
How to Overthrow a Government [video] - eatbitseveryday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1lhGqNCZlA
======
griffinmahon
The speaker's previous presentation at a different year of the same
conference, about using online records to fabricate your own death or the
birth of a made-up baby, is also worth watching:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdHq3WfJgs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdHq3WfJgs).

~~~
pilif
Thank you very much for posting this. This is nearly unbelievably bad and also
reminded me of last weekend's discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12511202](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12511202)
and brings that into a completely new light: Why even bother trying to vanish
in order to fake your death when you might just as well just fill out the
required forms on your own.

------
1_listerine_pls
Made me realize I need to get a farm and a couple of solar panels.

~~~
nxzero
I'm sure marauders would thank you (nicely of course) for all of your hard
work to supply them with your booty.

~~~
eternalban
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
eliwjones
Then the marauders will thank you for your pile of guns as well.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I sometimes think that the whole fashion around "prepping" is few hardcore
survivalists ensuring that there will be lots of food, fuel and weapons
stockpiled by the clueless masses and easily accessible after the apocalypse.

~~~
okwhatthe2
Like Civil Defense?

------
josh_fyi
This is the classic book on the topic:

Edward Luttwak, Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, 1968

~~~
RGamma
One review on Amazon says "[...] The only asterix one would attach to it is
that the second, and most recent, edition was published in 1979, so we don't
have anything about dealing with the internet, mobile phone networks, etc.".

It seems that's a really big omission in any "practical" handbook. Apparently
the author is still alive. Time for a third edition? (and I have yet to watch
the video)

~~~
thomasfoster96
There is a new edition which was published this year (2016). I was able to get
it via Amazon - maybe the review is a bit old? I haven’t read much of it so
far as I have a few other books on the go but the internet and mobile phones
are certainly mentioned.

Edit: Revised edition still has the original author.

Edit 2: Amazon link (not affiliate link):
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674737261/ref=oh_aui_deta...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674737261/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

------
guelo
I don't get it, there was a lot of screenshots of consoles and such, is he
implying that he actually did do this? .

~~~
cromulen
He did pentesting for Kuwait government.

He's saying he could have done it.

~~~
eatbitseveryday
Why not follow through with something mild to demonstrate his case (with or
without admitting to it)?

~~~
euccastro
Yeah, why not?

(Holy f* s*)

------
chukye
Is he just saying that you can put down a government by faking a lot of news?

~~~
mtgx
It's why China is cracking down "Internet rumors", and also why in the U.S.,
Twitter, Facebook, and Google, are forming an alliance to crack down on "fake
news" [1], starting with stuff like censoring Hillary Clinton's passing out
video and related trending hashtags [2][3], or videos of North Dakota's
pipeline protests [4].

We're going to need a decentralized and censorship-resistant Internet/social
media sooner than people think. By the next U.S. election, I fear the these
three main sites will have already been co-opted to work as government
propaganda arms [5], as a smooth transition from old TV media propaganda to
Internet propaganda, as more people cut their cords.

The worst part is people won't even be able to easily see it. It's one thing
to see a moderator on TV constantly hitting (or praising) a candidate and
eventually realizing that maybe he or she isn't very fair or is biased, and
may have ulterior motives for doing that.

But it's quite another to be so vigilant as to notice when Google shows you
mostly pro-Clinton search results for neutral election-related queries, or
when Facebook and Twitter "don't" allow some topics to trend (although I think
more people are starting to catch on to these tactics, but it's probably not
happening fast enough to make a difference this election).

[1] [https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/14/facebook-twitter-
first-d...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/14/facebook-twitter-first-draft-
google/)

[2] [http://observer.com/2016/09/facebook-and-youtube-show-
franti...](http://observer.com/2016/09/facebook-and-youtube-show-frantic-
alliegence-to-clinton/)

[3] [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/11/hillary-health-
stor...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/11/hillary-health-story-
missing-twitter/)

[4] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-
dakota-p...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-
pipeline-video-censorship-protest)

[5] [https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-
deradi...](https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradicalize-
jihadis-will-be-used-for-right-wing-american-extremists-next/)

~~~
inanutshellus
It seems these days that misinformation is the name of the game. It's all-but-
impossible to tell the difference between intentional misinformation from a
biased source and crying foul by a victim of misinformation, however. ("He's a
psychopath!" "She's near her deathbed!")

Somewhat relatedly, I tried following both the main Clinton and Trump
subreddits for a while and there was significant value in doing so. They were
often talking about entirely different shenanigans going down... but... they
were so vitriolic (and, frankly, childish) that I had to unsubscribe to them.

~~~
triplesec
Yet false equivalences like this abound. Clinton is not nearly dead. Trump
_is_ a classic archtype of narcissist personality disorder. This is reasonably
demonstrable.

So, there are standards of evidence, science and expertise, which the peanut
gallery in politics has been hacking away at for decades, paid for by rich
short-sighted oligarchs, esp for example oil (look at the anti-climate-science
lobby).

------
unixhero
I liked the media manipulation part.

------
JshWright
Is the 'Chris Rock' in the comments the same Chris Rock who presented the
talk? Seems like a pretty unpleasant human being, if that's the case...

Petty name calling, racist comments, etc...

~~~
kustid
I didn't do this much work and effort to be dissed by idiots and 13 year olds
online that couldn't hack themselves out of a paper bag with a machete.
Unpleasant maybe, man of the year haven't entered, discussing a modern day
method, focus on the material not the delivery.

~~~
jungletek
Hey, I'm just some random dickhead, but I enjoyed the talk, and past ones
you've done. Hope to get to see one in person at defcon or something sometime.

Keep rubbing people and systems the wrong way.

------
pearjuice
Will I be on a watchlist after watching this?

~~~
Cthulhu_
Depends on what watchlist you're referring to. Short answer: yes, multiple,
but not because of the subject.

What you probably want to ask is 'how big is the watchlist'.

~~~
collyw
Any idea where I could read up more on watchlists. I kind of assumed they are
happening but no idea what sort of thing gets you on one other than a sensible
guess.

~~~
chiph
> no idea what sort of thing gets you on one

That's the evil nature of them. You don't know how you ended up on one (or how
many). You don't even know if you're on one. And if you did, there's no
process for getting off it.

There was a story several years ago about how one of the US states (Rhode
Island??) was dumping everyone convicted of a felony into the national
terrorism watchlist. And didn't care, because {shrug} they're felons.

------
leksak
I was expecting to see the comedian for some reason.

~~~
lucb1e
Oh he's a comedian, that explains why the talk was like this. Can't say I
found it very amusing though.

------
jokoon
This belongs to Reddit

