Gottfrid’s mother, Kristina Svartholm recently emailed me her thoughts on his prosecution, expressing concerns about the process.

She’s kindly granted me permission to republish her comments here:

I wish to make a few comments on the prosecution of Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and his presumed accomplishments:

The prosecutor has claimed in media that the hacking of Logica, and thus the access to information emanating from the Swedish tax authorities, has caused worries among people who live with protected identities. Some of them have even felt compelled to move from one place to another, according to the prosecutor. (In Swedish: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/pirate-bay-grundare-atalas-for-dataintrang.)

I have recently been approached by people who have told me that this simply can’t be true. Personally I don’t know much about how the system works, but since one of these persons has a protected identity him-/herself, I find it less plausible that I am totally misinformed.

According to my sources, there is no possibility whatsoever of getting information from the tax authorities that could be harmful to people in the way that the prosecutor has claimed. Protected identities are simply – protected, both within and outside the system.

What was hacked and shown at internet were so called personal numbers (not to be mixed up with security numbers), numbers that are public in themselves. Some of them did belong to people that were protected, and other numbers did not. Anyhow, the numbers couldn’t be used for finding out the identities and whereabouts of anyone.

If this is true it means that the information presented to the public by the authorities has caused unnecessary anxiety by itself among people. This can be compared with what one of the companies involved claims in its report about the hack to the police, namely that publicity given to the hacking could cause more harm than the hacking as such.

My question is why the prosecutor wants to give this picture of severe damage caused to individuals, a picture quite different from what my sources have told me. Unfortunately it is well on line with what was communicated to the Cambodian authorities last year when the Swedish prosecutor asked for their help to pick up Gottfrid.

These documents haven’t become public until now. They show that the Swedish authorities presented daunting ‘facts’ to Cambodia about Gottfrid. No wonder that they placed him in their anti-terrorist locals in Phnom Penh. However, I can’t see much of the information reflected in the prosecution presented two weeks ago. Maybe I will later. See http://qnrq.se/everything-important-to-sweden-is-hacked/.

Researchers at Lund University, Sweden, have commented on the prosecution and some of its consequences.

First, Marcin de Kaminski writes about what society can learn from the hacks: http://cybernormer.se/2013/04/19/the-hacks-could-learn-us-a-lesson-but-what-have-we-learned-en/

Next, Håkan Hydén, discusses whether the fraud that Gottfrid is accused of should be considered aggravated to not. The sum involved here, around 4.200 USD, is one of the arguments for answering no; the fact that Gottfrid can’t be accused of having ‘abused public trust’ another. Hydén also comments on de Kaminsky’s text: http://cybernormer.se/2013/04/23/the-prosecution-of-a-hacker-and-the-legitimacy-of-technology/

Today we do accept that the authorities collect a lot of information about us – but can we trust them when they claim that they will keep this information within their own gates, especially when they chose to outsource it to different companies as the Swedish authorities did? And can we trust the banks and their security systems? They use our money to protect themselves – what can we expect from them in return? Security?

To me, it is more important to discuss these questions in depth today than blackening Gottfrid and his presumed accomplishes before the trial. What their motives may have been, being guilty or not – the verdict will come sooner or later.

Until then I prefer a factually based discussion about all this.

Kristina Svartholm.

The post Kristina Svartholm – Anakata’s mother – speaks out appeared first on ASHER WOLF.

“The future of terror will be viral. It will be social. And whether you like it or not, you’ll be a spectator”

Social media affords us far greater opportunity to access information than traditional media outlets ever did. And with it comes increasing access to images of bloody, horrific violence, if we so choose to watch it.

But ask yourself – who is putting what terror in front of you. Who programs those images? And why, with the power of a million hashtags, news streams and feeds are you still choosing to be an passive spectator, rather than a media programer?

Of course, Luke Buckmaster is correct when he suggests we’ll all likely eventually be media witness to a terrorist incident again some day through our consumption of media online. But it is up to you, whether you tune in or switch off, when the first bloody image hits your screen.

It is my steadfast opinion people would rather be entertained than terrified, when they choose to program their own media. I say so because in my job curating social media content I see far more people posting images of kittens than the images of gore that many traditional media outlets chose to cover.

In fact, between the initial Boston marathon bombing and the capture of a suspect, millions more people chose to watch Psy’s newly-released music clip than than hundreds of thousands who actively sought out and tuned into police scanners, Reddit, and the CNN live broadcast of the bombing combined.

