Slashdot Mirror
Is Hacktivism Robin Hood Politics?
deran9ed writes "After reading an article at Guardian Unlimited, I wondered what was Slashdot's viewers' thoughts on "Hacktivism", the act of hacking for a so called cause, according to a Guardian Unlimited article: Once hacking was regarded as the pastime of attention-grabbing nerds. But a meeting at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London will be told how credible an activity it has become in the era of direct action. Old-fashioned hacking, the meeting will hear, has given way to hacktivism: a highly politicised underground movement using direct action in cyberspace to attack globalisation and corporate domination of the internet. Either way you cut the cake its still illegal, but is it along the realms of say the Vietnam Era protests, or are hacktivist using this term to promote themselves." The vast majority of so called "Hactivism" just isn't. I think that in
most cases the intentions are good, but the folks capable of, say, defacing a website, usually aren't the same folks able to intelligently communicate a message. Instead of looking like political activists staging a sit-in, they look like angry teens spraying graffiti obscenities on a wall which does far more damage then good.
In the UK 'hacktivism' is the current media vogue. There was an hour long TV programme about it recently.
The most 'hacky' person they could find was someone that wrote a VB script that accessed a web site every 7 seconds... This 'notorious hacker' (:/) explained "we had thousands of people doing this to a website and we certainly made our point!". Well 7000 hits/second isn't a particularly huge load to a big commercial website (I'd bet microsoft.com gets a hell of a lot more than that in normal traffic). Also writing VB script to load a web page isn't 'hacking' it's called 'typing in the example program'.
I'd love to know why all the self-confessed 'geeks' on the programme seemed to have green hair????
As usual the media trying to create something that doesn't really exist, and missing the point entirely.
Ever since the 'Battle' of Seattle, activism has grown in popularity to fill the gap left by the Grateful Dead ever since the death of Jerry Garcia.
Plane-loads of adolescents and stunted adults dazed with their own self-importance now tour the world chasing WTO type events wherever they can find them, spurned on by the Internet Activist pop-culture hero of the week or month.
You probably won't find them in Indonesia, though, protesting indiscriminate inter-tribal slaughter or anything like that. They like the more media-friendly events where they hope to become counter-cultural icons themselves, and get pissed when their childish antics fail to make the front page (Joan What's-her-tits).
Oh well!
**>>BELCH
>Boycotts don't work anymore
Worth avoiding certain companies when you can though.
Or products from countries with human rights problems (turkey, china, texas *g*)
> Almonds are not nuts. The correct term for an
> almond is "almond."
Since we're being sarcastically correct, actually, peanuts are not nuts, either. The correct term for "peanut" is "peanut". A peanut does fit the description of a relatively small husk around the seed, but it is technically a legume. So, surprisingly, Charlie Brown and the character played by Rowan Atkinson are of the same kind. Almonds are not, though, being the kernel of a peach-like fruit. However, because they may be used as a nut, they are nutty. QED
However, it is perfectly correct to refer to a nut as a nut, even if the exact kind is known. One need not be specific in written or verbal exposition.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
One of the most famous examples of civil disobedience was very destructive. The Boston Sons of Liberty dressed up as Indians, boarded several ships of the British East India Company and dumped what would be millions of today's dollars of tea into the harbor. The Brits were so enraged they ordered a naval blockade of the harbor until the entire city of Boston paid reparations. (Nyah nyah England, we all know who won that one :)
Sometimes destruction is necessary when the injustice is serious enough. Though I would draw the line at committing crimes against property versus crimes against the person. It's one thing to destroy property, it's another to physically harm another human being.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Right, nothing totalitarian about getting spit on, punched, blasted with a firehose.
You can have that kind of stuff done to you in Seattle. That's not totalitarian. A totalitarian regime would likely have you and possibly your family executed for voicing an opinion that contradicts that of the government. Stage a peaceful sit-in, and you will disappear. You are obviously not talking about the same thing as the original post. Maybe you wouldn't mind being a martyr (which usually doesn't happen anyway since you will likely just disappear), but many people would rather live to see the changes they fight for.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I would suggest you read my comment on the first post, but if you were to break into a system and rm -rf the fucker that would cost lots of money. And since a corperations #1 priority is money they will listen when their pocket book hurts. And I would say defacing a website is to a banner hang as rm'ing is to a brick through the window. One is for a message and one is for direct economic impact. And saying "gr33Tz" to someone is not hactivism, thats hax0ring btw.
