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

[chairman tao <geordie@tao.ca>]

[: hacktivism :]



On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, 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),

	_Everybody_ who uses the net uses it as a tool whether or
not they understand how it operates.  You use the example of carpentry or
metalworking.  How about an airline?   Should everyone who uses an airline
as a tool understand how it operates?

>				 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.

How does this relate?

> 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?

	Are you comfortable within the playground of the current level
of freedom allowed (and carefully monitored) by the government?  As long
as things don't get worse for you you oppose those who choose to rock the
boat by what may be crude but tactically effective methods?  Will you be
in utopia when you can use DVD's on your linux box without fear of
prosecution? 

	The backlash is a bastard right now for a lot of people with their
lives on the line daily.  The system of capitalism currently installed
globally depends on the de facto slavery of mostly non-"white" people who 
mostly live in the southern hemisphere to keep a minority of mostly
"white" people who mostly live in the northern hemisphere well supplied
with computers, clothing, coffee, and out of season food. 

	Levels of freedom are like any other variable- subject to change 
without notice.  If you constantly govern _yourself_ to avoid lowering the
level of freedom, you are, IMHO, choosing a life of either blissful
ignorance or chronic anxiety.  If on the other hand you remove the fascist
system administrators currently in control you can set freedom levels to
whatever you want.  This "removal of the sysadmin" is of course an
impossible task for anything other than a dedicated, enourmous,
cohesive and risk-taking group of people.  (I guess you'll still get the
chronic anxiety.)

	The only reason that democratic governments don't use as much
violence against their citizens as totalitarian governments is not
because they are prohibited by some document, but because they have a
greater degree of control over their citizenry than the totalitarians. The
mere suggestion of backlash keeps most of us in line.  Seriously threaten
that control, the ability to pool and control property (be it real or
conceptual), or the fluid transferability of funds, and you'll see the
bottom fall out of the value of documents such as the US constitution,
just like it did in downtown Seattle on November 30, 1999.

	If every (hacktivist NOT activist) was willing to fuck with
e-commerce what would they do-  ban computers entirely?  Kill everyone
involved?  There's statistical safety in numbers, that's what a popular
revolution is all about.

Geordie Birch.

(Check out Edward Luttwak's _Coup D'Etat: A practical handbook_; every
hacker should have a copy.)


> 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/ :]