Fwd: a statement from the electrohippies collective

[noreply <withnoreply@netscape.net>]

[: hacktivism :]

a statement from the electrohippies collective

19.00UTC, Thursday 6th April 2000

website - http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

please refer any enquiries to the electrohippies 
collective's contact point at ehippies@tesco.net



I-DEFENSE AND THE INTERNET 'THOUGHT POLICE':
MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS TO CREATE MEDIA PANIC


As the electrohippies current action comes to a close, it is clear that the
idea of translating public protest and lobbying to the Internet has
support. The new tools developed by the electrohippies - in particular the
tools for email lobbying and developing 'distributed bandwidth' (a device
to enable small groups to take large actions) - have performed well. But
this action has also demonstrated the lengths to which the supporters of
e-commerce will go to exert control over the publics' use of the Internet.

Leading the way in the backlash against the use of the Internet by
campaigners is the group that call themselves 'iDefense' [1]. During our
action last December iDefense branded us 'terrorists' - without it would
seem any evidence as to our group or our actions. For that reason we have
sent them all our action alerts since then.

The iDefense alert sent out in relation to our action [2] clearly twisted
the information we had sent to them - and all the other FIRST teams [3] -
in order to create a media panic about the spread of activism on the
Internet.

   The iDefense release stated:

"Although the target list is not clear at this point, companies which have
shown up on other cyber activists target lists and/or are frequent targets
of genetically modified protesters include Monsanto, Sara Lee, Nestle,
Pepsi Co., McDonald's, Haagen-Dazs, Novartis Seeds, and Procter & Gamble."

This is a curious list since none of these organisations formed any part of
the information we sent out, or, with the exception of Monsanto and
Novartis Seeds, formed any part of our proposed action. Even when
journalists asked us for the list, we did not divulge any names until we
had first notified them ourselves. The other names on the list were, it
appears, fabricated by iDefense for their own purposes.

In fact the only accurate statement that was not in our original
information pack was:

"This new tool can run independently on any cyber activists' machine.
Consequently, cyber activists will be able to continue their attacks even
if all the Web sites supporting the action are taken down… Due to the
manner in which the cyber activist tools are being distributed for this
campaign and the way the tools have been written themselves, it will not be
possible for companies to stop the attack simply by contacting an ISP and
pressuring it into taking one or two Web sites being utilized to host
attacks offline."

It is clear that the aim of iDefense, and similar organisations such as
Infonic [4], is directed towards restricting the abilities of the public
and campaign groups as a vehicle for dissent and protest. Even their use of
language - for example 'cyber-threats' or 'weapons'. Or the comment made by
iDefense's Ben Venzeke, made to The Industry Standard bulletin [5], that:

"In cyberspace you don't have to have another 100 people who believe as you do
to move forward with an action to cripple a company".

   This of course is in direct contradiction to the position of the
   electrohippies collective, as stated in our discussion paper on
client-side
   denial of service [7]. Our mode of action specifically means that you
   simultaneously need tens of thousands of people thinking the same to
   achieve any notable success (as we put it, 'the electrohippies democracy
   guarantee').

   There were other instances of iDefense issuing inflated and erroneous
   claims about the electrohippies collective too [6].

   But the true position of groups like iDefense is portrayed in some of the
   op-eds they distribute to the media, as well as the erroneous alerts
   circulated about e-activism. For example iDefense's CEO, John Adams, piece
   entitle, 'Shifting the Balance of Power: Private Sector Control of the
   Critical Infrastructure' [8]. What these groups are all about is
   restricting the right of the public to take action against corporations
   over the Internet. They understand the power of public pressure in real
   life, and funded by large corporations, they are seeking to ensure the
same
   modes of action are not translated to cyberspace.

   During the week the electrohippies collective has been subjected to
   pressure from the 'thought police' of the Internet security establishment.
   Our service provider has been approached with a request to terminate our
   action. But luckily for us our service provider is dedicated towards
   protecting community action. Likewise the provider of a email and feed
back
   'drop-off' address is under pressure to terminate our account. That
address
   is not actually used to organised the protest - it act's as a conduit
where
   we can receive feedback - for and against - in response to our actions,
   statements and discussion papers.