Yet exposure to violence is a given, a constant within our society since as far as collective human memory can recall. Can viewership of violence be traumatic? Yes, without doubt. But what really interests me is which violence we actively choose to seek out in our daily exploration of media – and who is programming that content.

Last week Bernard Keane observed on The Drum that social media viewers are watching “traditional media dying before their eyes.” Are we really witnessing the extinction of the Neatherlandals of old-school media? Or are we instead mistaking the cultural shifts of the merge of social media and traditional media for the death throes of professional journalism?

I would suggest it is the latter.

Social media uptake by traditional news outlets is high and many people continue to turn to traditional news sources to set their personal media agenda. If we only choose to tune into traditional news outlets for breaking news when we use social media – and wait passively (like caged animals) for our daily feed of news content – we get what we deserve: a limited, gated flow of information. And sometimes that coverage is immensely shoddy, misleading and down-right inaccurate.

So what will you choose to view? Take for example this weekend’s media programming:

As a social media curator, like most people last week I chose to tune into the media coverage of the Boston bombing. But there were other issues, which received far less coverage in the mainstream media that popped up in my social media stream…

For instance, while three people died in the tragic events at the Boston Marathon, more than four times that many people died at the industrial explosion in West, Texas last week. While images and video uploaded by local residents of West displayed horrific violence, for the most part, traditional media paid the victims of West only a cursory glance.

The Los Angeles time had the gall to write: “Explosion in West, Texas, causes few hard feelings.”

We’re talking of an industrial explosion, which appears to have most likely been the result of criminal negligence and non-compliance with safety codes, killing 14 residents, injured 150 others and literally destroying five blocks of the city of West, Texas. No hard feelings, huh?

Meanwhile in Iraq, during the same time frame as the Boston bombing at least 79 people were killed and over three hundred others injured – mostly civilians – in twenty-six separate car bombings, sixteen IED and four other armed attacks. Hardly a mention in the media either.

And in China well over 100 people died from H7N9, the new deadly avian flu, and in the Sichuan region over 200 people died in an earthquake, and many more are now facing an uncertain future, with reports of cholera breaking out and many without immediate shelter after the destruction of their homes.

There was not really anywhere the type of rolling coverage of these issues compared to the Boston bombing, despite a much higher level of fatalities.

And Syria? If you choose to watch the media content streaming out of Syria – it’s a constant bloodbath, terror and death streaming through Youtube 24/7. But traditional media, is woefully inconsistent in coverage of Syria’s crisis.

Of course, social media is helping us find new ways to get news out about violence, even with resistance to information flows. Take for example, the plight of the Rohingyan people in Myanmar, which has been largely overlooked until recently.

Innovative news-shapers like Heather Marsh (@GeorgieBC) are increasingly finding ways to hack the agenda of the traditional media landscape.

Using a crowd-sourced campaign, Ms Marsh managed to raise the funds to send two mainstream, freelance journalists to Myanmar to cover the genocide of the Rohingyas. All media content created by the journalists sent to Myanmar through the crowd-funded campaign was released under creative commons, allowing mainstream media to easily re-use their content.

Furthermore, Ms Marsh leveraged the power of online netizens Anonymous, to place pressure on traditional media outlets to cover the abuses against the Rohingan people. And the campaign has been highly successful.

The power in social media exists in the undercurrents of information, swiftly flowing into previously gated traditional media programming and the ability to re-shape the media we once thought we knew.

While traditional viewers of violence in media often feel distanced from the event, unable to engage with the victims and constrained in their ability to impact the situation – Ms Marsh’s approach to engagement with media coverage of violence was empowering, both at a personal level and in terms of the outcomes surrounding the event itself.

So what kind of media consumption will you allow yourself to experience? Are you using your Twitter account only to watch and share the content CNN, BBC, NYT, The Guardian or the Sydney Morning Herald has verified and believes is acceptable for the public to consume?

Or are you actively working to reshape the issues we chose to care about today, by changing the agenda of traditional media gate-keepers through broader interaction on social media?

It’s up to you.

The post Passive spectators vs. engaged news-shapers appeared first on ASHER WOLF.

When the news broke that Reuters Deputy Social Media Editor Matthew Keys had been federally indicted for allegedly conspiring with members of Anonymous to deface a number of news websites run by the Tribune Company I shut my laptop screen for a moment in shock.

