Direct Hacktion

[Flint Jones <flint@nsa.secret.org>]

[: hacktivism :]


Bronc Buster,


	What works on the street, doesn't work on the net?  Your arguement
falls flat.  You caution against some tactics because it might bring
increased repression and governmental control to the net... but that
is also a justification for what happens on the street.  If people go 
around threatening to tear up terminator seed crops that Monsanto
plants... it could bring increased government surveillance in
agriculture, if people go around threatening to shutdown the World
Trade Organization... it might turn Seattle into a police state.  Militant
tactics may or may not lead the state to justifying its intervention.  The
Street finds its own uses for technology.

	Hacktivism = Activism + Hacking

	To be a Hacktivist, it would seem that being both a "hacker" 
and an "activist" would be required.... though usually people are
going to be more expierenced with one than the other.  If your not an
activist, then maybe that is where your definition of hacktivism 
is finding such stern rebuke.  

	I think part of the problem is that you have a definition of
activism which is really weak.  You define activism:

> Activism, as far as I think of it, has always been about bringing
> attention to a pressing matter people think needs to be changed.When
> abortion clinics start getting blown up, buildings start to get burned
> down, etc, it's no longer activism, but terrorism.

	So, according to you definition, activists can only "bring
attention to pressing matters".   Anything beyond that, you clarify as
"terrorism"?  You've left out one of the most practical applications of
activism and civil disobdeience, direct action!  Direct action requires no
appeal to those in power to change things, but rather empowers those using
direct action.  Direct Action goes beyond publicity and propaganda and
actually makes the change!  

	Some examples of Direct Action used by Hacktivists might be:

	The GMD Fist World Wide Web Strike, where tech workers had a
partial strike where the changed the contents their corporate web pages by
33% in response to a 33% difference in pay.  Basically, this was an online
equivalent to workers doing a "slow-down", they actively with-held the
products of there labor from the boss, until the boss caved in on the pay
demands.  Some folks might group this in with "Web Page Defacement",
but its alot different when those responsible for the creation and
maintenance of web work change the content, to a couple of vandals who 
break into the site and vandalize it.

http://www.first.gmd.de/persons/mtv/e.html

	Usenet Spam Cancel Moratorium:  This is an interesting one, where
a group of volunteers basically went on strike.   They stopped canceling
spam because they didn't believe providers were doing enough to block
spam, and they were becoming overworked with volume. 

http://www.sputum.com/cns/moratorium.html

	Radio Piracy by micro power FM radio advocates, which most agree
was one of the deciding forces in the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) eventual approval Low Power FM radio service, against the wishes of
the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).  There were just so many
pirates that the FCC would be unable to shut them all down.  Philly's
Radio Mutiny was making good on its pledge that "For every one station
they (FCC) shutdown, we'll open ten more".

	http://www.radio4all.org  

	Jam Echelon Day:  Since you mentioned that as an effective bit of
hacktivism... and it was a supreme media coup and a nice way to kick off
this very list, what was really exciting to both the participants and
the media was not  just that it was a media stunt, but rather its
attempt (however poor) at direct action.  People really got excited about 
the myth of working collectively together with thousands of others
to literally "JAM ECHELON", even if just for a day.  As a direct
action, this direct action probably actually failed to jam Echelon,
but the attempt let it get such media attention that it has become rather 
common knowledge.
	
	One idea for some direct action to support people being attacked 
by corporations in a domain name disupte might be a "registration 
frenzy" where hacktivists would begin registering every domain possible
with the disputed name.  For example, say to cause frustration to
Etoys, hacktivists could start registering Etoy.ca, Etoys.ca,
Etoys.net, etoy.se, etc... and redirects point at etoy's IP. Its similar
to a "Fill the Jail" kind of civil disobedience as people try to overturn
an unjust law by openly, publically breaking it and overloading the
courts, or in this case Etoys willingness to litigate.  This wouldn't
involve "threatening" at all.  Depending on how clueless corporate
lawyers are, they might even be willing to go after host names, like
etoys.tao.ca. 

Direct action doesn't "sweep things under the rug" rather, it obliterates
dust with or without a lot of fan fare.  One thing it doesn't do, is have
a protest to demand that the government send a cleaning company to sweep
up our own damn kitchens.


Direct action isn't terrorism, its purpose is not to kill people to
inspire fear in people and influence a government's policy.  Direct
action is usually non-violent (though it may involve property
destruction).   

Whats interesting is that domestic terrorism laws are being changed to
include actions that "cause fear" or "economic damage" and other vauge
statements.  In some cases they are reviving criminal syndicalism laws to 
go after other forms of direct action not related to labor struggles.
This more elastic definition of terrorism grossly increases the power of
the state, almost always infavor of protecting corporate interests.
Why is the state so fearful of direct action?  It bypasses the state
completely and it works!  

Direct Action Gets the Goods!

Solid,
	Flint



[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]