re: Autodesk cowed by threat of attack by RTMark (and workgroup@rtmark.com)

[Angela Gunn <agunn@dorsai.org>]

[: hacktivism :]

Well-spoken, Bronc. Thank you.
  

In response to some of the negative response I've seen to Bronc's
statements, particularly from people who don't seem embarassed to admit
that they use the Net as a tool without really understanding how the tool
operates (I sincerely hope for all of your sakes that you don't do
carpentry or metalworking), I strongly recommend spending some time with
Lawrence Lessig's new book (Code And Other Laws Of Cyberspace). 
 

To summarize, the book makes a point that seems to have eluded a number of
folk here: that unlike the offline world, the very *structure* of
cyberspace can be controlled and regulated, since the code that forms it
can be controlled and regulated. In the offline world, for instance, laws
may regulate where you may and may not protest, and breaking those laws
might lead to complications for you. However, that doesn't mean you CAN'T
attempt to protest in any physical space you like: If your body can occupy
it, you can do it. 
  

Cyberspace doesn't operate like that. The actions you may undertake online
are dictated by cyberspace's very structure. For instance, there's
currently no way of sending a smell or a taste over the Net. If you wanted
for some reason to set off a stinkbomb online today, you just couldn't do
it. Maybe someday. Not now.
 

Historically, the weed-like development of the Net has lent itself to
relatively free data flow, which can manifest as good (mailing lists such
as these) or bad (identity theft). But there are breathtakingly few
structures in place to ensure that this remains the case. Think the law
protects us? No. Culture? Check the public-opinion polls. The open-source
movement? One hopes, but a government looking to decrease freedom on the
Net only needs to lean on the ISPs (notoriously a weak link, since they
have been repeatedly sued by folks looking for recompense for wrongs not
recognized in the criminal-justice system).
 

In short, the rtmark/etoy actions may have had short-term gain, but when
the backlash comes it promises to be a bastard. Do you non-hack activists
have a plan when that day comes, or are you suddenly going to realize you
should've smartened up about techniques more sophisticated than what
became, in effect, little more than spam and PR?
  

Tch --
AG.
   

At 01:39 PM 11-02-00 -0500, you wrote:
>[: hacktivism :]
>
>
>It sounds like you and Brad are more the vet 'activist', then a
>'hacktivist'. I am not an activist, and I have no intention is ever being
>one, but I do concider myself a hacktivist.
>
>It appears people think because something works on the street, that it
>must also apply online. This is a basic fallicy.
>
>Activism != Hacktivism
>
>People who think that doing these kind of eye-for-an-eye type of actions
>are right and justified need to get a clue. If we want to keep the
>internet FREE, then we MUST act in a responsible manner. Threatening a
>company, like what was done with eToys, is a prime example of more being
>a vigalante then anything else. What does this kind of behavior lead to?
>Government stepping in to police things. All it will take is ONE instant
>for one of these 'threats' to go too far, and here come the feds with new
>laws, clipper chips, bugs, echelons, etc.
>
>What are you going to do then? Try and take down the US Govt?
>
>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.
>
>Hacktivism should be thought of in a similer way. You should want to bring
>the public attention to an issue, not get rid of the issue and sweep it
>under the rug (like what is being attempted with Autodesk). Look at
>Echleon Day. That was a prime example of what you should be doing;
>bringing attention to it. Look at what it accomplished; it's been
>acknolodged as existing, and more is known about it every day. 
>
>I am sorry if you don't agree with my views, but then again, I am a
>technology vet and a net junkie, and not to mention some what of an
>infamous 'hacker' in my own right; I am not an activist.
>
>Maybe taking a step back and thinking about the possible ripples these
>actions could bring about might make you change your minds.
>
>regards,
>   Bronc Buster
>  bronc@2600.com
>
>PS. please take my nick! :)
>
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, King Wilson wrote:
>
>> [: hacktivism :]
>> 
>> >[: hacktivism :]
>> >
>> >
>> >So now RTMark turns to using the same tactics eToys and this AutoDesk
>> >company use; bullying. We will bully a small company into doing what WE
>> >want or else do what we did to eToys (which was really NOTHING - proven by
>> >the stocks preformance and other companies in the same business stocks).
>> 
>> 
>>   Bronc, please don't take this the wrong way, but you are SO full of shit.
>> 
>> What would have been an acceptable response to Autodesk's (or eToys) 
>> demands?  Sit back and take it?
>> 
>>    I think I'm gonna start a career as a professional writer, and I'm 
>> gonna go by the name of Bronc Buster.  How would you feel about that? 
>> What if I just came up to you on the street, and told you to find a 
>> new name? and what if I brought a cop along with me, to smack you in 
>> the head every time you wrote an e-mail, as a reminder?  Would you 
>> just accept it?
>>     Would you feel bad as an "activist" if you took the offense, as a
defense?
>> 
>> RTMark did not go up to AutoDesk, unprovoked, and threaten them. 
>> They merely warned AutoDesk what the consequences would be, if 
>> AutoDesk decided to throw a punch.  Why this upsets you, I have no 
>> idea.
>> 
>>    If the eToys debacle proved nothing, then why did AutoDesk 
>> seemingly back down in the face of RTMark?
>> 
>>   You seem to want to keep the unwashed masses away from the bathtub 
>> when you should be giving them guns and a map.  This all reminds me, 
>> for some reason, about something A. Whitney Brown wrote in a book a 
>> few years back.  He was writing about the Southern Baptists, I 
>> believe.  "They decide to live their lives in pious misery, with the 
>> hopes of getting into heaven when they die.  This is like keeping 
>> your eyes shut through a movie, with the hopes of getting your money 
>> back when it's over"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 								read icculus
>> 
>> 
>> [: hacktivism :]
>> [: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
>> [: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]
>> 
>
>
>[: hacktivism :]
>[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
>[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]
>
>


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