I think it's highly detrimental to peace to equate "bringing sensitive government documents and other material to light" with making the world a better place.
I agree that it very often is, but if we make this equation, then yet another term, "peace" will have zero meaning, co-opted by those who will push their own agenda by making it sound like that of others.
Your second paragraph is so lacking in cynicism I can barely parse it. Three[1] people have received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush, and you think "peace" can be an apolitical concept?
[0]Belief that members or agents of the government are more corrupt than average not included.
The Nobel Committee is indeed one of the people who is destroying the meaning of important words, in this case "Peace".
As I said, I do agree that transparency is most often on the side of right, but I believe that making statements like the one I replied to is the reason why being among the cynics seems to me to be a lesser evil than being a part of the problem.
Sometimes here on Hacker News people get lambasted for excessive pedantry, but I think in this case, being pedantic about what we allow to be said unchallenged is crucial to having any claim to being a place of nuanced ideas and thoughtful solutions.
So we have this one extra-legal, transnational group dedicated to running drugs.
They pick up a guy who is a member of another extra-legal, transnational group in order to hold him hostage.
In retaliation, the second group breaks into the drug-runners' computers, find all the people they have blackmailed and paid-off. They threaten to publish this list unless their guy is released. Most observers say this would result in dozens of deaths.
Is it just me, or does this have a distinctly "Mad Max" feel to it? Will this trend continue -- groups self-identifying and taking public actions on the net that result in dozens of deaths because all the people in that group feel that it is the right thing to do? If so, this might be a good time for us all to start looking for our own groups. (That sounds hyperbolic, I know, but the nature of the story lends itself to this kind of observation.)
Isn't this just an impossible situation in general? What else is there to do? If people are getting kidnapped now, staying quiet is not going to stop it. If not staying quiet and trying to expose the responsible (or indirectly responsible) is going to result in some deaths, then not only this is not a better solution, but also shows that there is no higher force that can stop this from happening at any time in the (edit: near) future anyway.
So affected people are screwed one way or another and people who should help them cannot or don't want to. What exactly is there to do? If anyone has a real, longterm solution they can prove, I'm sure they can find some people who would help them execute it. Saying this action is either right or wrong is... well, a bit pointless.
>>>What else is there to do? If people are getting kidnapped now, staying quiet is not going to stop it....So affected people are screwed one way or another and people who should help them cannot or don't want to. What exactly is there to do?<<<<
Well, we could start by not living in armed camps right on the edge of killing each other. Then a few disruptions won't have us escalating to death.
In Hobbes' state of nature life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. We can stay away from that by living peacefully and cooperatively and respecting the rights of others. Social pressure, a reasonable set of laws with clear and reliable enforcement, and a code of polite consideration often suffices.
What is going on with the cartels is that organized crime has broken the delicate balance and the state of nature is returning. Organized crime isn't the only thing that can break the balance; famine or war are just as effective.
In this case, western society is suffering from a self-imposed wound. Those cartels are thriving on revenue from supplying people who want mostly benign consciousness-modifying substances. Usually that's a modestly profitable business (tobacco and beer companies make nice money) but not profitable enough to run a worldwide crime network.
Prohibition is a violation of the balance of peaceful society. A few people in society are demanding to control the mind and mental state of the rest by controlling chemicals. When they control the legal apparatus, the users of those chemicals need to buy them from a guerilla army that can evade the police. Prices rise enough to support a guerilla army of organized crime.
What exactly is there to do? Simple. Stop trying to control what substances people use to manage their consciousness.
Then we can end the violence, kidnapping, extorsion, and other side effects of guerilla conflict easily and move far away from the state of nature.
The problem you have is that relaxing of the laws has to happen gradually and simltaneously.
If one country or state or even town drops the drug laws, it gets overrun with the worst case scenario, as the very desperate flock to that region. The region then becomes a poster child for the 'I told you so's who will point at addicts, mess, and whatever external effects will come from that. If it is experimented and ends up in very public failure, the topic will be removed from discussion for a generation.