Really, it wasn’t the sort of allegations I’d ever expected to hear. On Twitter, Keys came across as a fairly clean-cut social media editor. Keys had what many people would consider a dream job at Reuters. For every few thousand journalists a large company employs – usually only one social media expert will be offered a position. But Keys is now on paid leave: his security pass has already been revoked and his computer is under forensic examination.

Today, Matthew faces up to 25 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 if found guilty of the crimes he’s been charged with under the CFAA. The over-reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is sickening. If Matthew had committed rape he’d be facing less potential time in jail.

From the outside, Matthew was a fine good social media editor, and I miss him in my news feed. Professional social media news aggregation is actually not that easy. It’s stressful and time consuming. Verifying breaking news accurately, consistently is a damn hard job.

I should know. I work professionally as a social media news content aggregator. And so it’s actually painful to consider Matthew’s job is now at risk. Becoming a trust-worthy, reliable news-source on social media is insanely difficult – I don’t know any professional social media-based news aggregators and curators who haven’t forfeited sleep to follow the thread of a breaking story.

I’m not going to comment on the trail of Matthew’s non-work related online-activities – the entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the Wikipedia entries dredged up as character reference offer no real insight into his professional standing.

What I want to discuss is something I think the media has purposefully chosen not to take a long, hard look at – the actual allegations Keys is facing in the context of journalistic ethics. There’s no doubt the U.S. Department of Justice use of the CFAA to charge Keys is grossly over-reaching. That’s not in dispute.

What sparks my interest is Jay Leiderman – Matthew Key’s lawyer’s claim Keys was operating as an “undercover-type” investigative journalist during his dealings with Anonymous. I am honestly less than impressed by this excuse.

Each day I am faced with a scenario, where I wake up and begin seeking breaking news, grasping for content literally 30 seconds before other news outlets. I understand the pressure Keys was under.

But there are all sorts of ways to become a fast news-breaker: create lists to filter information, foster friendships with people who have insight, and keep an eye on situations that are on the boil. These are all completely legitimate ways of seeking the thread of an emerging story. I’m not even adverse to bartering information (within limits.)

But my code of ethics as a journalist and social media professional is also informed by the Australian journalism union. In particular, the following dictum from the Media Alliance ‘s Code of Ethics alludes to values I hold dear:

“Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.”

The allegations against Keys – if proven true – suggest unnacceptable behavior from a social media news editor.

The allegation that Matthew handed over passwords from a former workplace’s website to curry favor with a bunch of hackers is utterly non-tolerable behavior from a supposedly professional journalist.

Regardless of the alleged illegality, it is simply unethical.

If Keys is found guilty of conspiracy, there’s the distinct possibility he’ll have breached his employers’ Trust Principles, which states:

That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction;
That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts;
That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and
That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.

I’ve also noticed journalists referring to Matthew as an “activist.” Frankly, if the allegations against Keys are proven true, this is a slur on activists as well. There’s zero evidence to suggest Matthew was acting as an activist. And most activists are law abiding citizens, who would hesitate to incite others to tamper with a former employer’s website.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) under which Matthew Keys has been charged is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing (and god-forbid Keys should stand trial under it.) But can we not still argue that the CFAA must be reformed – while recognizing the behavior Keys is alleged to have engaged in is both unethical and unbecoming of a journalist?

The screech to turn every individual charged under the CFAA into an image of Aaron Swartz to further the fight for reform does nobody any favors. It’s awful enough that Matthew Keys is facing a felony trial for potentially creating the news, rather than just reporting it. Let’s not also make the same mistake.

The post Break the news, not the professional code of conduct appeared first on ASHER WOLF.

Using the Shodan search engine to assist the study, Aalto University’s research team surveyed automation equipment relating to industrial automation systems, power management and remote access to systems and building automation. The remote access systems surveyed included alarms and door locks on power plants. The study, which was partly funded by Tekes disci-project (Digital Security for Critical Infrastructures) and Stonesoft Corporation, found the lack of security on forward-facing internet portals suggested some systems are dangerously open to anyone able to access the Internet.

The research by Aalto University School of Electrical Engineering surveyed approximately 20-30% of Finish IP space and found thousands of examples of vulnerable remote automation and control devices not meant to be publicly accessible. The potential of non-authorised access to SCADA systems raises issues of individuals physically controlling industrial environments, and suggests scenarios that could possibly cause serious damage to systems operations.

