Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous' Airchat Aim: Communication Without Need For Phone Or Internet
concertina226 (2447056) writes "Online hacktivist collective Anonymous has announced that it is working on a new tool called Airchat which could allow people to communicate without the need for a phone or an internet connection — using radio waves instead. Anonymous, the amorphous group best known for attacking high profile targets like Sony and the CIA in recent years, said on the project's Github page: 'Airchat is a free communication tool [that] doesn't need internet infrastructure [or] a cell phone network. Instead it relies on any available radio link or device capable of transmitting audio.' Despite the Airchat system being highly involved and too complex for most people in its current form, Anonymous says it has so far used it to play interactive chess games with people at 180 miles away; share pictures and even established encrypted low bandwidth digital voice chats. In order to get Airchat to work, you will need to have a handheld radio transceiver, a laptop running either Windows, Mac OS X or Linux, and be able to install and run several pieces of complex software." And to cleanse yourself of the ads with autoplaying sound, you can visit the GitHub page itself.
It's a nice idea, and arguably has done a lot to bring down many repressive governments and end many great injustices. The problem is that everyone believes themselves to be righteously protesting - and one man's justified cause is another's anarchy. Take the current Bundy fiasco: Bundy feels that federal land ownership is unjust, therefore he refuses to pay his grazing license (ie, tax). He also feels that protection for endangered species is an unjust law, therefore he ignores repeated court orders to stop grazing his cattle upon land which has herd density restrictions. To some, he is a hero - a brave protester, risking his freedom to strike a symbolic blow against a government out of control. To others, he is a redneck dick who won't pay his taxes and has no respect for the rule of law. It's all subjective.
The thing is though? The truth is typically someplace roughly in the middle.... EG. In Bundy's case, the truth is somewhere between his idea that federal land ownership is "unjust", and the idea that federal govt. should buy up huge swaths of land and just sit on them (for over 100 years at a time, in this instance, and probably many others) -- and then selectively enforce rules with an iron fist, when they suddenly deem it worthwhile.
So the "anarchy" brings attention to the initial problem, and *hopefully* brings about an end result of some modification to existing regulations, to improve things in the future for everyone.
It's pretty well documented in historical records that when the United States fought for freedom from England and the Revolutionary War began, there was a lot of this "over the top" behavior involved too. British soldiers, ordered to simply stand guard in certain areas, were spit on, had beer bottles thrown at them from nearby taverns, etc. -- in an attempt to provoke one of them to give in and fire a weapon. Bottom line? You can't really create effective change if you just sit quietly by and follow all the rules. The protesting/anarchy isn't usually 100% right, but it serves as a catalyst for change.