It is not and has not been the policy of the US government to shoot at kids protesting as happened at Kent State, yes they did do it but it was not ordered by the president or other high up folks. While the Chinese Politburo did order the army to run down the kids at Tianamen square. That is a huge moral difference.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Isn't the goal justice? Justice does not well mind straight absolute lines.
Imagine?
Imagine?
No need to Imagine
---
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
I sort of agree with a little bit of a different slant. The only excuse for an extreme act (by extreme, I mean breaking the law) is success. If you change the system for the better, then it was justified. If you expose internal documents that show the truth that a corp or gov was hiding, and the masses are informed, then it was justified. If a 'hack' only annoys / angers the public and the system, then the opposite effect is generated. The ends justify the means, but only if the right ends are met.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
'Hacktivists' just want to break into computers and activism is a great way to make them feel karmically okay about it...
(I'm not saying that all activists are like this, and I'm not saying the causes are unimportant. I'm just saying that a lot of these people are just sheep following the latest fad. 80 it was the environment, 90s it was goverment, now it's corporations. They seem not to care what the issue is as long as they get to break stuff.. be it computer networks or store windows...)
"When was the last time political assassination was called shootivism?"
Some assassinations are called "democratic revolutions". Some assassinations are called "sentences". Everything is not black and white.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Oh, and you "wondered what was Slashdot's viewers' thoughts on 'Hacktivism'"? We like it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
"There's a big difference between staging a sit-in and defacing someone's property."
And there is also a difference between defacing "property" and defacing a website. If no data is lost, what exactly is the damage done? The damage is some denial of service, and clean up aftwards. Not unlike sit-ins.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
RANT ON
Hacking is hacking, criminals are criminals. The normal "press" may not understand that, but surely a majority of people on this site do.
When was the last time political assassination was called shootivism?
Rant Off
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that the freedom fighter fights against military and political targets while a terrorist attacks innocents. When someone blows up people standing in a crosswalk it's terrorism. Not that I'm excusing the fundamentally racist government that is in place in Isael, not am I condoning the generally poor way in which the Arabs are treated by the Jews in that region. There are two sides to every story, but they can both be in the wrong.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
> A cracker is somebody who cracks warez, and/or a
> pejorative term for a white person. Any other
> meaning is never going to catch on in the media
What about graham crackers?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Hitler would have been evil regardless of whether he won or lost WWII. That you could think otherwise is amazing!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
No, there is no copy protection to crack. Instead, they are hacking into a computer remotely.
I like the idea of being able to stick it to the evil I see in the world. but the flip side is that it is already being done against us as well. As Metalica stated we will find a way to fuck with it, People who want to force copy protection already piss all over the free speech, free press, any and all laws they don't like, Ask any one who ever been SLAPed for being an activist. The Argument needs to move from using ones hacking skills to stop or start something to what is the being stopped or started.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement:
> Funny, I prefer to use an accurate term, whether
> I like them or not. The names people make up for
> themselves are usually misleading.
following this one:
>Just because one subculture adopts a word doesn't
> mean that they gain a monopoly on it.
??
If I say I'm a hacktivist genderqueer boidyke with an oxford cloth fetish, how the heck are you supposed to argue that that doesn't accurately describe what I am, if no one has a monopoly on the meanings of those words?
> Want to boycott RJR Nabisco? No more Kraft Mac and Cheeze for you! Disney? May as well turn off the TV. Sony? Forgetabout it.
Omygod. You are okay to boycott *only* if it is easy ? You think that a boycott is just consumer choice ? You agree to refuse to boycott de-facto monopolies, because it may hurt your comfort ?
Of course, you are in line with slashdot. CmdrTaco that still runs windows ("For the games"), and got all wet at the idea of Diablo II.
All this is fake. The real problem is that you don't have any cause you feel strong enought to fight for. Hey, I don't have either. I sorta boycott things I don't like (Television, Disney, FastFoods, Microsoft, Intel, Sony). And, frankly, it doesn't cost me much. Half-baked boycott.
> I imagine many people are boycotting DVDs or CDs due to the MPAA/RIAA
No, they are not. Most of them are boycotting DVDs or CDs cause they can get the for free (as-in-beer) on the net.
