster minds that have been uploaded to head down the idea that it will be flashed Wikileaks that Anonymous is not what they seem? The U.S. State Department, Bank of America, the Federal HBGary you will finally realize that these two entities can not wait to be attacked? What had been ready for any counter-time, from at least four years? And that these four years were used to accumulate resources, but that the years of cultural advantage are eight, ten, twenty?
They realized that their own computer technicians, their analysts, systems analysts and programmers they could be part of Anonymous Anonymous-because-quite simply do not exist as an organization?
possible that the finest thinkers and opinion of this and other countries are so busy explaining the last gasps of a new Congress of Vienna did not notice that nothing will be as before after the "Revolution" of 1991?
possible that one of the most brilliant analysis on Anonymous must come from this "SmallFurryCreature" on the site Slashdot.org with this posting?
If you are talking about the Anonymous from 4chan, then there isn't Any group like that. That implies to much organization, to hierachy, an organization.
Was The idea originally related to but Not The Same "I am Spartacus." And many people do not even Understand That statement.
The "I am Spartacus" is this statement: "I hereby declare that i am the person you are seeking and accept all responsibility for my actions." If you state this, you BECOME Spartacus, you are it and LOOSE yourself with it. You can't say, "I smallfurrycreature represent Spartacus", you surrender yourself to the cause and become it. In the movie, the people all nailed up, are ALL Spartacus and by doing so the idea of Spartacus if not the person becomes invincible. No matter how many Spartacusses you nail to a cross, there is always one more just around the corner. It is the undying hero, the person dies but the idea goes on.
This doesn't sit well with our individual culture.
Anonymous takes this even further, if people understood it. You cannot state "I am Anonymous" for this is silly. The moment you tie yourself to this concept, you are no longer anonymous. You can speak with a thousand voices, you can at best be one voice representing a thousand but never a thousand. You cannot be anonymous only be a non-significant part of it.
The real idea behind it all on 4chan was to give a name to the movements/actions that were observed. It is like watching the migration patterns of animals and calling them Bob. Just because it now sounds like a person doesn't mean that a wildebeast migrating represents Bob or is controlled by the motives of Bob.
Ma la prima domanda cui rispondere in questo articolo è un’altra: cosa è accaduto the late evening of February 10? Just like a bolt from the quasi-peaceful-came a message from Twitter. From a certain atopiary to be precise, who posted the following tweet
Anonymous is now in possession of Stuxnet - problem, officer?
a question. And the only possible answer is yes.
Stuxnet What? One of the most dangerous worms ever created, able to spread via the Internet, infecting Windows systems. Naturally inclined to make more of removable storage devices and highly effective carriers of infection tends to invisibility Stuxnet to maximize their reach viral. Virtually harmless in normal Windows is designed to activate only in the presence of a particular PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) developed by Siemens. This PLC is just a small integrated control system in industrial applications that presides over any sort of automated process. For this Stuxnet targets are not home PCs, but the factories, chemical plants, oil refineries and nuclear power plants. These PLCs are often controlled by computers and Stuxnet affects where is the control software, Siemens SIMATIC WinCC/Step7 and only that. Where is the problem then? The fact is that the vast majority of large industrial plants and adopt their own energy systems Siemens.
How and why Anonymous been in possession of Stuxnet is a topic we will address in a future article, but meanwhile you can specify that regard Atopiary not yet know whether in fact part of the face Anonymous or if their is a "supporter". And basically the point is this: what is the nature and boundaries of the subjects in the game?
possible that for twenty years no one has noticed or was concerned that Hackers, the Geeks, the Nerds all belong to the same culture, the same matrix? Hackers are like that of modern brothers united by a shared knowledge and an ideal? What did they think the big companies taking the most talented among them to make them defend their systems? What will you think when the world was born of Open Source? How can we ignore the litmus test of literary and filmic mythology? Will be sick of self-absorption, anti-social, monomanias Startrekkiane, Guerrestellaresche and comics, but these hackers know their stuff if you put in front of a computer. And now the world is on computers and computers in their hands.
On Nautilus I recently made two articles (here and here ), identifying the contact points, analogies, and perhaps also the relationships between Wikileaks, Tor and Anonymous. Well, just do a little jump on Wikipedia looking for Tor to run into this page,
a page to scroll immediately to its end because in the related items are the whole truth of a story written for some time. Just read and learn about the culture of the hacker world then to have little doubt about what is happening over a year now.