In particular, the weakness of remote user interfaces was a serious security concern. “The use of default passwords and the ability of all Internet users to access login page of these important systems are the signs of ignorance or negligence”, noted Professor Jukka Manner of  Aalto University’s School of Electrical Engineering.

The post Thousands of Finnish SCADA systems vulnerable to attack appeared first on ASHER WOLF.

On November 20, 2012 a jury sitting in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey convicted Andrew Auernheimer of one count of conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C)) and one count of identity theft (18 U.S. C. 1028(a)(7).

In essence, Andrew Auernheimer – or Weev, as much of the Internet knows him – was found guilty of incrementing a number on a url – doing basic arithmetic – and has been ceremoniously chucked behind bars for the next 41 months of his life – as a result of speaking up to point out a security problem.

Weev was sent to jail on a trumped-up charge, for a crime that hurt nobody, not even a fly.

At his pre-sentencing press conference Weev read poetry by John Keats on the steps of the courthouse – ‘The Fall of Hyperion’, according to reports from onlookers:

“Who alive can say,
‘Thou art no Poet may’st not tell thy dreams?’
Since every man whose soul is not a clod
Hath visions, and would speak…”

The process of writing about Weev is a disorderly affair, which seems appropriate. Descriptions of his history vary. Versions change depending on who you ask about him. Even Weev’s own versions of his history changes from time to time. Perhaps it’s so difficult to write about Weev because we live in complicated times, and our tales – our histories are not so simple anymore. It’s as though I could write an epic novel in verse about Weev and yet, the truth would be still like a needle in a haystack.

A quote by Raymond Queneau, a French poet and novelist jumped out at me when I began to write about Weev: “the Illiad is the private lives of people, thrown into disorder by history.” The tale of Weev, meanwhile is the story of a man thrown into history by disorder. Some of that disorder of course, came from Weev’s own making. But the tragedy of this story is of a bright, young person, swept into the pathway of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – a hugely over-reaching piece of legislation. Today, Weev has been sentenced to four times the years the Steubenville rapists will spend behind bars – for a “crime” that has no victim.

I spent a lot of time trying to think about how to write honestly about Weev. The act of writing about someone is essentially the art of attempting to bring order to a narrative of history. But before all ordering of items, first there is always chaos.

Originally I began trying to write about Weev by trampling across the internet in search of the “true history” of Weev. Dumb idea. It soon became apparent the amount of information generated by Weev’s escapades made determining a singular history almost an impossible task.

So instead, I will tell you about Weev, as I have come to know him.

Weev is a master of chaos, a devotee of the Discordian persuasion. He is a joker, a puck, an epic troll, a jester, and just perhaps an exiled prophet railing on the fringe of society, variously misidentified as a drug-addled, mentally imbalanced felon. Scratch the surface and you find a man who likes reading Proust, and listening to Wagner.

I initially got to know Weev when an Australian TV show was looking to interview trolls. They asked me if I knew any trolls they could invite on to the program. Weev immediately came to mind.

“Should we be concerned about Weev creating chaos on the show?”, the program’s research assistant asked me worriedly.

“I’m not actually sure. I guess… treat him like a live grenade?”

I’ve never really known how to respond to Weev. I’ve oscillated between the desire to mother him and an a repetitive urge to strangle him. I’m sure Weev would say it’s a sexual thing. One of my earliest responses was to claim “HE’S NOT MY FRIEND” loudly on twitter, when people linked us. I was scared, simply of being associated with him. Later, I was ashamed of myself.

Weev has become a friend. A good friend. Someone – who for all his offensive statements – is never inane, and for all his trickery is never dishonest.

Regardless of his flash-bang shock of his razor-sharp wit and inexplicable statements that variously offend most sub-segments of the world’s population, Weev is someone I genuinely *like* – despite his despicable outbursts – and let the record show, I don’t really, genuinely like many people at all.

Beyond the mouthy, chaotic prick trolling the universe there’s a soul fighting not to flat-line in cognitive dissonance – and Weev has had more than his fair share of fear, disappointment and sadness, unsettled adolescence viewing life through the lens of relentless intelligence.

Weev’s capacity to create chaos thru trolling is considered epic across the Internet – a person needs only to Google “goatse” (please don’t) to immediately experience a taste of the kind of abhorrent shock factor his trolling can create.

