Non-Profit Org, Freedom, or Anarchy?
Non-Profit Org, Freedom, or Anarchy?
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta LtKer int16h
On 2007-11-18 23:33:16
|
Some clarification and background is required on this poll, so you understand what this is about...
In the history of CyberArmy's existence, there have been many changes, some of which have caused CA to stray from what it originally stood for others which have enticed new generations of members. The Mission Statement has also changed, and there have always been a lot of views and comments on it; A lot of the time, it makes CyberArmy out to be some kind of Passive OpenSource|GNU research community support group. Then there was the ISPAN plan and related ideas: Sweep anything which was legally questionable under the carpet, and publically appear to be GNU Hippies. I believe this was partly why active membership dropped drastically - It was supporting freedom of speech et al in one paragraph, but at the same time, forbidding any talk which may be illegal in some countries. Yes, times have changed - but ideals have not.
I personally believe our values should be what they were originally with slight modification to reflect modern times - supporting any form of information distribution, and not worrying about being looked down upon by any person or organisation (many respectable communities, organisations and sites do this now - which may at one point been seen as "blackhat hacking" activities). Especially now, when "modern" countries like Germany have recently enforced laws which prohibit many forms of security tools and information in the country.
There was a time when CyberArmy was mentioned in the media, CA was one of the pioneers of security/hacking/freedom communities - and anyone now involved in the larger organisations will remember what CyberArmy once was... Now we're just another OSS|GNU|Research community site - scared to express views and do something about the ever-growing 'Big Brother' world we live in. Are we an Army, or a Hippy Commune?
What do you think? Should we stand up for what's 'right' and rebelling against violations of our rights (as I personally see it), and promote 'proof-of-concept' and possibly legally questionable projects etc - or remain a dormant support network that very few have any interest in anymore.
A) Non-Profit Organisation (Passive community, with studies in programming)
B) Free Community ("No Holes barred!", community of free information and against government restrictions on the aforementioned activities and surveillance)
C) Community of ad-hoc 'hackers' and anarchists
|
---- Vote Closed ---- [Results]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Cpt purefreak
On 2008-03-26 15:05:45
|
A [0]
B [18]
C [1]
D [9] (As defined by ion6ix's post)
Void [1]
Total [29]
|
E) All of the Above. -nt
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Ker inspectorgadget
On 2008-03-17 04:38:35
|
|
B would be nice, and ion's D......
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Lambda CinC Adv. scanjack
On 2007-12-14 17:51:44
|
which is what I would have liked on the Poll as an option (Cheers ion).
I do think that until the global mind set changes (will it ever? Is there ever really going to "enough" to go around? Seriously, there already is enough of everything people need to more than go around. But that's not the world, or even human model. Never really has been from what I've learned about the history of our species.) there will always be a side that needs to be chosen, and pro-actively held up. What that means is ever changing as should CA be IMHO.
Be Well,
|
C ... of course [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Cpt MaDvLaD
On 2007-12-14 14:01:53
|
Only then we can regain the respect we once had from outside, by returning to our roots. I do NOT mean that we should be criminals, NO, but security enthusiasts who dabble in everything which relates to the field of IT security, from cryptography to embedded security, networks etc.
As B I do not believe that we will be as successful as the bunch of other communities out there and believe me, there are alot. Their main advantage is their number of users and supporters. In comparison I'd say we are just a "few" so we have to cope with the situation and make the best out of it.
One way to success is our yellow brigade !
************************************************************************
On 2007-11-18 23:33:16, int16h wrote
>Some clarification and background is required on this poll, so you understand what this is about...
>
>In the history of CyberArmy's existence, there have been many changes, some of which have caused CA to stray from what it originally stood for others which have enticed new generations of members. The Mission Statement has also changed, and there have always been a lot of views and comments on it; A lot of the time, it makes CyberArmy out to be some kind of Passive OpenSource|GNU research community support group. Then there was the ISPAN plan and related ideas: Sweep anything which was legally questionable under the carpet, and publically appear to be GNU Hippies. I believe this was partly why active membership dropped drastically - It was supporting freedom of speech et al in one paragraph, but at the same time, forbidding any talk which may be illegal in some countries. Yes, times have changed - but ideals have not.