Semplicemente stiamo assistendo ad un progetto finalmente diventato totalmente operativo che sulla base di una cultura ha creato nuovi meccanismi sociali e che ormai, anche se fermato, ha messo in moto una coscienza che potrà essere sfruttata da diversi soggetti indipendenti.
Giusto tre giorni fa ho raccontato l’incredibile caso di Aaron Barr e della HBGary Federal , raggruppati entrambi nel “miope” cui mi riferivo ad inizio articolo. Barr afferma che tutte le sue 50.000 mail rese pubbliche dagli Anonymous sono inventate, scritte by the same Anonymous. Perhaps the proper Barr has been hit too hard and some of his psychic equilibrium are staggering, or perhaps can not find their way on how Anonymous has managed to penetrate the system HBGary Federal (the mail came from his account) with great ease. But we are sure that someone has entered the HBGF and instead the material does not limit himself to get out of it?
We are confident that that Anonymous is not his colleagues, his subordinates? All persons in December last year they put their computers available to voluntarily installing Anonymous Loic, were they not in turn of Anonymous? Marry the ideals of a lawsuit makes us part of it. Right here lies the danger that sooner or later leads people to abandon a traditional or distance themselves from the revolt to participate in a customary form of protest. But when it does not participate in individual sanctions because it is just a number between one thousand one, that is when our consciousness can awaken gradually numbed by taking an active part in change, rejoicing in the result and according to the shelter of anonymity, here's the incipit of a community is easier to recall and strong, very strong.
happens in blogs, forums, and social networks. And whether we like it or not, this is probably one aspect of the future. A future that mixes and involvement protest, revolution and living room. But we also have a present and this time the hackers, the Anonymous, have figured out how to exploit the hierarchy to eliminate it. Aspire to positions of prestige, aspire to power? But what is power but the power of privilege? And what a privilege but a right and a grant more than the other? The award of knowledge is not a right derived from the power and instrument of power in turn? Providing privileges immediate alternative to those promised by the hierarchy here is that it is easier to transform individuals into "conspiracy".
I motivatori aziendali cercano di far sentire i dipendenti di una società come parte di una squadra, ritraendo il mondo commerciale come fosse un campionato senza fine o uno sterminato teatro di guerra. Ebbene, far parte degli Anonymous significa anche “far parte di qualcosa”, avere una voce in un mondo che propone poche icone e tanti fan. Significa elevare il proprio anonimato a valore, a forza. E tutto questo potrebbe anche significare vincere.
Mentre io e molti di voi ora ci interroghiamo -Perhaps-with concern that the use of Anonymous will Stuxnet, others are simply rejoicing as if the message Atopiary was a victory. It is a personal victory. E 'attitude to blame? More simply, these are the dynamics of a community, the same ones that make us say "we won" when our favorite team wins a game. We have not taken the field, we did not play, but we participated in by fans and as such we are part of a community.
Referring this sporting metaphor, once analyzed the mood and mode of participation of the "fans" we should now be concerned of the "players": these are the Anonymous?
-in I did this and on other occasions-reference to a "project". Why? Analyzing the events of December it was easy to understand the turning point represented by the required participation by Anonymous and when the numbers of those holdings are now clearly important, was just as easy to predict a complete success for Operation Payback. But then what would become of the Anonymous and this unexpected wealth of membership? Remember that everything is apparently began with a temporary change of targets (previously, the music majors and copyright). But soon this change has become a total conversion that turned him from Anonymous cynical and caustic observer of the network-and its most bigoted and narrow-examples as champions of Wikileaks.
But Anonymous is not an organization. Anonymous is that of a flag that at times had the power to raise hacker ideally under one emblem. It 'is time to ask a question: is it really? We are at 15 February 2011 and it started only in December last year, or three months ago. In about 90 days, the Anonymous have revolutionized the way of understanding the Internet and have created national sub-communities, each with its own blog, facebook page, your Twitter account and especially its "Operations". In addition to this they have created and now Crowdleaks Anonleaks or two new communities made up of volunteers that make Anonymous look more to the "armed wing" of Wikileaks or a version of "bad", free in all ways that can not be Assange and members of the organization (and I hope you caught the quote).