> These groups can easily claim that lack of sales was not due to boycotts [...]
Claims made by those groups have *never* needed to bear any relation with reality. They have an advantage to say that sales declines so they can push new laws throught the American Congress (which I don't care about), and the WTO (which I do care about). They already did this for TV, and for Video. In every case, (MP|RI)AA will pretend that they lost obscene amounts of money, and that they have god-given right to profit on all entertainment and IP. "ALL YOUR NET MUSIC ARE BELONG TO US" kind of thing. They'll probably win...
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Posting as Anonymous Coward is also fairly chicken.
-Splat
Replace hacktivism with cracktivism when referring to one person's breaking into a system and defacing and/or destroying it. Call it Cyber Terrorism when a political group seeks to deface/destroy a ruling parties' systems for said country in which the terrorism occurs. And call it Civil Cyber Disobedience (aka - Hacktivism) when a group perpetuates the 'illegal' activities in mass when they disagree with a certain law or form of law (DMCA, CSS) that seeks to circumvent that which the group deems inhumanitarian or a spit in the face of fundamental rights as defined by previous law.
And what exactly is the damage done in defacing physical property? None, according to your logic. If no tomatos or cucumbers are lost, what exactly is the damage done by spraypainting grafitti on the side of a grocery store? I guess when you have no morals any second-rate excuse will do to justify yourself before your equally reprobate peers.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
In my experience reporters flock to the idiots. I'm not sure why. I think perhaps it's the standard 'idiots talk louder' though there's a kind of sense of 'the reporters choose the idiots to make all protesters look bad' meme going around, that I'm not completely willing to ignore, either.
Just needed to point out that not all activists are idiots, as too many (including my gf) have felt it necessary to tell me in the last few weeks.
One obvious difference is that a DoS attack generally involves doing damage to innocent bystanders. DoS often involve hijacking the computer of an innocent third party to use in the actual attack and also causing a big mess for all of the routers between the attacker and the victim. IIRC a lot of web site defacers also break into third party computers to do their dirty work.
That points to another, IMO crucial, difference- that people involved in a sit in are actually personally involved. They're risking arrest and injury to make their point. DoS kiddies and web site defacers, OTOH, generally take pains to avoid being identifiable. Part of the reason that they involve third parties is to avoid being identified. There's a huge moral gap between somebody who is willing to risk arrest for what he stands for and somebody who is willing to damage a third party's property to avoid detection. One is heroic and the other is cowardly.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who said hacktivism is legal? I think it's akin to civil disobediance. That's not legal...but it's a political statement. At least "hacktivists" are taking their angst and frustration out for "noble" causes (yeah yeah moral relativism)...at least it's better than just defrauding the neighborhood bank.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Real "activism" (read: civil disobedience) is closely related to a very specific problem. For instance, if the law being protested is "no blacks sitting on the bus" then the protest should be "blacks sitting on the bus". If the protested action is "trees being cut down" the protest should be "make cutting down trees difficult, e.g. tie humans to trees".
What do we see with "hacktivists"? Protested party: "we don't like Microsoft" (non-specific problem). Protest: "deface/degrade their website" (unrelated to problem).
REAL "hacktivism" would have to involve a venture (business, government system, etc) that is conducted online. For instance, the protested action could be something like "they are making our medical records available on the web" or "uunet's mail servers are all spam relays". THEN the protest can take direct action against this specific problem. (and the "direct action" may be defacement or denial of service attacks--but make sure they are directly relevant the protested action) For instance, start using uunets relays to mailbomb uunet customers, employees and management.
In short, it's not the technology that makes it activism, it's the active and direct action that makes it so. If you are missing those factors, it's not hacktivism.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
<sarcasm>
Almonds are not nuts. The correct term for an almond is "almond."
Crazy people are not nuts. The correct term for a crazy person is "a person with a neurological disorder."
Automobile wheels are not held in place by lug nuts. The correct term is "hexagonal wheel retainment device."
There is no such thing as a "hard nut to crack." The correct term is "a difficult problem."
You aren't scratching your nuts as you read this. The correct term is "testicles."