I spoke to Weev in the final days before sentencing. He was unrepentant.

“Our whole society is so stagnant and un-innovative now, because we spend this huge amount of resources trying to fight against entropy. And if there is one thing that is always true, it is that the principle of disorder is as strong or much stronger than the principle of order.”

“Trolling is using rhetoric divisively, I do not put a bigger definition on it than that. It can be small or large, important or banal, good or evil. Its a rhetorical method for fucks sake, and it suits me just fine.”

“Aren’t you scared of consequences?”, I asked Weev.

“No, I’m scared of stagnancy. Consequences are in the future and I only give a vague fuck about that. I’m more concerned about now, because stagnant things smell like shit, literally and figuratively. I don’t want to live in a place that smells like shit – and yet, now I am stuck in New Jersey. Joke’s on me!The trial – defies reflection. It is a living story and it is not over yet I suppose. I mean, they will not let me work. Dennis Yu, he made Yahoo Personals once. Now he has a company called BlitzMetrics, he handed me an offer letter. But my employment has to be pre-approved by pre-trial services. They’re kind of like a probation officer for people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. They simply won’t approve it. I have $2.66 in my bank account. I spent a lot of nights not eating. That is the worst part. The bail conditions make it impossible to work or live

It has been two years since they ripped me from my home. Anyways, I used to drive to the airport in Bentonville, AR, from my shack in Fayetteville when I was leaving town to go on a job. And on the way, I’d smell the honeysuckle. I always picked flights late at night, because if I left in the day, sometimes I’d cry. Maybe that is weird, but I am spiritually connected to that land, and I just didn’t want to see the landscape roll by in the daytime. The mountains, the land, the rivers… those Ozark hills are dear to me

They took me out of my home, two years ago, from a town where the rent floor is around $200, they took me out in leg irons and they brought me to a fucking shithole, on some fucking piece of shit criminal complaint full of lies written by some faggot FBI Agent.

I mean New Jersey is the single most unhappy state in the US. It looks like shit, and smells like shit. And they have not let me back to Arkansas in 2 years. I’m forced to stay in a place where the rent is $800 per month – and they won’t let me work. So yeah my life sucks now

Yeah I expect I’m going to fucking prison. It’s a fucking travesty. But whatever, I am in a war. You don’t fucking get into a war and not expect to be a casualty. This is a fucking war-zone. I am a fucking scrapper. You fight, sometimes you die”

“You felt like you took on the U.S. government?”, I asked Weev.

“Let’s just say I’d rather go to Valhalla than stay at home”, he responded.

“Weev – why does the government want to lock you up?” Something inside me is nagging at the idea that the only reason the authorities want to lock Weev up is “because he’s just too much gawdam trouble.” But it’s still not a good enough reason to put someone behind bars.

“They said in a search warrant once that they’d been surveilling me since 2001. I was 15 in 2001. I wonder what the fuck I could have done to be watched by the government from a young age. I got involved in a number of ideological movements…everything in the press that I’ve ever done ain’t shit compared to what never hit the press.”

“You going to tell me a little of what hasn’t hit the press?”, I begged Weev.

“Sure, but getting it credited to me could get me killed, could get my friends killed…”

And then Weev told me a story. It’s a Weev kind of story. The story of an epic trolling he’d undertaken on a ketamine high. The sort of incident that scrambled governments out of their beds at night. It was the sort of tale that made my jaw hang agape, and caused me to jump up out of my seat and pace nervously around the living room for half an hour after he’d finished telling me the details. If Weev had told me he’d hacked the the launch codes for intercontinental ballistic missiles attached to nuclear warheads – my teeth would have been chattering perhaps as much.

Weev backed up his tale with a link to a news article confirming he wasn’t making it up. He’s never been caught for the incident. Weev and I discussed the possibility of releasing the story – and I wish I could. But I’ve since consulted lawyers and after taking advice have decided it’s in nobody’s interest to know the details.

Weev finished his story with a flourish.

“And that was the best damn Apple I ever threw.”

“Where’d you dispose of it?”, I asked. Then hurriedly added: “don’t answer that.”

Confusion abounded. “Dispose of what?”, asked Weev.

“Your Apple computer. You tossed your computer into a lake afterwards, right?”

“OOhhh nOooo. I was referring to the story where Eris throws the golden apple and ends up starting a war. I’m a Discordian – I’m into throwing apples. I’ve started unfathomable amounts of shit in this world. Most of it – very few people know about.”

