6 ms·

Cyber warfare has always been a staple of sci-fi fiction, but generally between nation states. I can't help but wonder if the reality is that this 'warfare' won

by tobtoh 16y ago

Cyber warfare has always been a staple of sci-fi fiction, but generally between nation states. I can't help but wonder if the reality is that this 'warfare' won't be so much between nation states, but between governments and the public and we're witnessing the start of this with a secretive and paranoid government(s) on one side and a distrusting and increasingly activist 'public' on the other. Corporations are stuck in the middle looking at their bottom line, but pressured from both sides.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I read an interesting editorial a few months back -- can't remember where -- that basically made the counter-intuitive point that we are not headed towards totalitarianism. Far from it. We are headed towards mob rule. The writer used the various strikes and protests in Europe as an example. His point was that as the nation-states became less relevant, people would begin to more closely associate in virtual groups than geographic ones. I _also_ read the recent leaks about China, which leads me to believe that the Chinese think they can keep a lid on the internet. This could be the beginning of a long, drawn-out period of chaos and overreaction by all sides. Sure would suck to have to choose between that and totalitarianism (even if, in the end, totalitarianism wouldn't work) Perhaps this is some author's overactive imagination though. I sure hope so.
- smackay 16y ago
  Public demonstrations in Europe these days are generally well-behaved. Probably the main motivation for taking to the streets is to ensure that the government at least acknowledges an issue rather than simply ignoring as was case in the past. The anarchist groups active today are a little less troubling than groups like the Red Army Faction, Red Brigades and the Irish Republican Army that were a feature of the 1970's and 1980's. The real danger of mob rule might come from unscrupulous politicians making capital from social tensions. The recent series of expulsions of Romany from France and Italy were certainly a very troubling reminder of Europe's recent history.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    1989 is only a bit over 20 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu And I do not doubt that if some European politician got it in to their heads to try something really stupid that such 'reminder' demonstrations would turn violent pretty quickly. In France it wasn't 5 years ago that 100's of cars were burned every night and in the Netherlands squatters do battle with the riot police with some regularity. Mob violence is never far away.
    - landhar 16y ago
      I think that the events in France don't belong to this list. France is dealing with a lot of youth criminality from ghettoized communities. The burning of cars was not backed up with any political claims. It only reflects how authorities are losing control over certain neighborhoods.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        The burning of cars was - as far as I understand it - a direct consequence of multiple decades of festering trouble that was not adequately recognized or responded to by politicians. The shortest complete description of the background on this was something like 'these youths are protesting not against any specific policy but against being born in to a situation that they find it almost impossible to escape from in the country that they are nominally a citizen of'. If you can do better than that be my guest, but I definitely see them as motivated by politics, even if not directly attacking a specific policy or having a concrete goal. It's more an act of frustration with life set off by the friction between police and these youths, specifically one incidence was the spark that set off the powder.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Not that I disagree with your point, but 1989, while only 20 years ago was a different era. Especially regarding Romania or anywhere east of Berlin. It's closer to 1979 than it was to 1991 in a lot of regards.
- Perceval 16y ago
  >we are not headed towards totalitarianism. Far from it. We are headed towards mob rule. In Plato's Republic, he set up a cyclical theory of the progression from one form of government to the next. From aristocracy to timocracy to oligarchy to democracy to tyranny and back again to aristocracy. The transition between democracy and tyranny was ochlocracy, a.k.a. mob rule, out of which emerges a demagogue.
  - ebaysucks 16y ago
    Plato might have underestimated the power of the internet.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
itistoday 16y ago
> Corporations are stuck in the middle looking at their bottom line, but pressured from both sides. Maybe some of them fall into this category, but many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings. They are responsible for millions of dollars in campaign contributions, whereby they essentially buy seats in the House and Senate and dictate much of the legislation. They influence voters through mass advertising and propaganda, they influence the representatives through lobbyists and the threat of withdrawing their financial support. The "government" then becomes a battlefield between the ignorant, the manipulated, the enlightened, and the powerful manipulators sitting at the top.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings This seems to be a chicken-and-egg question to me. I'm not sure how you can determine whose strings are being pulled, and who are the pullers. Is it really the corps that are coercing the politicians into misbehavior? Or is it the politicians that create an environment in which corporations can gain an advantage by doing so?
  - borism 16y ago
    Who has more money and power in your opinion? The answer of course differs by country - it's one extreme in the US and another extreme in Russia or China.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      Perhaps I don't understand the question, because I can't see that the answer is variable. In all countries today, the power of the government, or an individual politician, exceeds that of a corporation. That's obviously true, or why else would the corporations be contributing to political election campaigns? Corporations are (despite popular complaints) at the mercy of their customers; look at the OP for an example of how corporations are held instantly responsible for any perceived action, contrasted to politicians who "launch an investigation" and then the problem is forgotten long before the next election, or who use demagoguery to convince voters that they are the lesser evil; if the opponent wins the country will fall apart. Similarly, in all cases the government controls far more money than any corporation. What portion of the GDP does the government's budget make up? Compare that to the revenue of any corporation. EDIT: OK, guys. I'll take a down-vote, but please give me the courtesy of an explanation as to why I'm wrong.