The only correct usage of the word "nut" is when speaking of a variety, of uknown name, of a fatty edible vegetable seed having a hard exterior shell, said seed being of such size that the volume of the portion inside the shell matches or exceeds the volume of the shell itself. If the shell has been removed, it is permissible to say "the kernel of a nut," but again, only if the true correct name of the seed is unknown.
</sarcasm>
Robin Hood was a criminal, and is not a role model.
Secondly. Vietnam era activism was arguably a morally valid pursuit. Real people were being murdered for no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. McDonald's has not set fire to any villages recently, and Nike is not in the habit of using Napalm on its consumers. I fail to see any parallelism between globalization and war atrocities. Most of these 'activists' are simply spoiled college brats with too much time and energy on their hands, having a tantrum before they settle down to their cosy middle-class existance.
Thirdly defacing a web site is not 'hacking'. It requires almost zero skill, and any reasonably competent CS undergrad could do it with no trouble at all. These people are talented. But they are not hackers. The true hackers are people like Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, Stroustrup, Kernihan, Richie, Pike, Van Jacobsen, Stevens, etc etc. It is the ultimate INSULT that a nerd site like slashdot is unable to make the distinction.
Defacers are CRACKERS NOT HACKERS. Is this clear enough for you ?
All these people that get bent out of shape about how "hacker" is used for cracking don't seem to get that language evolves and changes over time. You can't fight it, you just sound like a bunch of nit-pickers. Its like the French trying to keep foreign words out of their language, you just can't fight it if thats how millions of people choose to communicate an idea.
"I think that in most cases the intentions are good, but the folks capable of, say, defacing a website, usually aren't the same folks able to intelligently communicate a message." then they're not 'hacktivists' are they?! I believe hacktivivsts to be those taking political/social/environmental Action in a digital realm. the self named 'hactivist' movement is born from an old heritage of using direct action in the altruistic struggle for peoples' liberation. the web sites I've seen defaced by 'script kiddies' have been motivated out of selfishness for the their own or their small groups' ego
surely you mean cracktivism!
A cracker specializes in breaking in. A hacker is more generalized. A cracker without permission is a burglar.
I myself am not a particular fan of the Chinese goverment propaganda. I have mixed feelings about impeeding on others freedom of speech, but when it is in such forms of thought oppession (like PRC slander) I think I can look the other direction. Here's a supposed hacked Chinese National Library site from the boys at 2600; http://www.2600.com/hacked_pages/1999/12/www.nlc.g ov.cn/
The original;
http://www.nlc.gov.cn/
----Quid
----Quid
Less talk, more caffeine
CmdrTaco wouldn't be thinking of himself, would he, when he writes "the folks capable of, say, defacing a website, usually aren't the same folks able to intelligently communicate a message."
Where's the evidence to support your broad claim, Taco?
Intelligence is multifaceted, and speech isn't only verbal. It's arguable that speech as simple as a nudie pic plastered across a government or corporate site communicates "intelligently": the act says, "Ha!" and the message is lost on no one.
While it should always be evaluated on a case by case basis, the value of hacktivism lies in denying power its imperial privilege. It is a reminder to those at the top that those at the bottom are not merely consumers or taxpayers, not only the regulated and the controlled, the paying and the paid off; and it speaks of a shortage of fear, which is a drought that power abhors. As rebellion, it recalls the same wild vein in the American spirit that can be traced to the Boston Tea Party.
That is a vein that no amount of corporate culture can ever bleed dry.
(I'm kidding here, people.)
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
Funny you should put it that way. In the original Robin Hood legend, Robin Hood was a nobleman who thought taxes were too high, and he stole only from tax collectors and sheriffs (old English term for the chief representative of the king in a county). In that sense Robin Hood was a tax rebel. But that would mean he doesn't cater to know-nothing leftist "anti-corporatist" prejudices. What a shame.
Also in my part of the UK, a 'cracker' is a particularly attractive person of the sex to which one is attracted. EG one might say 'You know that Natalie Portman, she's a cracker'.
--It's better to ride the rainbow than find the pot of gold.
"Hacktivists" are usually nothing more than 12-year-old pimply-faced boys who got tired of Pr0n on the 'net and decided to try something else. Give it a rest. There's no reason behind their hacking; it's just a justification for illegal activities.
------
That's just the way it is
If you want to get in the news, its got to be new. Internet activism is.