Eris and the Apple of Discord – the roots of the Trojan War. Eris, the goddess of discord who Peleus and Thetis failed to invited to their wedding. Eris, who stormed in and threw a golden apple onto the table – the apple which Eris claimed belonged to whomever was the fairest. Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite each reached for the apple…

It’s no wonder Weev identifies with Eris. His trolling always played society’s flaws back like a mirror. He’s an ubiquitous shit-stirrer. And the consequences of his small actions – though perhaps you won’t believe me – affect nation states.

“Do you think there’s any chance you’ll walk without a sentence?”

“Probably not, can’t imagine. There’s the pre-sentencing report. It said 41 months. So about 3.5 years? However thats just the guidelines, the judge can sentence me higher, up to the statutory maximum of 10 years – plus I’ve been a right mouthy bastard, so i imagine it might be ticked a little higher.”

My heart fell when I heard Weev had been sentenced to jail this morning, even though I was sure it would be the outcome… it is pointless injustice. The powers who hold freedom in their hands, have locked yet another of our best and brightest behind bars.

As a child my school teachers and parents somehow imparted the idea to me that best and brightest would without doubt be of the ilk that march in time, and sing in perfect harmony like an angelic school choir.

Yet as an adult I’ve come to believe that wisdom is often contained in spaces, places and individuals most difficult to access, most problematic to interact with. There are ideas in this world that are painful, difficult, offensive, and inexplicable to many – Weev spoke of those ideas. It doesn’t make him any less than the best and brightest amongst us.

Our governments continue to lock up the people who speak truth to power. Bradley Manning. Jeremy Hammond. Barrett Brown. The list goes on. Men and women who say things that offend the powers that be, end up behind bars or frozen in their tracks, awaiting verdict.

Our governments call them criminals, deviants, law-breakers. The authorities force the accused into the worst of situations, barred from financially supporting themselves while they await the verdict of a court. All this, is meant to shut us up. It’s meant to make us meek and mild, while the machine churns onwards.

Weev often spoke to me of martyrs and prophets. He taught me there is a defining factor amongst them all – outcast, persecuted for speaking truth to power. And now Weev – the filthy, prophet of discord, infinitely raging against the machine – has been martyred upon the pyre of the U.S. regime’s bloodlust for revenge against whistleblowers, technologists, journalists, hackers, and intellectuals.

I’m just that much angrier than I was yesterday when the cops bashed the last group of protesters, or dispossessed yet another home-owner, sold-out the people and the land in search of another dollar to line the pockets of Wall Street or bombed another country in search of natural resources.

Austerity is coming to the U.S.

You can see it already in the crumbling infrastructure. The emperors have no clothes. Change will come, and to be honest it will be a happier affair for everyone if the U.S. opts for reform rather than revolution.

Weev and his ilk are not the enemy. The discord they surf – the chaos of a world of inconsistent values and hypocritical, corrupt governance – is within the fabric of everything we have grown up with. The abhorrent practice of locking up people who turn a mirror on corruption, insecurity and abuse is as useless as trying to stop the sun rising in the morning.

Putting Weev behind bars is pointless and tragic. Jailing the most outspoken men and women amongst our generation won’t stop the leaks, the hacks, the news revelations, the whistleblowers – and most of all it won’t stop the rage of the malcontent, dispossessed youth from eventually tumbling down upon the heads of the bureaucrats who sold us out and then tried to lock us up when we complained.

Weev will fight for an appeal. And one way or another, eventually he’ll be free. And even in jail, I have no doubt, Weev will find a way to make himself heard.

And they can’t shut us all up. Fuck ‘em.

The post THE TRAGEDY OF JAILING WEEV, THE INTERNET PROPHET OF DISCORD. appeared first on ASHER WOLF.

A while back I decided to interview @AnonyOps. We chat regularly. As a result, we quickly generated a huge stack of material.

This interview is the first time anyone has interviewed @AnonyOps about his decision to become Anonymous, his fear of persecution, the talent brain-drain and his decision to leave the U.S.

@AnonyOps: I don’t want talk about what country I’m in. Just that I’ve left. We can start the interview now if you want…

Asher Wolf: Can you tell me about your background, so people can imagine you behind the mask?

@AnonyOps: I sit in my mother’s basement and I write code all day. Well, all of that’s true — except the part about my mother’s basement.