If this is not il frutto di un’organizzazione fortemente strutturata (almeno ai vertici), se non è il risultato di un preciso progetto, cosa lo è? Tanto di cappello agli Anonymous, a Wikileaks, a Tor e quindi agli hackers. A una comunità che in silenzio ha perseguito i propri ideali sfruttando l’ignoranza dei non adepti e in special modo di coloro che hanno finanziato tecnologie apparentemente utili a diversi scopi, ma principalmente finalizzate a perseguire l’obiettivo dei suoi sviluppatori. Un obiettivo che probabilmente è semplicemente quello di rendersi indipendenti.
 |
| PROMOZIONE DI APT-GET PER SISTEMI LINUX |
Sono onesto e non voglio che le mie considerazioni personali creino dei preconcetti, delle illusioni o che servano a corroborare l’ennesima ipotesi di complotto. Certe mie conclusioni si basano in parte su dati e in parte su semplici indizi. Per gli uni e per gli altri ho fornito -in questo ed in altri spazi- fonti, riferimenti e riscontri, ma tutti i dati e gli indizi a disposizione non possono dimostrare completamente l’architettura disegnata fin qui. Quanto detto è fortemente probabile, ma non è certo. Eppure non costituisce nemmeno l’incipit di un romanzo di fantascienza. Non è insomma un insieme di pure e semplici illazioni.
La dimostrazione arriva da due elementi che dovevano realizzare un articolo a sé stante e che invece rientreranno in questo pezzo apparentemente infinito. Il tema è ancora una volta Internet e in particolare la sua tutela. Ma da parte di chi?
Il 5 febbraio scorso giungeva notizia della presentazione al Senato degli Stati Uniti di un particolare Disegno di legge. Il titolo del Ddl è il seguente: “Protezione del cyberspazio come patrimonio nazionale” ed è un titolo che ha del grottesco, perché sebbene Internet e la sua prima versione “Arpanet” siano state create and developed in the U.S. by the joint efforts of the Federal Government and an old acquaintance of the readers of Nautilus, which is the DARPA, the Internet has become the world heritage.
not enough history to incorporate such incontrovertible truth, by 1991-or the birth of the World Wide Web-a show thinks the same network structure, consists of segments independent. The U.S. network is in fact disconnected from that of Russia, from Europe, etc..
Where is the problem then if Americans want to protect your network like any other national treasures? First we pay attention to the terms. Cyberspace is not limited to American network, but does include the World Wide Web. In addition there is a difference is not insignificant by the government and citizens, politicians and civil society. The political majority in the Government and Parliament, as the Senate represents the voting majority of American citizens, but that does not mean that those same citizens are every day and in every act consistent with its representatives, in fact. This is why there are warrants out of office and not perpetual. For this reason there are elections. Finally, therefore, the existence and presentation of such a draft bill to the Senate does not automatically mean that Americans are unanimous in considering cyberspace as a national asset or a similar draft bill they consider useful. You can say, if anything, that for many the opposite is true.
 |
| Tim Berners-Lee in 1991 |
fact, this particular bill, that most famous is "notorious" in the U.S. . Apparently voted to precipitate the worst Orwellian paranoia in reality, the bill would give the President the power to declare a "state cyber-emergency "and during this period (of limited duration and may be extended only with the consent of Congress) The President may even require the interruption of Internet traffic.
Now any consideration is purely academic. We are facing a very serious Ddl much for the theory of civil rights because of the existence of the Internet for the practice because even if the network-as stated above-is divided into independent segments, and then the President would be able to "turn off" only the American network, it is also true that many of the primary content of the Internet are all still there, heritage di server e provider siti in territorio americano.
Avere la facoltà di spegnere la rete americana significa quindi ancora avere la facoltà di dare un colpo micidiale a tutta Internet così come all’economia mondiale. Con questa norma si sostanzia nella pratica la possibilità di un ricatto a livello globale? Certamente sarebbe un forte contrappeso che gli Stati Uniti (anzi, il Governo degli Stati Uniti) potrebbero porre sul piatto della bilancia delle relazioni internazionali, l’ennesimo. Ma questo Ddl è in contrasto con un qualche altro ordinamento? La risposta è si.
Unfortunately sorting in question has no legal value, but ideal. It 'a statement which probably adheres to all users of the Internet, but has not been voted on by parliament and not the law of a State, then "no value". Of course it is strange to read that statement in quotation marks bearing in mind we are referring to and what are its contents. This document assumes a reality in fact totally the opposite, stating that in the particular territory of which are rather basic charter states and their laws have no meaning, value, power.
We are faced with an unholy that in some ways reminiscent of the sustained struggle for independence from the United States against the British. We are facing the nth Constitution is not recognized and no value at least until it can not begin to practice law as a territory and after it has achieved its independence from the power over that territory presumed to exercise its control and to apply their own laws. But in this case, the territory we are talking about is obviously the cyberspace and the fight is between the physical and virtual reality, between a world of borders and flags and one assumes that those same boundaries as the self-exclusion, as a voluntary exile.