One of the key aspects to any activism is to keep moving. If you keep doing the same type of protest then the media will get bored and the protest will not get any coverage.
We have seen this in the UK with road protests. The first few protests were new and got lots of media attention. Now they are a bit passe and very rarly get any coverage. It was time to move on to other forms of protest. Before that a mass rally could get some coverage, but now they never get reported (unless they turn into a riot).
Internet activism is new and is getting the coverage, which probably helps a bit. A few years down the line they will become tierd and not get any coverage. But now is the time to persue this form of activism (if your so inclinded).
Internet activism does not have to be just hactivism. Some of you will probably have heard of the Nike-sweatshop incident which has been making the rounds of the mailing lists. Here someone used nikes web page to request a customized pair of shoes bearing the word swetshop on them. Nike refused and an intresting exchange of emails occured. This exchange of emails was passed round then net and found its way to BBC radio's You and Yours program one luchtime. Much embarisment to Nike. This is the sort of internet activism which is working.
We should probably be careful, after the government's reaction to protestors at Kent State, during the war, how long before they start sending out the national guard to shoot crackers.
This might be an alarmist reaction, but the government is far more terrified of crackers than they ever were of hippies. What happens when you back a person with a gun into a metaphorical corner?
(Offtopic: Everytime an American brings up Tianamen square, someone should remind them of Kent state, and how the US reacted to student protesters)
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Hacktivism doesn't directly imply website defacements and DOS attacks.. but thats all that's really been done. Of course there's exceptions..
has anyone on slashdot heard of "cult of the dead cow"? or their program "back orfice"? this is hacktivism as it was meant to be.
the problem is, people aren't creative enough.. they think "what can i do with the internet to deal with ?" and for some reason, the 'logical' answer is "hack their website!".. of course there'll be better examples, when someone takes the lead, uses their creativity and incredible talent, grabs the world by the ear and points out some incredible injustices..
so don't go bitchin' about "hacktivism".. feel free to bitch about individual acts, but 'hacktivism' is something most people involved in any opensource/freedom of speech/etc. are more familiar with than they realize..
when the rain comes, they run and hide their heads. they might as well be dead.
Bingo. But you will never be able to talk sense to the young. It's pretty silly really, why not just go have demonstrations in front of the brick and mortar headwuarters of all the evil corporations who are "dominating" the net. I mean, who really cares... they aren't breaking any laws, it's just the way the world works. But then again, the whole destroying someting to prove a point is silly, and generally only your angst filled youth can make sense of it. If you really want to fight them then why not build someting great and use that... sorta like Linus did with Linux.
Or heck, maybe Linus's time would have been better spent hacking into websites and leaving 1337 messages there...
Even the most totalitarian regime can't make everyone 'disappear'. If enough people sit-in, stand up, or otherwise peaceably resist The totalitarians have two choices: kill everyone (and then who would they boss around?) or at least pay lip service to what the protestors want.
Sure, they can't kill everyone, but there have been plenty of instances in history where they've killed thousands or even millions of people. Now if you don't want to be one of those people who get slaughtered, you can either keep your mouth shut or you can fight your own war against those who would have you killed for voicing your opinion.
hence the israelis go after the rock throwing palestinis with uzis, then secret police, and they would probably drop a nuke on them if it wouldn't fuck up their own backyard.
Apples and oranges. We're talking about standing up to your own government, not 2 countries fighting.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
In some countries the job of deciding what is justified falls on a small group of people. This is almost universally regarded as a "bad" thing (except by those people who get to decide).
However, in most civilized countries questions like these are answered by a complex balance of existing laws and a number of legislative, judicial, and executive bodies that work against each other in the creation of new laws and ordinances and the modification of existing laws. If you are old enough to have taken a civics class you can probably fill in most of the details that correspond with your particular country of origin.
The reason that this sort of a system is superior to each of us deciding on our own what is justified is quite straightforward. Some people are clearly insane. If we left each of us to determine what is right and wrong, legal and illegal, there would be no stopping those folks that feel that they are justified in shooting up my house and carrying off my wife and child.
I am sure that Timothy McVey and the punk kid involved in the recent San Diego school shootings both felt that their actions were justified. However, their actions clearly weren't justifiable.
