Re: Some inflammatory coverage of J18 and N30 hactivism

[carmin <carmin@pixelyze.com>]

[: hacktivism :]



"Me Uh, K." wrote:

> [: hacktivism :]
>
> The article starts out with a vague mention of WTO
> this month, which made me wonder - are we considering
> anything special for the event?  I assume that most
> activists groups out there have something planned for
> the event, but in light of our recent media exposure,
> (JED) I imagine that most anything we would do would
> draw a certain amount of additional attention from the
> same sources.
> ('The hactivism@tao mailing list, responsible for the
> recent anti-spook surveillance Jam Echelon Day event,
> has released a general press release, announcing that
> they will be holding a 'cyber-sit in' on the WTO web
> site during the entire course of the meeting...')
>
> Which, of course, raises the question about whether we
> WANT the media attention/consider it a good thing,
> ect.

IMHO media attention is a good thang.  It's infowar.  There is no way to
control what is written, or even quoted for that matter,  and every
article *will* have errors!  (some will be MOSTLY errors! LOL!)  But the
mediahype brings the issue to the table -- and might get some new ppl to
think about the issue or get others to think about it differently.
Awareness/newthink can spawn change.

> Granted, in the case of JED, the entire point was
> media exposure, to use the straight press to inform
> the masses about Echelon.  In the case of a direct
> action WTO campaign, well, most anyone who would care
> already knows about WTO, and there's that whole
> gray-area legality involved with intentionally
> disrupting the functionality of someone's web site.
> (wait, no, that's illeagle - no different than a
> denial of service attack, which you can go to jail
> for) - so there's that to consider.  (if we do
> something, do we want to announce that we're going to
> be breaking the law/malicioulsy abusing WTO's web
> site?)
>

If you are intentionally committing a criminal act -- maybe it would be
best not to broadcast that.  However if your intent is a civil
disobedience action -- that may well exist in a gray zone.  It *is*
possible to have a virtual sit-in w/o breaking any laws.  After all a
DOS attack has to deny service or it is technically *not* a DOS attack.
And clearly, a cyber-sit is unlikely to actually deny service to a
robust website.  So target selection is a determining factor in crossing
the line of cyber-crime vs electronic civil disobedience.

carmin

>
> just curious-
> -mia k. (who lives in Seattle, and may well end up
> getting teargassed with the rest of the WTO
> protesters)
>
> --- Chuck0 <chuck@tao.ca> wrote:
> > [: hacktivism :]
> >
> >
> > Fears as anarchists organise on the Net
> >
> http://www.itn.co.uk:80/World/world19991101/110108w.htm
> >
> > --
> > Chuck0
> >
> > 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
> >
> > ABORT THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!
> >

--
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
                   Feel without touching
             Better living through cyberspace
    http://www.pixelyze.com/users/carmin



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