This is partially the case in Amsterdam, where most Dutch people wouldn't be seen in the red light district, as it is overrun with drug and sex tourists, usually from other countries. And do-gooders point to the Amsterdam red-light district and say 'see, do you want your town like that?', despite the fact that the laws are not Amsterdam specific, and apply to the country as a whole. And the rest of the country is a very pleasant place to be.
So you need to relax laws slowly and simultaneously, so that the problems can be dealt with as they arise, and successful health management can be introduced at the same time. And you have to take a very realistic view of the societal damage drug use can cause, no matter what type (ie beer or heroin).
Given these requirements, I can't see it ever happening in the foreseeable future, which pretty much guarantees the cartels will exist for a long time, possibly until they capture an entire nation and form an actual government.
EDIT: Just remembered a great line from the Ben Elton book (whose name I have forgotten) which is about removing drug laws.
The quote is something like : "Do you really care if another person becomes a heroin addict if it means your Grandma will not get mugged on the way home"
Really, it's all about people not trying to always rule and control the lives of others.
Regarding Amsterdam... I don't get the "most Dutch people wouldn't be seen in the red light district". It's not like it's some small place; it spans many streets in the centre and I haven't seen anyone avoiding it - whether it's locals or tourists. From what I heard, not many local people care much if they're there or not, it's just a part of the city. Of course you can smell cannabis in half of the streets, but otherwise I felt more secure there in a red-light district at night, than in some areas of Birmingham during the day. Although it's hard to find exactly corresponding stats, most are indicating little crime in Amsterdam compared to similar cities in many other countries.
I was talking about the Dutch population as a whole, not the subset who live in Amsterdam.
Yes, it's a safe city although late at night there can be some dodgy characters walking around looking for stoned tourists to relieve of cash whether by scam or by force.
Speak to a dutch person about going there, you'll soon understand what I mean. Most don't go anywhere near it. It's not that it's taboo, it's more that it is seriously uncool. Think about it - who hangs around in obviously touristy bars in their own city?
While I support legalization of most drugs, it's not that simple any more. The big cartels are big, and that means lots of revenue streams. Human trafficking, racketeering, gun running, and all the other standard black markets.
Legalizing drugs might throw them into chaos for a bit, but at this points it wouldn't be anything like a deathblow.
I meant what is there to do for normal people, rather than government. Of course the government has many options. But when they ignore a was in their country... The best people can do is at least putting some attention on the issue.
Legalize drugs. Without drug money and the extra-normal profits enabled by drug dealing, a large chunk of the problem would go away, with the added benefit tax revenue benefit.
The world has always been like this: unfair, often without justice, dangerous. One option is to invest more of your time, money and energy on personal security. Of course knowledge is the best way to stay safe -- knowing which people and places to avoid.
The scarier outcome would be if one of the groups reached the point of de facto legitimacy among normal people, and then decided to use it's clout and skills as a weapon.
Beyond spreading false rumors, why not go the next step to plant evidence on their opponents (arrange drug drops at their houses or kiddie porn on their computers)?
Are you certain this sort of behavior doesn't already occur directly or inderectly through "legitimate" groups such the CIA, News Corp, the RNC, DNC, etc? Perhaps these newer groups are a response to a feeling that we are already at war and have been for quite some time. Perhaps we're already in the nightmare. diclaimer: I don't think I know anyone in such groups (incluing the so called legitimate ones). I'm just projecting based on the various public info that passes by.
I'd argue that Anonymous by nature cannot gain de facto legitimacy because it is not one persistent entity. Anonymous is a mask that anyone can present themselves behind. The very targets that Anonymous is attacking could claim to be Anonymous, too. I understand that the idea behind Anonymous is exactly to shed the idea of labels and reputation and to treat individual actions on their own merit.
On the other hand, you made a great point about mixing fake data with real data, whether intentional or not. A random innocent "civilian" mixed within an expose of criminals could cause disastrous collateral damage.