This does not mean, of course, that the systems that we currently have in place are perfect, and that unjust laws are not created. However, this does not justify our breaking the law, and it certainly doesn't justify the destruction of someone else's property. As long as there are legal means to have your voice be heard that is the strategy that should be employed. If you truly do have a valid point chances are good that others will be interested in what you have to say without the need to turn over any cars, or paint on any walls.
Unfortunately, immature minds equate violence and political activity. They feel that unless they can burn something down, or paint grafitti on it, that their voice is being ignored. In the end they almost invariably do more harm to their cause than good.
So, while it is certainly true that each of us has to determine what we believe in, deciding what is justifiable is something that must be decided as a group.
To answer your question: Yes the pharm corps do deserve some kind of compensation. But the people whose bodies are disintegrating under the onslaught of AIDS and ARC deserve life more.
Whether your 8-year-old gets to read Harry Potter for free/reduced cost is wholly different from whether your 8-year-old dying of AIDS gets to live long enough to read the sequel.
The original post was about an AIDS cure. This is incomparable to the normal supply/demand relationships of the average luxury item like movies, CDs, cigarettes, etc. Charging high prices for a product with a guaranteed [and medically essential] demand may not be exploitative in every case, but it is certainly something that merits very careful scrutiny.
---
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Er, more than a few hours of sales, unless the IT people are incompetent; they need to isolate, wipe, reinstall, analyze, and correct, because even an obvious exploit may only have been used to mask something more subtle.
Plus, notifying customers that their CC numbers, addresses and so forth may have been compromised -- which isn't that unusual a procedure now -- also can cost quite a bit in the long run.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Why do you say that I have been hopelessly misinformed? The idea that I think trade may actualy benifit people. I like Capitalism and a free and democratic state thank you very much. My family is in the USA because they have to be. The Czar tried to kill my great grandparents for the crime of being Jews, they ran and ended up here.
In the old country (Russia) Jews were at best second class citizens, we got here and someone told us that we could be full citizens of a country, and we have become just that. So yes damn right I want to keep the system the way it is. I'm living in the only country in the world in which there has never been a goverment sponsored Pogrom agenst the Jews.
You seem to think destroying the US and everything that goes with it would be a good thing. Yet I have not heard anyone say how they would like to see things run after such a feat were somehow to be managed. Well you could have no government, I bet the multinationals would love that. All those pesky rules that they have to live by now would be gone. Afterall with no EPA who cares if you dump this sludge in the river.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Hmm reading the headline I thought I was reading a Katz article, but no I blinked and it definitely said Cmdr Taco....
/. changed the Author as a Joke ?
Hmmm could this article have been written by Katz and someone at
That would be ironic...
Remember just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean the're not out to get you...
--sensationalism: focusing on the few dozens smashing Starbucks rather on the thousands with poignant signs and irony-laden puppets. they'll focus on a car crash as much as a major demonstration.
--brevity: if you ever, ever watch a newscast in another country (or even the Newshour with Jim Lehrer) you will be struck by how long those other news stories go, and the detail. Our major network news stories run an average of two minutes, with well over 10 minutes devoted to sports.
--superficiality:under the guise of "objectivity" the major netwrok TV news rarely ever gets more communicated than the immediate facts. They don't ask why, they just tell you what is happening.
The reasons that FOX, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and even MTV news do this I will leave to you to decipher. However I urge you to seek out your own information and stories than rely on third parties. Look at the web sites of both sides.
[pink beam of light]
Its unfortunate that people obstenately sully the meaning of the word hacker by relating it to a person performing criminal/malicious activity via a computer and/or networks. That person is a criminal (and activists at times break laws; for good or ill they are still defined by the goverment whose laws they broke as criminals [whether they were right or wrong is a different issue]). A hacker on the hand is just a curious individual that likes to pull things apart (virtual or no), examine them, understand them, and use them in creative ways. Most programers could be called hackers (which is why I refer to my self as a hacker). Linus Torvalds and others like him are hackers; the individuals mentioned in the article are criminals. Please get your terminolgy correct.
Have you tried UNIX today, its most satisfying...
Hacktivism is childish. In my mind it is the equivalent of toilet papering a senators house when you disagree with what he does. In nearly ALL cases, there are much better ways to get your point across.