E ' time to take a step back, indeed, a real leap forward, until 9 February 1996. The World Wide Web was born five years earlier, these five years were enough for the United States and around the world began to notice the first political discontent, the first thoughts about the Internet and its freedom of expression in the first instance. Just in February 1996 and just pass it the first law of Internet regulation, the Telecom Reform Act Many would not be happy for the approval of this "reform", but one more than others.
 |
| JOHN PERRY BARLOW |
This person by the name of John Perry Barlow, a poet, essayist and activist, American. For the Republicans probably just a bastard, but for myself one of those people with the rare gift of being able to always be on the right side of the world. And when the right parts in a world no longer existed, to know everything there is to choose which suits them best. For Barlow, then, this consideration is even more true and now we discover why.
That Feb. 9 Barlow was pretty angry (to put it mildly). Angry, disappointed and baffled by the contents of the Telecom Reform Act, by converting it into law and the numbers associated with his approval. All of these feelings led him to an outburst in which any person is confined to several furniture and furnishings smashed against the walls but in Barlow becomes the need to slaughter a white sheet with strokes of the pen and words. And thus was born probably one of the best examples to beat in the face to those who ask what they do as much poetry as the poets: the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, which carry the full text and pochi giorni fa ha compiuto quindici anni
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 17:16:35 +0100
To: barlow@eff.org
From: John Perry Barlow
Subject: A Cyberspace Independence Declaration
Yesterday, that great invertebrate in the White House signed into the law
the Telecom "Reform" Act of 1996, while Tipper Gore took digital
photographs of the proceedings to be included in a book called "24 Hours in
Cyberspace."
I had also been asked to participate in the creation of this book by
writing something appropriate to the moment. Given the atrocity that this
legislation would seek to inflict on the Net, I decided it was as good a
time as any to dump some tea in the virtual harbor.
After all, the Telecom "Reform" Act, passed in the Senate with only 5
dissenting votes, makes it unlawful, and punishable by a $250,000 to say
"shit" online. Or, for that matter, to say any of the other 7 dirty words
prohibited in broadcast media. Or to discuss abortion openly. Or to talk
about any bodily function in any but the most clinical terms.
It attempts to place more restrictive constraints on the conversation in
Cyberspace than presently exist in the Senate cafeteria, where I have dined
and heard colorful indecencies spoken by United States senators on every
occasion I did.
This bill was enacted upon us by people who haven't the slightest idea who
we are or where our conversation is being conducted. It is, as my good
friend and Wired Editor Louis Rossetto put it, as though "the illiterate
could tell you what to read."
Well, fuck them.
Or, more to the point, let us now take our leave of them. They have
declared war on Cyberspace. Let us show them how cunning, baffling, and
powerful we can be in our own defense.
I have written something (with characteristic grandiosity) that I hope will
become one of many means to this end. If you find it useful, I hope you
will pass it on as widely as possible. You can leave my name off it if you
like, because I don't care about the credit. I really don't.
But I do hope this cry will echo across Cyberspace, changing and growing
and self-replicating, until it becomes a great shout equal to the idiocy
they have just inflicted upon us.
I give you...
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I
come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask
you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have
no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address
you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always
speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally
independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral
right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true
reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You
have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not
know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your
borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public
construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows
itself through our collective actions.
You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you
create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our
ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order
than could be obtained by any of your impositions.
You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this
claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't
exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will
identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social
Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our
world, not yours. Our world is different.
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself,
arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a
world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice
accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her
beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence
or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and
context do not apply to us. They are based on matter, There is no matter
here.
Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by
physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest,
and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be
distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our
constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope
we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we
cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications
Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams
of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These
dreams must now be born anew in us.
You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world
where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust
your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly
to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of
humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole,
the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes
from the air upon which wings beat.
In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States,
you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at
the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small
time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in
bit-bearing media.
Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate
themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own
speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be
another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world,
whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed
infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires
your factories to accomplish.
