Re: Hactivism comments by EFF (fwd)

[Chuck0 <chuck@tao.ca>]

[: hacktivism :]

Bronc Buster wrote:
> 
> [: hacktivism :]
> 
> I got this today from the l0pht and HackerNews.Com. They are interested in
> what people think about the EFF looking as if they are turning on
> Hacktivism.
> 
> regards,
>    Bronc Buster
>   bronc@2600.com
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:10:49 -0400
> From: Space Rogue <spacerog@XXXXX>
> To: Bronc Buster <bronc@2600.com>
> Subject: Hactivism comments by EFF
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/08/pakistani.hack/index.html
> 
> "However, the marriage activism and computer hacking has a fundamental
> flaw, according to Alex Fowler, Strategic Initiatives Director for the
> Electronic Frontier Foundation.
> 
> "A lot of groups are claiming that they're hacking into sites for a
> higher moral purpose, but they're hiding beyond anonymity or
> pseudonymity. Taking responsibility is not something we see happening.
> One of the critical things in environmental causes and the civil rights
> movement was that groups who used strong tactics and intentionally broke
> the law eventually came forward and took responsibility for their
> actions. It was owning up that really helped these movements forward.
> 
> "Tweety Fish, a member of the Canadian hacker group Cult of the Dead Cow,
> defends hacktivists as merely being purveyors of information."

It's a shame that Alex thinks this way, because he did alot of fine
hacktivist work for my employer (AAAS) when he was here.

Here's how I would explain, via analogies, why hacking the homepages of
sites is no big crime.

There is a time-honored tradition of vandalizing and graffitizing
portraits of authority. Most of us are familiar with the gag of drawing
a mustache on a portrait of somebody in a public place. This is a form
of speaking back or criticizing the authority figure. However, this has
been a century with mass media which have prevented the average person
from speaking back or insulting those in power. The Internet and
computers have changed that.

The anonymity is important because democracies (supposedly) have this
fine free speech tradition where anybody can post an anonymous political
tract on a wall or pole. Bourgeois democracies have no interest in
promoting or allowing free speech, other than that uttered by the
propertied class, so they have done a good job of illegalizing these low
tech forms of protest and speaking back to authority.

I work in a section of Washington, DC that is designated as "Business
Improvement District." Local capitalists and small business owners pitch
in bucks to employ a large low income force of security guards cum
janitors. These folks are really effective at pulling down flyers and
wheatpasted posters.

They get you at every fucking opportunity.

So why should they be surprised if we step it up a level and start
microradio stations and hack Whitehouse.gov?

Fuckers. This is a war that we're fighting.

-- 
Chuck0 "listening to the beautiful sounds of cops escorting a
presidential motrocade as I type this"

Alternative Press Review
http://flag.blackened.net/apr/

Free Leonard Peltier!

"A society is a healthy society only to the degree 
that it exhibits anarchistic traits." 
        - Jens Bjørneboe

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