>
>I personally believe our values should be what they were originally with slight modification to reflect modern times - supporting any form of information distribution, and not worrying about being looked down upon by any person or organisation (many respectable communities, organisations and sites do this now - which may at one point been seen as "blackhat hacking" activities). Especially now, when "modern" countries like Germany have recently enforced laws which prohibit many forms of security tools and information in the country.
>
>There was a time when CyberArmy was mentioned in the media, CA was one of the pioneers of security/hacking/freedom communities - and anyone now involved in the larger organisations will remember what CyberArmy once was... Now we're just another OSS|GNU|Research community site - scared to express views and do something about the ever-growing 'Big Brother' world we live in. Are we an Army, or a Hippy Commune?
>
>What do you think? Should we stand up for what's 'right' and rebelling against violations of our rights (as I personally see it), and promote 'proof-of-concept' and possibly legally questionable projects etc - or remain a dormant support network that very few have any interest in anymore.
>
>
>A) Non-Profit Organisation (Passive community, with studies in programming)
>
>B) Free Community ("No Holes barred!", community of free information and against government restrictions on the aforementioned activities and surveillance)
>
>C) Community of ad-hoc 'hackers' and anarchists
>
>
>
|
D... Gotta agree with Ion on this... -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta Ker Doeycall
On 2007-11-29 02:57:21
|
|
D (What ion said!) <nt>
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Ret. CinC DigitalDemon
On 2007-11-21 23:46:24
|
On 2007-11-18 23:33:16, int16h wrote
>Some clarification and background is required on this poll, so you understand what this is about...
>
>In the history of CyberArmy's existence, there have been many changes, some of which have caused CA to stray from what it originally stood for others which have enticed new generations of members. The Mission Statement has also changed, and there have always been a lot of views and comments on it; A lot of the time, it makes CyberArmy out to be some kind of Passive OpenSource|GNU research community support group. Then there was the ISPAN plan and related ideas: Sweep anything which was legally questionable under the carpet, and publically appear to be GNU Hippies. I believe this was partly why active membership dropped drastically - It was supporting freedom of speech et al in one paragraph, but at the same time, forbidding any talk which may be illegal in some countries. Yes, times have changed - but ideals have not.
>
>I personally believe our values should be what they were originally with slight modification to reflect modern times - supporting any form of information distribution, and not worrying about being looked down upon by any person or organisation (many respectable communities, organisations and sites do this now - which may at one point been seen as "blackhat hacking" activities). Especially now, when "modern" countries like Germany have recently enforced laws which prohibit many forms of security tools and information in the country.
>
>There was a time when CyberArmy was mentioned in the media, CA was one of the pioneers of security/hacking/freedom communities - and anyone now involved in the larger organisations will remember what CyberArmy once was... Now we're just another OSS|GNU|Research community site - scared to express views and do something about the ever-growing 'Big Brother' world we live in. Are we an Army, or a Hippy Commune?
>
>What do you think? Should we stand up for what's 'right' and rebelling against violations of our rights (as I personally see it), and promote 'proof-of-concept' and possibly legally questionable projects etc - or remain a dormant support network that very few have any interest in anymore.
>
>
>A) Non-Profit Organisation (Passive community, with studies in programming)
>
>B) Free Community ("No Holes barred!", community of free information and against government restrictions on the aforementioned activities and surveillance)
>
>C) Community of ad-hoc 'hackers' and anarchists
>
>
>
|
B/D [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Lambda CinC icklenewt
On 2007-11-20 07:34:15
|
I'd prefer us to move closer to (B). However, I would be uncomfortable if people were asking questions that are illegal in most countries and are getting clear directions to follow. I prefer things to be approached in what I feel is the right manner - you can pretty much give people any information you want so long as it is delivered in the right way; shown as an education resource rather than appearing to promote illegal hacking.
This is what brings me to ion's D. CyberArmy, in my view, should not actively promote anything illegal. However, that shouldn't mean we steer clear of anything that could be taken that way. We should be providing information and learning tools, and leaving it to the individual as to how to use those.