I’m not going to hand over identifying information.

In my free time? I sit and stew about state powers and mass surveillance of innocent people, attempts at censorship and general tyranny. These things put gas in my tank.

Asher Wolf: Tell me about becoming Anonymous?

@AnonyOps: I had a set of common beliefs in line with others in Anonymous – which, looking back is a bit funny to think about, mostly because we’re not unanimous.

Asher Wolf: Did you know what you were getting into when you took up with the Guy Fawkes mask of Anonymous?

@AnonyOps: I was certainly filled with idealism and yes, I was naive.

But, yeah, remembering back to December 2010 – when I saw what happened to WikiLeaks (with the Mastercard, Visa and PayPal financial blockade) I was completely outraged. I wasn’t very optimistic at the start. I had a vision of what I wanted to do, but I didn’t know if I would have any impact at all. I thought – I would probably just be seen as yet another idiot on Twitter.

Asher Wolf: You thought you were powerless?

@AnonyOps: Yes. But I was naive. A day or two after I joined Twitter, I live-tweeted a forum, the Personal Democracy Forum 2010.

When I started watching it being streamed online, and seeing what topics they covered – I knew I wanted to participate. So I tweeted, and after about a minute of tweeting at them, they mentioned me in their video feed

That was an interesting moment for me. It’s when I realized that this thing – this mask of Anonymous – could have power.

Asher Wolf: How did the public respond?

@AnonyOps There was lots of retweeting going on immediately. It felt as if a light switch had been flicked on. I felt I had a platform with which to speak, possibly for the first time in my life. I broke my first 100 followers on Twitter that day.

[Note: @AnonyOps now has more than 200k followers]

It was amazing. Such a dinky number of Twitter followers in retrospect, but to have it happen so quickly was interesting.

Live-tweeting something being streamed live online is still my favorite Twitter experience. It’s a rush. It was a bigger rush than some of the hacking I did as a teenager.

And yes – I see it as hacking – hacking public dialog. Taking on the Anonymous character and costume was like hacking my way onto a panel discussion where I’d never have been invited to participate otherwise.

When they announced to the entire room and online conference forum: “Hey everyone! Anonymous is here!” and they were talking about me.

I thought “Now what? I have their attention! Shit, better think of something smart to say next.”

It drove home I really needed to have a message, a vision for what I wanted to do and say. I needed to hone and develop my purpose.

Within just over a year of becoming an Anon, I was invited to speak at Transmediale (a huge a Berlin-based festival exploring art, culture and technology) as a panelist via Skype – representing to some degree a face of Anonymous.

Asher Wolf: Did you worry about “not fitting in” with the rest of Anonymous, when you jumped in and became part of the “hive”?

@AnonyOps: Yes, I worried at first. I wasn’t sure I’d mesh well with the hive. I don’t consider myself a typical Anon. After time, I stopped caring about giving a shit about being “different”, and counted it a good trait.

Asher Wolf: Does it ever feel like you’re playing at being a superhero?

@AnonyOps: That’s exactly what it felt like – and it still does occassionally. I think Anonymous caught people’s eye. But I’m just a regular joe. Anyone can be an Anon. But doing it well… takes work.

Asher Wolf: Did you feel a sense of obligation, knowing the impact you can potentially have ?

@AnonyOps: Do I feel a sense of obligation: of course. But I’m not particularly involved as an activist in “meatspace.” I just care. I do pay attention to politics and I’m careful about what information I put out online, as I know it influences other activists. Giving a shit is half the battle, if not more.

Asher Wolf: Some political pundits have criticized Anonymous as anti-American at times?

@AnonyOps: I’m sure there are some anti-American elements. But sometimes it seems difficult to discern between those who are anti-American – and those who love America, but hate how the country is being run.

Asher Wolf: Do you still have hope for the U.S.?

@AnonyOps: Not necessarily hope for America as a concept, but hope – and perhaps faith – in the people. I don’t really consider myself nationalistic, but I care about my country, its constitution. I don’t hold the concept of country as more important than people or life itself. American exceptionalism is a curse upon the U.S.

Asher Wolf: How do you react to claims by media and government representatives hyping the potential of cyber terrorism, cyber war and Anonymous.

@AnonyOps: Cyber terrorism… it’s one of the things that made me think that perhaps the U.S. wasn’t the place for me anymore. The US government is hungry for enemies, looking for any excuse to find that next danger to the public – “think of the children!!” I don’t want to be that enemy the U.S. administration is looking for. For fuck’s sake – I was trying to fix America, not become public enemy Number One.