-Derek
Not suprising. General activism attracts these types as well . . . whenever I see the TV news interviewing some protestors at [whatever protest is currently going on in downtown DC], I get the impression that many of them are there to be cool with their friends.
"Uh, we're protesting, uh, bad corporations, and, uh, the effect on, uh, world politics. Yo, check it out, I got beat up by a cop!"
A real Robin Hood hacker would steal web space from rich people who can afford high powered dedicated servers and give it to us poor guys that can only afford to virtually host their ISP given subdomains....
-----
Examples are rampant:
environmental issues ( Earth Liberation Front , recently profiled on 60 Minutes),
Vietnam protests (Weathermen, SDS),
Civil rights movement (Malcolm X),
and the Boston Tea Party.
I don't mean to promote violence, but I think it's clear that when a group of people are disenfranchised, they find a way to get their voices heard above the din. If hacktivism is that tool for this era -- get ready for a whole lot more.
You can mod me down, but then I'll just get bitter and find a way to have my voice heard. Muwahahahahaha...
> Those who accept the death penalty believe that it will save more innocent lives if those convicted of murder are executed
Yep. But the original poster said 'These peope forfeit the lot, the moment they murder', which is wrong in the sense accidental penalty of innocent means that those people loosed their rights without murdering.
Your description is more correct than his, which by pretending beeing mecanic (ie: murder -> lost of rights -> death penalty can be applied) had a huge hole.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
> I think the point was hypocrisy
:-) ).
That's was exactly it.
> the poster you responded to may be a nutter who really thinks software is religion
Not at all, so thanks for using 'may'. I don't use windows and tend to avoid microsoft products, but this is something personal (that started before there was even a Microsof Windows). Note that I don't run linux either, but that it for practical reasons.
The whole point of the rant was hypocrisy, and I have my share of it too (If I was less hypocrit, I would use *no* microsoft products, I would do a web page about *why* I don't use them, and would actively promote a real boycott, and become a 'nutter who really thinks software is religion' on your radar
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Very rarely acheaves anything. Much of the protest movement these days is interested in what I have seen refered to as "Scoarched Earth" protesting, which is protesting for the sake of protesting and being a general pain in the ass but without any hope of actualy getting anything done. At the end of the day they have not gotten what they want or even part of what they want they have mostly just been a pain in everyone's neck.
I don't think the so called "Hacktavists" are in any way advancing a cause they are just being political vandals.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I have looked at Hacktivist.com and found that they just seem to be misguided techos. I mean planting toilet paper with masturbation techniques in elementary schools is remarkably stupid. If you want to make a point about MultiNationals, there are better ways. Tagging your name on nike.com is sad, replacing the pictures of shoes with sweatshop workers is better. I am not saying that there is no point in what they are doing, just that they seem to be thinking more about the technology they can use, rather than the point and impact of the exercise. Hactivism can be used to score points against the MegaCorps, but the guys who are currently doing it need to look at their reasoning, and I think that most of it is ego driven right now.
Technology is a tool, throw a spanner in the works
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Whenever I see protests against the WTO or its ilk, I always think that the most extreme people are just being 'hooligans', so to speak. They're not there because they have a legitimate desire to effect change, but because it gives them an excuse to act up. I think in this case they're giving too much credit to the online graffiti artists. Or, perhaps I'm just being too cynical.
--
I think we might have lost the hack/crack war to the popular media, but maybe we can salvage it by giving them "hack" for web site hacks, but still insisting that "crack" be used for breaking into security before the hack, or stealing credit cards or something. How could stealing credit cards be a hack? Maybe charging and shipping a realdoll to their address would be a prank, but otherwise cracking a system for information would be just "cracking". Hmm....
> Shouldn't this be Cracktivism?
Maybe so, but IMO "hacktivism" is hurting The Man more than "cracktivism" is.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Hactivism is when you illegally deface or otherwise impede with a computer system as a means of protest. Just like during the '60s/'70s, there are some people who are doing it out of righteous indignation, and others who are just excited about blowing things up.
Cyberterrorism is when you do the same thing, but you're not a college kid.
Covert Action is when the government does it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
That's what we get with living in the richest country in the world; an apathetic, ignorant, and consumeristic populance. It's all hunky-dory in our backyards so no big deal. If half of you would have the ballz take a trip to some other part of this world, other than Europe or Cancun, