Coleman, G., 2012 The Ethics of digital direct action. Al Jazeera.
1. I understand that "...chaos on the internet is unacceptable," but is being an activist or protester enough cause for an arrest? What about freedom of speech?
2. If people are being arrested for creating "chaos" on the internet, does planning a protest online count as chaos? We have learned that technology and social media have been a huge part of new activist movements and this was a big leap forward in society... This article makes it seem like a bad thing instead of technological progress.
3. How is something that a hacker posts on the Internet a bigger threat than the slander we read EVERY DAY online? I am just confused on who is in trouble and who isn't.. The internet is already in chaos and people can write anything they want, we just have to hope people are intelligent enough to believe the truth. Why should this be any different when the anonymous groups are doing it versus people who do the same things but are brave enough to use their names?
Coleman, G., 2012. Our Weirdness is Free. May, (9).
1. We live in such an active and changing time, why do activists and advocates choose to hide behind the anonymous name instead of their own? Especially with the mediocre reputation and long history sometimes associated with that name might not always shed positive light.
2. Why did Anonymous change from the prankster/"lulz" users to more serious and concerned activist users?
3. I think it is very interesting and confusing that "Anonymous" was named Times' number 4 person of the year in the people's choice poll.. Did this happen because people relate to the anonymity that this name brings or because they respect their actions or what?
Libicki, M., 2009. Cyberdeterence and Cyberwar. (Summary)
1. If cyberattacks are only possible because systems have flaws, why do we continue to manufacture flawed computers? Why don't we use the same high-tech tools we use on governmental computers on everyday computers so everyone's data is safe?
2. I know we read in earlier articles that technology and cyberspace can be very unpredictable, so why are we choosing to put so much effort and focus on this aspect of warfare? (especially if the results are only temporary and short-term)
3. If "cyberattacks are cheap and cyberdefense is expensive" then shouldn't we always be on the offense and using this tactic often, since we expect no/minimal retaliation?
Regarding Libicki #1 -- In principle it's impossible to make a perfect device, machine, or program, so there are always flaws to be exploited. Many hi-tech tools for security are readily available to the public, yet they are simply not interested in using them (out of ignorance of the risk, mainly). But even the highest-security situations have flaws -- it's the nature of beast (technology)!
ReplyDeleteAnd to #3 there are organizations in a number of countries that are *always* hunting for offensive tactical possibilities to exploit. The US .mil and many .gov servers are under more or less constant attack. So are .com ones -- industrial espionage is a huge problem!
jh