Asher Wolf: Did you fear the American government would prosecute you? That you would be jailed for hacking something or tweeting something?

@AnonyOps: Coupled with all the evidence about the FBI knowing about plots to kill leaders of Occupy and the violence inflicted by militarized police against peaceful war veterans protesting as part of the Occupy Movement? I didn’t think I’d be jailed for hacking anything, but for tweeting something, sure. I’ve seen it happen to friends. They were hit with amazingly flimsy “conspiracy” charges, or something they said triggered them to be raided – free speech, my ass.

Asher Wolf: Like Barrett Brown?

@AnonyOps: Yes, like Barrett. Granted, some of the things he said in video were pretty stupid, but I don’t believe he was planning on killing anyone. He’s looking at potentially landing in prison for 100 years for saying dumb things.

Asher Wolf: Anonymous has previously been described by a Fox News affiliate (as well as other commentators) as “domestic terrorists.” Did you ever, for a second, see yourself as a terrorist? And how did it feel to have media describe Anonymous, the movement you became one of many representatives by proxy, described as terrorists?

@AnonyOps: To be personally considered a terrorist was, for me, is the height of idiocy.

To love one’s country and to want to see it live up to the things it says it holds dear – just to be called a terrorist….it’s disheartening, eye-opening and really frustrating.

Sometimes I wonder if news organizations are following in the steps of “shock-jocks” – in that, I mean they’re simply stating things to get a rise out of people. Or that they’re just trolling us. Can they really be that stupid? It’s hard to tell sometimes…

Asher Wolf: How did you react to knowing you were being portrayed that way?

@AnonyOps: I just had to continue to fight on, knowing this sentiment isn’t in the majority. Or at least hope it isn’t. We have to fight harder against this stuff. Silence gives consent. You have to yell loudly at that kind of stupidity and not let journalists get away with it. Name and shame.

Asher Wolf: Did you feel a need to take special action to keep yourself and your family out of harm’s way since you began to publicly identify as Anonymous?

@AnonyOps: You hide, hope your online anonymity efforts have worked or you get the hell out of the country – which is what I did. I got the hell out.

I’ve known for quite some time that this is where things would end up. Anonymous has left the building, as it were. The idea of leaving occupied my life for about a year.

And being a refugee of sorts, it’s not all roses. I gave up so much; my home, family and friends.

But I’ve seen what my government does to outspoken people, to people who are “too effective” in their criticism.

Just look at Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown… people *are* being persecuted for trying to speak out against the regime.

I had to leave.

Asher Wolf: Did concern that you’d be charged with a crime relating to your involvement with Anonymous play into your decision to leave the U.S.?

@AnonyOps: Yes – mostly I feared they’d fake my involvement in something or try to entrap me, or hit me with some bullshit conspiracy charge.

I left for some of the same reasons Aaron Swartz “left.” I’m sick to death of where the U.S. is going, about the impact it has on people’s lives. But exile was my choice of escape instead. I don’t have suicide in me and I didn’t want to end up in a jail cell.

But I’m so sick of dealing with the bullshit american “justice” system. Sick of seeing prosecutors throw the kitchen sink at people, hoping they’ll plead out so as to avoid, you know, actually going to trial and proving someone guilty. That’s not justice, it’s railroading. Kitchen sink justice is why I left.

I mean… they could still trap me, I’m sure, if they were so inclined, and I’m sure they would if i ever got *so good* at liberating information from their death grips. Perhaps then they might see fit to draw a box and put me in it. So I chose exile, instead

Asher Wolf: So this is essentially a form of political exile of sorts?

@AnonyOps: Political exile is better than being a political prisoner. I see how that’s worked out for others. Years in detention like Bradley Manning, Jeremy Hammond or holed up somewhere in Canada like Commander X.

Asher Wolf: Where did you decide to go ?

@AnonyOps: Just… away. Probably better not to name where I went. Just, somewhere safer. I think the idea was planted when I saw others leaving. Glen Greenwald left, and other talent has quietly slipped away from the U.S. for quite some time now.

There’s a brain drain, of political dissidents – America’s punishment for screwing with civil liberties.

With the NSA building massive domestic spying programs, I can’t blame anyone for wanting to leave: America – land of the surveilled, home of the logged.