by tobtoh 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I read an interesting editorial a few months back -- can't remember where -- that basically made the counter-intuitive point that we are not headed towards totalitarianism. Far from it. We are headed towards mob rule. The writer used the various strikes and protests in Europe as an example. His point was that as the nation-states became less relevant, people would begin to more closely associate in virtual groups than geographic ones. I _also_ read the recent leaks about China, which leads me to believe that the Chinese think they can keep a lid on the internet. This could be the beginning of a long, drawn-out period of chaos and overreaction by all sides. Sure would suck to have to choose between that and totalitarianism (even if, in the end, totalitarianism wouldn't work) Perhaps this is some author's overactive imagination though. I sure hope so.

smackay 16y ago
Public demonstrations in Europe these days are generally well-behaved. Probably the main motivation for taking to the streets is to ensure that the government at least acknowledges an issue rather than simply ignoring as was case in the past. The anarchist groups active today are a little less troubling than groups like the Red Army Faction, Red Brigades and the Irish Republican Army that were a feature of the 1970's and 1980's. The real danger of mob rule might come from unscrupulous politicians making capital from social tensions. The recent series of expulsions of Romany from France and Italy were certainly a very troubling reminder of Europe's recent history.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  1989 is only a bit over 20 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu And I do not doubt that if some European politician got it in to their heads to try something really stupid that such 'reminder' demonstrations would turn violent pretty quickly. In France it wasn't 5 years ago that 100's of cars were burned every night and in the Netherlands squatters do battle with the riot police with some regularity. Mob violence is never far away.
  - landhar 16y ago
    I think that the events in France don't belong to this list. France is dealing with a lot of youth criminality from ghettoized communities. The burning of cars was not backed up with any political claims. It only reflects how authorities are losing control over certain neighborhoods.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      The burning of cars was - as far as I understand it - a direct consequence of multiple decades of festering trouble that was not adequately recognized or responded to by politicians. The shortest complete description of the background on this was something like 'these youths are protesting not against any specific policy but against being born in to a situation that they find it almost impossible to escape from in the country that they are nominally a citizen of'. If you can do better than that be my guest, but I definitely see them as motivated by politics, even if not directly attacking a specific policy or having a concrete goal. It's more an act of frustration with life set off by the friction between police and these youths, specifically one incidence was the spark that set off the powder.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Not that I disagree with your point, but 1989, while only 20 years ago was a different era. Especially regarding Romania or anywhere east of Berlin. It's closer to 1979 than it was to 1991 in a lot of regards.
Perceval 16y ago
>we are not headed towards totalitarianism. Far from it. We are headed towards mob rule. In Plato's Republic, he set up a cyclical theory of the progression from one form of government to the next. From aristocracy to timocracy to oligarchy to democracy to tyranny and back again to aristocracy. The transition between democracy and tyranny was ochlocracy, a.k.a. mob rule, out of which emerges a demagogue.
- ebaysucks 16y ago
  Plato might have underestimated the power of the internet.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

itistoday 16y ago

> Corporations are stuck in the middle looking at their bottom line, but pressured from both sides. Maybe some of them fall into this category, but many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings. They are responsible for millions of dollars in campaign contributions, whereby they essentially buy seats in the House and Senate and dictate much of the legislation. They influence voters through mass advertising and propaganda, they influence the representatives through lobbyists and the threat of withdrawing their financial support. The "government" then becomes a battlefield between the ignorant, the manipulated, the enlightened, and the powerful manipulators sitting at the top.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings This seems to be a chicken-and-egg question to me. I'm not sure how you can determine whose strings are being pulled, and who are the pullers. Is it really the corps that are coercing the politicians into misbehavior? Or is it the politicians that create an environment in which corporations can gain an advantage by doing so?
- borism 16y ago
  Who has more money and power in your opinion? The answer of course differs by country - it's one extreme in the US and another extreme in Russia or China.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Perhaps I don't understand the question, because I can't see that the answer is variable. In all countries today, the power of the government, or an individual politician, exceeds that of a corporation. That's obviously true, or why else would the corporations be contributing to political election campaigns? Corporations are (despite popular complaints) at the mercy of their customers; look at the OP for an example of how corporations are held instantly responsible for any perceived action, contrasted to politicians who "launch an investigation" and then the problem is forgotten long before the next election, or who use demagoguery to convince voters that they are the lesser evil; if the opponent wins the country will fall apart. Similarly, in all cases the government controls far more money than any corporation. What portion of the GDP does the government's budget make up? Compare that to the revenue of any corporation. EDIT: OK, guys. I'll take a down-vote, but please give me the courtesy of an explanation as to why I'm wrong.