   The issue of freedom of speech on the 'Net is very important. The growth
of
'free serves' is enabling greater access to the 'Net. But we have anecdotal
evidence that many of the companies offering free, and even paid Internet
   access and email are susceptible to pressure from corporations to
terminate
   the account of 'troublesome' users - in particular those working for
social
   change. We must confront this issue head on, and challenge any
organisation
   that seeks to restrict any lawful activity that is being organised over
the
   Internet. The postal service does not have the power to withdraw its
   service from customers. Likewise Internet service Providers must be bound
   by the same principle. Not to do so would enable governments or
   corporations to have an iron grip over public communication in the future,
   as the globe becomes more connected. In essence, George Orwell's '1984'
   transposed to cyberspace.

   iDefense also neglected to state one important fact about our proposed
   'distributed denial of service' (DDoS) action. During the week we have
been
   taking a vote [9] amongst those taking part in the other activities as to
   whether or not we should proceed with it. The results were:

   For the action: 42%
   Don't know: 29%
   Against the action 29%

   Our belief in ensuring clear support means that although 'yes' formed the
   largest vote, it was not proportionately the greatest (i.e., more than 50%
   of all votes cast). In our view the "don't know's" have a right to be
heard
   too. We will therefore not be proceeding with the DDoS action.


   In conclusion then, three points:

   Firstly, in our view the week was a success because our tools performed as
   expected across the variety of platforms and browsers available. The
   feedback provided by the public has been very valuable in both confirming
   the abilities of the tools, and providing ideas and tips on how the
general
   operation of the action can be improved.

   Secondly, it is clear that there is a growing backlash, similar to the
   backlash against community and environmental groups run by public
relations
   companies in the USA [10], to the development of online activism.
   Corporations realise the power of the Net, and the ability it gives to
   communities and campaign groups to work together and apply pressure to
   governments and corporations. For this reason both governments and
   corporations are willing to fund groups such as iDefense to do their work
   for them, monitoring, compiling reports, and actively seeking to whip up
   media panics about online activism. We must also assume that they have
   close links to security services too.

   Finally, related to the above point, the electrohippies collective has
   monitored the activities of groups such as iDefense since it was first
   formed. Basically, providing 'intelligence on the intelligence
   corporations'. We will now be networking with other campaign groups in
   order to provide guidance, on the Net, to highlight the role of these
   groups and their activities in misrepresenting the role of community
   activism on the Net.

   We are also calling for any community campaign groups, promoting lawful
   actions and activities, and who have been denied access to services by
   Internet Service Providers, to send their details to us for inclusion in
   our forthcoming information page on the Internet 'thought police'. Details
   should be forwarded to our usual email address - unless our ISP terminates
   it. But our current point of contact can always be found on our website at
   http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/


   The next step for the collective now is to refine our tools with the
   information gathered during the week. We will shortly issue discussion
   papers on the use of both email lobbying and our concepts for 'distributed
   bandwidth'.


   ENDS





   NOTES FOR EDITORS

   [1] iDefense has a website at http://www.idefense.com. They described
   themselves as a company working on 'intelligence, risk management and
   certification'.

   [2] Issued by Jerry Irvine (JIrvine@iDefense.com), Friday, March 31, 2000
   11:02 AM. 'Subject: iALERT: Major Cyber Action Kicks Off April 1'.

   [3] FIRST - the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams. These
groups
   monitor events on the Internet looking for security related material. The
   electrohippies include the FIRST teams on our email notification list - as
   well as iDefense - because we believe in being entirely open about what we
   do. To contact a FIRST representative send a PGP signed e-mail request to
   first-sec@first.org

   [4] Infonic is an 'internet intelligence agency' based in London. They
have
   been monitoring the electrohippies website, and it's host 'The
   Environmental Activism Website', during the first quarter of this year.
   They have also appeared on television news programmes during November and
   December 1999 criticising the development on online activism. Actually,
   their website is incredibly minimalist, reflecting their secretive nature
-
   worth a look.

   [5] 'Business Under Attack', Elinor Abreu, The Industry Standard, 3rd
April
   2000. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1151,13483,00.html

   [6] 'Electrohippies set to launch massive trade protest', Scripps Howard
   News Service, 5th April 2000.
   http://shns.scripps.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=E-SITIN-04-05-00&cat=AN

   [7] 'Client-side Distributed Denial of Service', electrohippies collective
   occasional paper no.1, March 2000.
   http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/files/op1.htm

   [8] To see John Adams, iDefense's CEO, op-ed articles go to
   http://www.idefense.com/pages/opeds.html for the item on 'Private Sector
   Control of the Critical Infrastructure (February 25, 1999) go to
   http://www.idefense.com/idmarketsite/jadocs/22599AFCEA.pdf

   [9] Everyone going through the action portal was required to express an
   opinion as to whether the DDoS action should proceed - it was not
voluntary.

   [10] For more information on the 'environmental backlash' go to
   http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/dc/backlash/index.htm



   issued by the electrohippies collective, 19.00 UTC, 6/4/2000

   =====================================

   the electrohippies collective

   spreading the philosophy and practice
   of online activism in the UK and Europe

   website - http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

   "the banana is big, but the skin is bigger"

   =====================================



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