Direct from the mind of the guy who bought you the "I will kill you" presentation at DEF CON 23, is another mind bending, entertaining talk. This time it's bigger and badder than before.
Are you sick and tired of your government? Can't wait another 4 years for an election? Or do you want to be like the CIA and overthrow a government overseas for profit or fun? If you answered yes to one or more of these questions than[sic] this talk is for you! Why not create your own cyber mercenary unit and invoke a regime change to get the government you want installed? After all, if you want the job done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself.
Find out how over the last 60 years, governments and resource companies have been directly involved in architecting regime changes around world using clandestine mercenaries to ensure deniability. This has been achieved by destabilizing the ruling government, providing military equipment, assassinations, financing, training rebel groups and using government agencies like the CIA, Mossad and MI-5 or using foreign private mercenaries such as Executive Order and Sandline. Working with Simon Mann an elite ex SAS soldier turned coup architect who overthrew governments in Africa, Chris Rock will show you how mercenary coup tactics directly applied to digital mercenaries to cause regime changes as the next generation of "Cyber Dogs of War".
The YouTube video promises to teach you, among other things:
- How to gather intelligence to analyze a government's systemic weaknesses on financial, societal values and political climates that is leader- or country-specific to structure your attack.
- How to identify and prioritize government resources, infrastructure and commercial companies and how to use these compromised assets to stage the coup.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 20 2016, @06:44AM
Yes, somehow overthrowing governments for fun and profit is fashionable again. But let us remember what Machiavelli pointed out some years ago: you cannot trust mercs! They are motivated by personal gain, and that only serves your interest as long as it does. And, of course, it really never serves the interests of the population of a nation at all, really. Mercs serve people who do not have the democratic support to actually rule. And even worse, once the people realize this, they either take them out (amazing what superior numbers can do), or hire more better mercs to flush out the minority's mercs, and then actually pay them so that they leave. But in any case, mercs are scum. Anyone fighting for their government for a paycheck is a merc, and thus scum. And all these pretend cyber-mercs? Still scum. I would spit on them, but they do not deserve even that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @06:54AM
Anyone fighting for their government for a paycheck is a merc, and thus scum.
Well you're in luck. The suicide bombers will not be paid.
Or I should say you're not in luck because you're the target.
INFIDEL!!!!!!!!!! ALLAHLALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 20 2016, @07:23AM
Oh, come on and do try to be serious. Of course the suicide bomber will be paid! Why do you think they are doing it? Their family will be taken care of, or they will get their 72 (Muslim) or 144 (Christian) or 9 (Mormon, do not ask me why) virgins in the alleged afterlife. But that means they are scum, mercenary scum only out for what benefits their own sorry asses. And do you know what? Every god worth his salt sees through such mercenary motivation, so they do not get their virgins, instead, they get to be one, in the afterlife, being deflowered over and over again by demons of such magnificent. . . .
Now that fact that such a deluded mercenary could take out me? It's possible. Should I quake in fear about this and concede to his demands? Not likely. All of these bastards who rely on violence mistake one major thing: not everyone is a sniveling coward that can be coerced by threats of violence, like they are! So if you are a suicide bomber, take a hard look at who is trying to get you to pull this off. Why are they not doing it themselves, if it is so glorious? How much have all these idiots blowing themselves up contributed to the advancement of the alleged cause of the organization? Is Dick Cheney on the board of directors? Has Donald Trump ever given a speech before your group? Could it be, that you are dumb as a bag of hammers, and were only doing it for the money? Mercs, more stupid than your average soldier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @02:07PM
There is a reason they're still virgins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @04:15PM
Anyway to get 72 Muslim AND 144 Christian AND 9 Mormon women who have a more apparent interest in sex?
Thanks!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @06:48AM
It has become customary for imperial presidents to serve two terms only because it has become customary to rule by executive order and ignore the constitution. To amend the constitution to repeal the 22nd amendment would draw too much attention to the allegedly supreme law of the land and spoil the illusion of presidential imperium. Thus the 8 year term has become normal by coincidence. Although the past 16 years have seen two imperial presidents who have held to such identical policies as there has been no discernible difference between rule by White Bushbama and rule by Black Bushbama.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @07:28AM
Vote for 16 years of Trump! Trump!
(Score: 3, Funny) by timbim on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:03AM
I was born a suspect. I can walk down any street in America and women will clutch their purses tighter, hold onto their mace, lock their car doors. If I look up into the windows of the apartments I pass, I can see old ladies on the phone. They've already dialed 9-1- and are just waiting for me to do something wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:11AM
Different Chris Rock! You mean the American comedian, not the Auzzie, um, "security professional" (if you know what I mean.).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:55AM
It's not just you, timbim. This kind of fear seems to be the new norm in American society.
I, too, have heard the fervent locking of car doors as I pass by in parking lots. That's something rather new to me... I never remember such fear. People hanging onto their cellphones for dear life. Don't they have the foggiest idea of how fast those things can be rendered inoperable by a nearby jammer? If someone was really after them, I am sure they would come prepared with a cellphone jammer just for that contingency.