These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same
position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had
to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare
our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to
consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the
Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
Davos, Switzerland
February 8, 1996
****************************************************************
John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
Co-Founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Home(stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/~barlow
Message Service: 800/634-3542
Barlow in Meatspace Today (until Feb 12): Cannes, France
Hotel Martinez: (33) 92 98 73 00, Fax: (33) 93 39 67 82
Coming soon to: Amsterdam 2/13-14, Winston-Salem 2/15, San Francisco
2/16-20, San Jose 2/21, San Francisco 2/21-23, Pinedale, Wyoming
In Memoriam, Dr. Cynthia Horner and Jerry Garcia
*****************************************************************
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can
stand by itself.
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia
E below translation:
world government, weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you, beings of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty over places where we meet.
We have no elected government, it is likely that we'll have some, so I address you with an authority no greater than that with which liberty itself, usually speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent from the tyranny that you want to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we can reasonably fear.
Governments get their powers from the consent of the governed. We have requested and have received ours. We have not invited. You do not know us and do not even know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders.
not think that you can build the project as if it were a public building. You can not. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions. You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, and even the unwritten codes that already provide our society more 'order than could be obtained from your taxes.
You claim there are problems among us that need to be solved by you. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems do not exist. We will find the real conflicts and things do not go and face them with our resources.
We are building our Social Contract.
This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. l Ours is a world that is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world in which all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his beliefs, no regard to how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement and context do not apply to us.
They are based on matter. Here there is no matter. Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we can not get the order by physical coercion. We believe that our governance will emerge from ethics, from our self-interest illuminated, and the commonweal. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions.
The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. On the basis of it we hope to be able to adopt specific solutions. But we can not accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
In the U.S. we have created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which is contrary to our Constitution and bears insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.
You are terrified by your children, because they are born into a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world all the feelings and expressions of humanity, from the simplest to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We can not separate the air that chokes from the air moved by the wings.
In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States are trying to ward off the virus of freedom erecting guard posts at the edge of cyberspace. These can control the infection for a while 'time, but then can not function in a world in which the bits blanketed everywhere.
Your information industries becoming obsolete perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, who claim to have the floor all over the world. These laws state that the ideas of industrial products, more noble than iron. In our world, all the creations of the human mind can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The overall cost of the thought no longer requires your factories.
Queste misure sempre più ostili e coloniali ci mettono nella stessa posizione di quegli antichi amanti della libertà e dell'autodeterminazione che furono costretti a rifiutare l'autorità di poteri distanti e poco informati. Noi dobbiamo dichiarare le nostre coscienze virtuali immuni dalla vostra sovranità, anche se continuiamo a permettervi di governare i nostri corpi. Noi ci espanderemo attraverso il Pianeta in modo tale che nessuno potrà fermare i nostri pensieri.
Noi creeremo nel Cyberspazio una civiltà della Mente. Possa essa essere più umana e giusta di quel mondo che i vostri governi hanno costruito finora.
Davos, Switzerland - February 8, 1996.
John Perry Barlow,
and Cognitive Dissident Co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Home (stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/ ~ barlow
In Memoriam, Dr. Cynthia Horner and Jerry Garcia
is the only error that needs government support. The truth can not exist without
- (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia).
Questo documento rappresenta un macigno ideale contro leggi come il Ddl presentato al Senato americano, ma basta di per sé ad impedire l’approvazione di questo come di altri provvedimenti? Ovviamente no, ma Barlow non si è limitato ad uno sfogo del tutto teorico e forse possiamo riporre diverse speranze nell’operato dell’EFF, ovvero l’Electronic Frontier Foundation, un’organizzazione no –profit (di cui Barlow, oltre che co-fondatore è attualmente vice presidente) impegnata nella tutela legale dei diritti civili, della libertà d’espressione e –naturalmente- delle libertà digitali.
At this point, look back and see if we notice something that could turn the light of intuition. Maybe re-read carefully the declaration of Barlow, we take another quick glance at the dates contained in this as in previous articles and imagine the various actors involved in this incredible story as if they were printed each on a different sheet of clear plastic. By stacking maybe we can not find roaming profile? These sheets one above the other may not make a single design?
P2P, the Anonymity Network, the EFF, Wikileaks, Anonymous's probably not show any signs of the Declaration of Barlow? They do not represent the resources, instruments and subjects of that declaration of war rather than thrown, that suffered Feb. 9, 1996? This DDL can not prove or substantiate the eyes of many the need to fight this war?
That what we are witnessing is unexpected and hitherto silent revolution and that its ultimate goal is nothing if not the independence of cyberspace?
TI E 'like this post? Share it on Facebook, Twitter Cital OR IN YOUR BLOG!
0 comments:
Post a Comment