~ickz~
|
|
D [nt]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta Lt Sorcer Ism
On 2007-11-20 05:55:40
|
|
B [n/t]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Lt Spudgun
On 2007-11-19 23:51:04
|
|
B/D -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Cpt danboy785
On 2007-11-19 23:16:04
|
|
D. Im with ion 100% -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Tr The Digital Poet
On 2007-11-19 21:57:27
|
|
D [nt]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta Lt goltor
On 2007-11-19 20:20:37
|
|
ion6ix: D
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta LtKer silverknight
On 2007-11-19 19:35:42
|
His post states perfectly what I would vote for. :)
|
B [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta LtKer knoledgesponge
On 2007-11-19 17:45:14
|
I feel that C will only serve to get us in trouble (even if we had the resources to be a 'hacker' group, whereas B will give us the flexibility we need to do what we want without projecting a false image.
If we had been incorporated in the past, I'm fairly certain we would not of made it this far and would of collapsed long ago. Right now we possess an amazing amount of resiliency, and our organization has proven itself to be durable (WE'RE STILL HERE!). I think it would be a mistake to throw that away at least at this point in time.
-sp0nge
|
B [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Tr SiliconViper
On 2007-11-19 17:24:49
|
A degree of balanced public perception is important, if people are to listen. When raising awareness for privacy, for example: If you come across as paranoid, people may discount your words, while if you present a rational case, they may take to heart what you say.
I do believe it to be essential that we oppose censorship, surveillance, and any restrictions on freedom of information.
|
B/D -nt.-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Epsilon 2nd Lt gmw
On 2007-11-19 16:06:50
|
|
B/B/B oh and A and C...
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Lt dopel
On 2007-11-19 15:44:55
|
I was going to write some long winded post about freedom this and that, but I could not say it better than ion6ix has already done.
On 2007-11-18 23:33:16, int16h wrote
>Some clarification and background is required on this poll, so you understand what this is about...
>
>In the history of CyberArmy's existence, there have been many changes, some of which have caused CA to stray from what it originally stood for others which have enticed new generations of members. The Mission Statement has also changed, and there have always been a lot of views and comments on it; A lot of the time, it makes CyberArmy out to be some kind of Passive OpenSource|GNU research community support group. Then there was the ISPAN plan and related ideas: Sweep anything which was legally questionable under the carpet, and publically appear to be GNU Hippies. I believe this was partly why active membership dropped drastically - It was supporting freedom of speech et al in one paragraph, but at the same time, forbidding any talk which may be illegal in some countries. Yes, times have changed - but ideals have not.
>
>I personally believe our values should be what they were originally with slight modification to reflect modern times - supporting any form of information distribution, and not worrying about being looked down upon by any person or organisation (many respectable communities, organisations and sites do this now - which may at one point been seen as "blackhat hacking" activities). Especially now, when "modern" countries like Germany have recently enforced laws which prohibit many forms of security tools and information in the country.
>
>There was a time when CyberArmy was mentioned in the media, CA was one of the pioneers of security/hacking/freedom communities - and anyone now involved in the larger organisations will remember what CyberArmy once was... Now we're just another OSS|GNU|Research community site - scared to express views and do something about the ever-growing 'Big Brother' world we live in. Are we an Army, or a Hippy Commune?
>
>What do you think? Should we stand up for what's 'right' and rebelling against violations of our rights (as I personally see it), and promote 'proof-of-concept' and possibly legally questionable projects etc - or remain a dormant support network that very few have any interest in anymore.
>
>
>A) Non-Profit Organisation (Passive community, with studies in programming)
>
>B) Free Community ("No Holes barred!", community of free information and against government restrictions on the aforementioned activities and surveillance)
>
>C) Community of ad-hoc 'hackers' and anarchists
>
>
>
|
B -more-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Cpt Auzzie
On 2007-11-19 11:29:00
|
Well the thing that brought me here is seeing cyberarmy getting mentioned in a couple of security books and zd.net, and the community seems to have an air of uncertainty over what it is they want to do and what CA as a whole should push for.
To me it seems that CA has just rolled over on what it used to stand for and that ideal is what brought the majority of the memberbase here. We don't have the member retention possibly due to the infamous Zebulun no longer being around, the lack of anti big brother ideals amoungst other things.
At the moment all CA seems to be doing is producing the same old things, just presented slightly differently so that people don't realise it has been done before and more then likely flunked, either due to lack of members, lack of commitment or just a general bad idea.
It's not just the member's fault and it's not just the fault of the Exec's, but everyone that wants the old CA back are just as responsible as the next because the whole point of activism and all of that is to publicly go for it. There are a few members who have expressed their concerns but if it is going to work the majority of the community will need to be for it
|
B
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Lt purefreak
On 2007-11-19 06:33:19
|
100 times over :D
|
B - simple as that -nt
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Maj genius3000
On 2007-11-19 03:42:43
|
|
D [more?]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta Tr ion6ix
On 2007-11-19 00:10:25
|
The answer I was looking for wasn't one of the predefined choices...