Think I'm kidding? Google it. These things can be as simple as a colpitts oscillator driven from the unfiltered output of the little SMPS chip designed for LED flashlights ( the unfiltered output of the switcher causes chaotic operation of the colpitts oscillator - exactly what's needed to make a mess in a comm band. )
People seem flat terrified. Seems straight out of the Bible, as in men trembling from the rustling of a leaf. ( Somewhere in Leviticus, I think... ).
And don't even try to get me started on what kinda crap they have inadvertantly loaded into their computer by as much as opening a Microsoft document or visiting a JavaScript laced website.... the worst being the sleeper cell, as it does not advertise its presence until activated.
I believe the people who have the most to fear is the people who live high on the hog off of other people's misery. They may think they have pulled a fast one by conniving ways to subordinate others, however those subordinated others now have their subordinator brightly lit on their radar. We live in a day where our phones, cars, and damn near everything else is controllable from people we have no idea who or where they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @01:15PM
They've already dialed 9-1- and are just waiting for me to do something wrong.
They're waiting for you to be executed by the cops:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/dash-cam-video-shows-unarmed-black-man-with-hands-in-air-before-tulsa-police-shoot-him-dead/ [rawstory.com]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-african-americans-ahmad-khan-rahami-treatment-article-1.2798518 [nydailynews.com]
You don't have to do anything wrong at all. Unless "walking away with hands in the air while black" is somehow a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:05AM
1) If you notice most of the time the ones profiting from the overthrow don't actually live in the countries they mess up. Other than the resulting Dictator and his cronies of course.
2) When leaders are selected by violence instead of votes, you should realize that it becomes harder to change leaders. The leaders with the most firepower tend to rise to the top. It's not like you can vote differently if you stop liking them. This is why most Communist and other violent revolutions produce Dictatorships. Most of the fans of Communism and violent revolutions are too stupid to realize this. Just because the USA got lucky with the American Revolution doesn't mean it will again (I'll leave it to the experts to argue on whether the American Revolution was a real revolution where most of the leaders were replaced or a secession where the leaders in the USA mostly remained in power while they stopped obeying the Brits). Go check for yourself - the French Revolution ended up with a Dictatorship for a number of years.
Plenty of people are stupid enough to believe that the same voters who are too stupid or incompetent to vote properly once every few years with ballots can somehow vote better with their wallets or bullets. Or is it that you believe that since you have more guns and weapons expertise, your "vote" counts more and thus magically a violent revolution would be better for you and your loved ones? Go look at how many people with tons of guns support Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by t-3 on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:29AM
Nobody who would seriously entertain notions of gaining power (through whatever means) believes "voters" can decide anything... Revolutions are NEVER bottom up, they start in the middle class - those who have assets and education but are not of the ruling class. The poor have nothing, so must be coerced into fighting and dying. The poor also don't notice and rarely care about the political structure of the government - they have nothing to lose regardless of who comes into power. This is why the middle class has been systematically whittled down to near-nothing and a culture of wilfull ignorance has been promoted. If the people who disrupt power are weak and untrusted, then power has nothing to fear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:58AM
Yes, you are right. The revolutionaries are never the deprived masses themselves, but the would-be rulers in shadows, who have risen up to a glass ceiling and for whichever reason can't negotiate it out. Therefore, essential ingredients of an revolution are: frustrated rising power class which met their systemic boundary, the boundary itself (notice how in UK, any commoner can be made a peer by royal appointment? Boundary removed to prevent revolution.), and space for fictive, hypothetic, or inconsequential "improvement" of status of lower rank masses, usually a temporary material gain (e.g. lower taxes, small amounts of property rights, etc.) which will be gradually recuperated subsequently by expropriation under various pretexts.
However, you are wrong if you think that there can be a society without some sort of middle class, establishment-supporting class. Historically they were various managers: military professionals, economy runners (large industrial, natural resources or agricultural producers, importers, etc.) ... once they realize they wield the power, they will seize it, and "ruling rights" of incumbents are worthless. However, they can't efficiently rule (watch for others who might threat their reign) AND keep their business going, so they have to delegate some authority or significant function to someone ... and the cycle turns. Especially dangerous (for incumbents) are socially disruptive technologies, if they are too cheap to require established economic giants for their development, and are well aligned with existing social structure. However, up to present day we haven't really had that, because as long as living essentials' monopolies are still in place (food, water, energy, living space, long distance communication channels), the social structure cannot be rebuilt.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @03:24PM
1) You sound very much like Benjamin from "Animal Farm." Why do you want to be a cynical ass? Does it help things or hurt things to be detached and pessimistic about everything, lending your obvious intelligence to demotivating those who want to bring about positive changes? I guess there is something to be said for the sad satisfaction of watching an old war horse get sent off to the glue factory, but I can't help but feel it would be better to stop the pigs from running roughshod in the first place.
