Re: Digital Affinity Group --> Questions

[worker-hacktivism@tao.ca]

[: hacktivism :]

Cellz:

transparent cellz:

Electronic signatures of each member
represents ostensibly each element of the cell.

EDT would fall under this trajectory.

(Of course I have never met Brett Stalbaum
in the flesh--but I met people who have met
him--so he is real by referral. Of course I have
never checked his social security number or
ID in order to make sure he is not some cop
pretending to be Brett.)

transparent trust functions in a similar manner as
off_line cellz--as identity, a tele_identity. so cell
trust emerges as a gamble that a = a.

direct action type: symbolic, or simulation
with real bodies attached.

********

Stealth Cellz

each electronic signature represents the
traces of a shared trajectory only.

hacker cellz seem to fall into
this one--i hear tell.

stealth trust is built by technological drives
as affinity formation--not by identity.

stealth trust can also develop via the use of
encryption. in which the signature would
be a direct proof of an electronic_identity
only.

direct action type: infrastructure take down.
with only electronic_identities attached--
that is if it all goes well with action and
that all traces of the real body are gone.

***********

Accidental Cellz

a random convergence of electronic
signatures that move spontaneously.

communication spaces that allow for
trajectories to emerge.
(this list and JED)

no trust needed for action.
only a shared question.

direct action type: spreading
a question.

**********

more cellz possible: inside cellz, bottom cellz, fake cellz, impossible
cellz........


but the main question that you ask is-- the linking of  a *non-Internet
component?* or the body_as_identity and question of  *symbolic action without
risk*
--that is if we were on the street together, you and i, would we turn the cop
car over
and burn it--because we trust each other--or we would just doing it because we
share the same trajectory.

Having participated in direct actions--i would say both, not always at the same
time.


more cellz possible: inside cellz, bottom cellz, fake cellz, impossible
cellz........


but the main question that you ask is-- the linking of  a *non-Internet
component?* or the body_as_identity and question of  *symbolic action without
risk*
--that is if we were on the street together, you and i, would we turn the cop
car over
and burn it--because we trust each other--or we would just doing it because we
share the same trajectory.

Having participated in direct actions--i would say both, not always at the same
time.

But in the end even Body_Cellz that emerge can never be sure that
everyone at the meeting is who they say the are. Thats one of the
stories that is always disscussed in radical theater training--the
story of George Demmerle, who worked for the FBI, and for
some four or fives years, perhaps more, cooperating with the
activist left, even planting bombs--United Fruit Company,
General Motors Building, Chase Manhattan Building, 69th
Street Armory, in '69. Then he turned everyone in...his
friends did not really know who he was...but he played
his part so well...What does this teach us performers of
the Theater....a body does not count as proof of identity...
only the identity_as_performance count.

anyway...in the end you must always become part
of something or do something about what concerns
you via an irrational leap....ala old man kierkegaard.

ciao,
r

Stefan Wray wrote:

> [: hacktivism :]
>
> -------------------------------
> D.A.G.
>
>      (Digital Affinity Group)
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Question (1): If in Seattle, activists are organizing themselves into
> affinity groups, small cells of people who know and trust one another, then
> in cyberspace, following this model, how can we organize ourselves into
> digital affinity groups, small cyber cells of people who know and trust one
> another?
>
> -------------------------------
> C.C.
>
>      (Cyber Cell)
>
> -------------------------------
> Question (2): But if trust that developes from sustained interaction among
> a small group is one of the bases for forming a solid cell or affinity
> group, how can such trust develop in cyberspace when the most we may know
> about someone in this environment is an email address?
>
> Question (3): Does this mean that a cyber cell must have a non-Internet
> component? Rather, does this mean that people in a cyber cell, however
> dispersed geographically, need to have met and known one another?
>
> -------------------------------
> T.
>
>      (Trust)
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Question (4): If there is no trust, how can hacktivists engage in direct
> action? Can we then only engage in symbolic action without risk that puts
> no one in danger?
>
> [: hacktivism :]
> [: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
> [: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]


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