Re: Target?

[xdaydreamx@gmx.net]

[: hacktivism :]

Well, about kicking yourself in the arse I don't know but I definitely
think there are a few contradictions in what you say if you claim that the
zapatista sit-in is ineffective while the aim of activism is to educate as well
as spread the word, sometimes even by slightly "illegal" means. After all,
hasn't this whole list kicked off precisely because of the sit-in?
Taking a slightly more clear cut example, what would you say about the
"godhatesfags -> godlovesfags" hack? Clearly, using the power that fell into
the latter's webmaster's hand to mislead hundreds of people and negatively
affect the cause of the former's webmaster could be seen as an illegal act. BUT
IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST HACKS EVER! It managed to grab thousands of people's
attention for 72 hours. This was power well used. The site was eventually
given back but the "damage" had been done. People logged on to the site
_because_ it was hacked. Granted, I doubt the scam was about "reforming" regular
visitors to "godhatesfags", but it _did_ make thousands of people take
notice of a truly activist occurance that they could tune in to with nothing more
than the click of a mouse, an exciting event on their computer screen. The
zapatista sit-in may not be doing this in a way that every user can check up
on. It is trying to get people involved though by making them take part in
the sit-in rather than just look at the hack. Whoever disagrees, disagrees
and doesn't take part. Whoever does, makes a mark. Whether the Mexican
government takes any notice of it or not is beside the point. People are
reaffirming their support for the Zapatista movement for themselves. And it's also a
nice little stunt.

jjf

> I am happy to see such lively people on this list, and glad to see >such
meaningful threads being talked about. Ok, now on with my post.
> 
> 
> People have been talking about diffrent ways hacktivism is related >to
activism and online disobidence<sp>. I liked the post earlier >about the fact
that the flood net was going to fill the logs of >their targets server with
the names of people, but the fact that no >one would ever see those names
because the simple fact no one sees >those logs but the server admins. They
most likely won't even look, >just delete them and keep on going. 
> 
> Federal laws say (condenced) that a Denial of Service attack, using
> US phone lines are illegal. It doesn't mention DoS'ing a target >outside
> the US, or anywhere for that matter, just that the act of doing it
>inside
> the US is illegal. I think it is dangerous posting to a public list
> telling the world when, how, why and who, regarding a crime.
> 
> That said, whats has the target has activism always been? To fight >for
some cause, or change something? Well sort of. The main reason >people
gather in places, or put up signs, or march or anything else >is so other people
would take notice. If enough people take notice, >maybe then the wheels of
change will start turning. This is why I >had a problem with that flood net.
No one will 'see' it, or take >notice. If the average person decided to
visit that site during the >flood net, they would most likely not get there, or
it would be very >slow. What message would this convay to
> them that the flood net hoped to deliver? Maybe a few people who >knew
what was going on would know, but that's about it. 
> 
> I think hacktivism should be about delivering a message, just like >good
old grass roots activism. It shouldn't be about doing damage to >someone
else network, or taking away their right to express their >views. We just want
to make a fuss so people will pay attention to >what the message is we wish
to deliver. Sometimes laws must be bent, >or sometimes broken to deliver
it, but I feel as long as the >message  gets out, and no major harm, or damage
is done to your >target (besides brused egos maybe or a pie in the face),
then the >goal was reached. Hacktivism should be like a revamped version of
>activism, adjusted for online and this new digital era.
> 
> Think of the internet as reverse TV, where you do not send your message
> out to millions of TVs, but having one TV where everyone comes to see
one
> show. Think of how you can change the message on that one TV, or how you
> can distract people attention away from that one TV. Simply 'turning
off'
> that TV (with DoS attacks) won't have any effect, because there are a
> million other TVs they can go look at, and they will.
> 
> Ok, my rambleing is over. It was alate night and I am sure when I get
this
> post and read it, I am going to kick myself in the butt, but here it is.
> 
> regards,
>    Bronc Buster
>   bronc@2600.com

-- 
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net

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