I'm not one to be pigeonholed. What CA was 7-8 years ago, when I first came here, was of course much different from what it is today. But then again, I myself am much different than I was then, as I'm sure we all are.
CA seems to have always been in a state of trying to define itself, and it never seems to have made up it's collective mind. The best thing to do is not define anything. "CyberArmy is an independent union of Internet users for a self-regulated Internet." I think that simple statement best describes it. Let that mean to you whatever you want it to. If you want to be a 'GNU Hippy' or a 'Black Hat Cracker' then so be it. What you're looking to do with your skills and knowledge is probably not the same as me or the next person. CA should stand for the common goal of education, englightenment, and self-empowerment that we are all looking for. The internet is a dangerous place...to be a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' is up to you. CA shouldn't pick a side. It should remain a neutral organization that serves for knowledge for it's own sake. As an Army, the act of choosing a side automatically implies an inheirited set of enemies, and will alienate a certain percentage of the existing user base. We don't want/need that.
Think about it from above.
|
RE: D [more?]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta LtKer int16h
On 2007-11-19 00:12:56
|
Great post! :)
I should've had you write half of this poll >_<
And yes, I agree with you :)
<3
On 2007-11-19 00:10:25, ion6ix wrote
>The answer I was looking for wasn't one of the predefined choices...
>
>I'm not one to be pigeonholed. What CA was 7-8 years ago, when I first came here, was of course much different from what it is today. But then again, I myself am much different than I was then, as I'm sure we all are.
>
>CA seems to have always been in a state of trying to define itself, and it never seems to have made up it's collective mind. The best thing to do is not define anything. "CyberArmy is an independent union of Internet users for a self-regulated Internet." I think that simple statement best describes it. Let that mean to you whatever you want it to. If you want to be a 'GNU Hippy' or a 'Black Hat Cracker' then so be it. What you're looking to do with your skills and knowledge is probably not the same as me or the next person. CA should stand for the common goal of education, englightenment, and self-empowerment that we are all looking for. The internet is a dangerous place...to be a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' is up to you. CA shouldn't pick a side. It should remain a neutral organization that serves for knowledge for it's own sake. As an Army, the act of choosing a side automatically implies an inheirited set of enemies, and will alienate a certain percentage of the existing user base. We don't want/need that.
>
>Think about it from above.
>
|
|
|
B [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Lt pixel
On 2007-11-18 23:56:40
|
Education + freedom of information + activism against government and civil restrictions = win.
|
B
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Tr Tsu Senta
On 2007-11-18 23:52:25
|
only this way the community can begin to be any sense once again
|
I vote A/B/C [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta Tr thespore
On 2007-11-18 23:47:44
|
Err I guess that would actually be option B? I think OpenSource programming research is important (and my main focus). Legally questionable activity "ie. hacking, network security, etc.." should be encouraged and not restricted.
I mean all in all, isn't this whole thing about learning technology? Whether that be through open source initiatives or legally-questionable exploration I don't think should matter. It's all about the freedom of information and knowledge.
|
B [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha LtKer R o s e
On 2007-11-18 23:46:01
|
I agree that in 98' CA got a lot more publicity for being different and for being "zomgs! They are l33t h4x0rz".
Now we seem like an educational blog with a good notion but nothing really special to get us noticed.
If we offered old hacking tools with tutes, analyses of virii and other 'underground stuff then I think our popularity will increase dramatically.
We should be a democratic community standing against those that make rules.
|
B [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma LtKer Gisterogue
On 2007-11-18 23:37:27
|
As soon as we started moving away from our original values, goals and meaning in the first place, that's when CA started going down hill. It has continued to do so until all we have left is a community that "amuses itself".
No disrespect to people who are working right now to do something for CA -- but in reality, all we do is what many other web sites do, just a lot crappier.
CyberArmy needs to go back to what it was. Things have changed, and we will have to change -- but like you said, our values remain static. They haven't though.
Additionally, we shouldn't be held back by staff. If they decide something shouldn't be done but all the members want to -- then we do it.
good poll.
|
|
|
|
|