Re: NETSTRIKE 214.T contro la pena di morte - against death penalty

[jjf <xdaydreamx@gmx.net>]

[: hacktivism :]

I disagree Stuart.

As long as the bot is used within the confines of a specific netstrike then I think it is legitimate to use it. The point of netstrike 214.T was to highlight, for _one_hour_, the injustice of the use of the death penalty in Texas. In doing so, two sites were brought to a virtual standstill for an hour each. The effect this will have had is: a) given the netstrikers a sense of empowerment, b) register on the log files of the two sites in question, c) inconvenience the users who were trying to access those sites and d) hopefully feature in the press, raising the profile of the action beyond the netstrikers to the general public.

 Of course there is a fine line between causing an inconvenience and "killing" a site. This line is difficult to determine and depends on the kind of functions the site performs and the technology it employs, but in this specific case I dare say that the balance was more on the inconvenience side. As long as netstrikers realise that their message is most powerful if it is not used to an inflationary degree and that, as you say, the doors swing both ways, then a netstrike such as 214.T is a valid way of making a point.

What after all are all these fantastic silicon resources for if we can't use them to re-define the idea of a strike, one ofthe oldest forms of protest?

jjf
(two "j's", one "f" ;-) )
> Just to let you folks know, if you don't already, that this door
> swings both ways.




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