2) Correct that almost all "revolutions" come from the middle class, but I would suggest most people don't want a revolution. They want incremental improvements in the current system. I don't know anybody seriously advocating murdering people worth over $10M, or mass food shortages, or even outright rioting. They just want things tweaked a bit, and that frequently does come from non-violent actions.
3) There may be a systemic effort to shrink the middle-class in a 1984-style way to lock in the status quo. Personally I think it is more the natural course of human events. Consider the past 1000 years of human history. How much of it has had a thriving middle class? During the Middle Ages, with nobility oppressing surfs? During the French Revolution? During the Enlightenment?
It is a very rare and modern phenomena to have a substantial middle class, usually brought on by something large and possibly traumatic (the Black Death, World War 2, the Industrial Revolution). I'm guess it is more likely that the separation of the rich and the poor is more reversion to mean. This is not to say that this trend should be simply allowed to occur without contest; but don't always go looking for conspiracy in the face of the common.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @04:07PM
> but don't always go looking for conspiracy in the face of the common.
You must be new here. When it comes to anything even vaguely political making conspiracy out of mundane is all that this site does.
It is tireseome as fuck though. Lowest common denominator quality thinking.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday September 20 2016, @05:56PM
1. I don't really understand where you're coming from, but that probably cuts both ways. I don't see myself as being pessimistic, merely pragmatic; history bears out everything I wrote, although I was a little hyperbolic about the state of affairs today. Detachment is necessary to gain perspective, once you have an rational point of view you can think about change in a practical way.
2. I agree that most people don't want a revolution, or at least don't know that they want one. As I said, most people are too busy staying alive and living to be concerned about politics and all of the mostly petty games "powerful" people play. It's my belief that revolution in the traditional sense will only feed back into the loop of history rather than breaking the cycle of suffering and apathy. The "revolution" that is needed now is cultural, global, and possibly impossible: the concept of government needs to dissappear. As long as people consent to being "governed", the same issues will occur, because humans as a whole cannot escape the animal tendencies of dominance and it's varied ills until we reject animal social structure.
3. The middle class has been a dominant force in the past 1000 years, but it's not often taught that way. England achieved her historical dominance due to a thriving and empowered middle class, while France and the American Colonies ended at revolution due to discontent in the middle class. The Enlightenment was a middle class thing - organized religion and nobility waned in influence as the artists, merchants, and scientists gained it. The middle ages show a prime example of the rise of the middle class with the development of larger towns and cities and the subsequent weakening of feudal hierarchies (serfs could escape to towns and become free). In the modern (post WWII) era, even though technology continues to connect people in unprecedented ways and make access to information so easy and rapidly approaching universal, and basic education has long been commonplace, there is still a definite ruling class which believes in Hobbes and Plato and rejects the ability of the common people to govern their own lives. These Hobbesian viewpoints and oligarchic tendencies combined with rampant corruption ensure that the middle class is marginalized and that freedoms are steadily restricted "in the interest of the common good" while bread and circus keep the masses occupied.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:23PM
I apologize. I had been under the impression that your post was one of those "don't bother voting, it doesn't change anything" type of despairing type. If that had not been your intention, than never mind.
Interesting point about the middle ages. I would agree that the rise of the middle classes (due to things like Industrialization, or the Black Death) did lead a good portion to the ending of the old system. You are correct that as a general rule, the middle class (or rather, people with resources but relatively little power) are the ones which cause various revolutions. However, I would assert that if you just look at human history, it is rare to have a strong and thriving middle class. The past 60 years in the US have been the exception, not the rule.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday September 20 2016, @03:34PM
Why is it that Americans think they all have the right to bear arms? For what purpose? Now look again at the outspoken proponent trying to get elected president. Could there be a day when those very guns and their owners be a threat to him? Had he thought this through?
Pull my finger!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @03:51PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
as recently reviewed in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [wikipedia.org]
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago [wikipedia.org]
A number of purposes, some reviewed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts [wikipedia.org]
Maybe. Maybe not. Besides him, who cares?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday September 20 2016, @04:11PM
I was being rhetorical.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday September 20 2016, @02:15PM
Overthrowing governments is easy? then, after you seize power with a coup, it will be even easier for someone else to step in. You basically do the dirty work for the usual suspects.
For a lasting coup you should have the people with you on it. Are you versed in leadership? Also, the people is artificially partitioned in camps that hate each others. Before the 90s the partition was built by ideologies, now it's mostly race and religion, with the leftists and the nationalists adding fuel to that.
Being nerd, you have another option. Develop tech for the masses. Subtract control from the system. Because if there is an invariant in human history is that the ones in charge want to subtract control from all the others. Money, war, ideology, propaganda, mere tools.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:52PM
Being nerd, you have another option.
Yes, of course! Did we not just have a post about the latest release of emacs? Die, vi users! Die!
[Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason. Sir John Harrington ]
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:14PM
vi rules!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A