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

[Hal <pearrow@nvbell.net>]

[: hacktivism :]

Angela,

While I appreciate your comments and can consider them, I think you and
all must understand that, if our actions on the net are self-limited to
avoid a police-state reaction, then the net is already controlled by the
government. I could compare that to a black in the 50s in the rural
South staying off the streets at night in order not to provoke the
police. Such an act in no way protected his freedoms.  He gave up those
freedoms voluntarily in fear of unwarranted retaliation.

Freedoms are much like muscles -- they must be exercised to thrive.  It
is when they are stilled in fear that they wither the most.

I understand that true unilateral terrorism on the net is not
appropriate.  Malicious hacking designed only to destroy or disrupt
should be fought within our own community and I think it is that which
openly gives excuse for crushing federal control.

The distinction between a physical and electronic protest, calling the
first right and the second wrong, is a false one in my own opinion. 
One-hundred years ago the easily available private press was not in the
commoner's hand and neither was convenient travel.  Those things were
not then conveniences of protest.  Today, we print flyers and even
magazines at our own computers and many of the people in the Seattle
demonstration used modern travel to arrive.  Without them, the
demonstration might not have been a success. 

The truly individual press is a recent tool of activism; travel is also
recent tool of activism.  Moving into the 21st Century, we have
developed yet another powerful tool of activism -- the net.  It would be
wrong to not use it.  It would be disastrous not to use it out of fear.

I understand your fears about regulation.  But that is going to come in
spite of how meek we are.  Control of the net is such a great power that
government and business will not be stopped from trying to clasp it in
their fists.  The best hope that we have to prevent that is the net
itself.  The eToy action reopened one closing fist.  The fear of a
similar action in the Autodesk matter prevented another grasp for power.
Neither of these things would have been stopped without using the net. 
To refuse to act in such cases is to surrender.

Have courage.  The battle you fear has already been engaged.  Yes, the
illegal hackers give them reason, but government and business attempts
to control the net are preordained and, indeed, are already present in
spite of what we do or do not do.  Our best tool to protect our freedom
of the net is the net itself. 

Hal




Angela Gunn wrote:
> 
> [: 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/ :]


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