1) It's fairly likely that this is bluster by anonymous. It's not like Zeta has a poorly secured messageboard at zeta.co.mx with all of their members' phone numbers in it.
2) "Most observers say this would result in dozens of deaths", well, according to the article, one dude at a think tank in Austin said it would result in dozens of deaths. Whenever I read one guy's opinion quoted for a whole paragraph as fact, my BS detector starts beeping. Sexier article with the threat of death though, and journalists are already conditioned to equate "internet activism" == "people getting killed", because of the 0 people who were killed due to wikileaks' actions.
3) I fail to see how this is more concerning than the fact that we have a bunch of idiots in DC trying to manage this situation presently. I mean, at the absolute worst it continues to be mismanaged, right?
Stratfor says that most of Anon's information is on people who are being extorted by a cartel, and when the info is released, these poor people will be murdered by competing cartels.
Basically it's not the cartel bosses and soldiers who are going to die when Anon releases this information. It's the people they extort like Taxi drivers and business owners.
Doesn't it also mean that every person who has been extorted rather than is a part of the group will fear for their life? Doesn't that make them more likely to talk to law enforcement and tell everything they know in exchange for protection, knowing they can get killed if they're outed and are free?
Like responded to sibling. Run away, get caught, hope that border guards you find are not paid by the same people. Alternatively walk into the biggest place you can find crowded with enough police people that even the corrupted one wouldn't be sure they can act as they want and claim you've got information and need protection (of course not knowing the situation well, I'm not sure how reasonable the second way is)
It's still a widespread constituency that the cartel has to listen to -- they are in many ways their paying customers, and if all their paying customers run to competing cartels, they have a problem. I'm sure they will be reminded of this every time they "collect"; in very soft tones of course, but still.
Press an enter key, end random people's lives in a country you may or may not have visited. It should sound insane, but it's real =\
I wonder how many people would be brave/stupid enough to press the enter key, trusting in the methods they have used to hide their own identity, because if you haven't done it properly, the cartels have a long reach
This will be a good thing for the world, because a lot of this stuff is common knowledge yet not published because journalists don't want to be beheaded along with their families, but it will be bad for the kidnapped kid, who will likely end up slowly tortured to death and mutilated.
Wow, this is getting real, very quickly. This is a very, very different enemy than taking on a corrupt government, who still needs to stick by some sort of rules.
Assuming that this really is an Anonymous-supported act, I'm not sure if this is an enemy they want to engage. If they do end up taking on a drug cartel, do they really know what the consequences of this will be? I think Anonymous really needs to think deeply about the consequences of releasing names that would most certainly result in the loss of life.
Keep in mind that Anonymous isn't a single entity with formal leadership making decisions. Anonymous is a loose collective, and anyone can operate under their mantle if they can convince others to go along with a plan. This means that different groups operating under the name of Anonymous may have wildly different interests, goals, and membership.
"We demand his release," says the Anonymous spokesman, who is wearing a mask like the one worn by the shadowy revolutionary character in the movie V for Vendetta, which came out in 2006. "If anything happens to him, you sons of (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5."
Particularly in light of the reference to November 5, V for Vendetta has nothing to do with this in context. Why do we care that it's the same mask and that the movie came out in 2006?
Since both Zeta and Anonymous cannot be made to suffer the same gains or losses together its zero sum instead of nonzero sum.
anonymous is minimizing the maximum loss by releasing all information on cartel's activities including not only pay offs to law officers and others but also information on their families as it is a non zero game between more than two players with the third player being zeta's competition.
Translation, Zeta got played and schooled.
If there turns out to be more things or issues involved than it becomes a nonzero sum game with the same nonzero sum equations and n+1 being the profit or loss. In other words if the US or Mexican government decides to get involved on a side than it leans towards a non zero game with more than 4 participants as the loose collections of actors representing either government than becomes non-cohesive collection of more than one actor in the equations.
Making Moot sound like a legitimate candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.