Defining boundaries?

[Jack Przemieniecki <unit@home.com>]

[: hacktivism :]

Hello!
I am a little new to the whole 'hactivism' scenario. I have followed the
messages for a little while now and have seen some interesting debates
and conversations on the whole hactivism issue. 
However, there is one thing that is bothering me a little : Where is the
line drawn?
Ever hear the saying, "One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter"?
So, this is where it gets sticky. Mainly because so many people with so
many different views are involved it is almost impossible to judge how
far the term 'hactivism' can extend. Since there is no actual governing
body (that i see anyway), individuals are supposed to take it upon
themselves to start initiatives. Because of the scale of the internet,
anyone around the world can have a say in what initiative to take. Since
each individual has their own heritage, their own ideals, and their own
views on these matters they are bound to have their own take on what a
'hactivist' group should do. So here is a problem, which initiative to
take? 
There are so many causes to fight for, which one is chosen above
another? 
Look at UNs invasion of Serbia, for example. UN went in on a sort of
global police mission to save countless lives. However, they are now in
a position where they are expected to take on any problem anywhere
around the world. If they do not they will be labeled as cowards or as
"inefficient". So, which conflict do they chose? Which one deserves the
most attention? 
Sadly, it seems to me that the answers to those questions become overly
political. 
In our scenario, how do we decide where to launch the next "virtual
sit-in", or which person to e-mail, or which organization to condemn?

Any thoughts?


-Unit 1

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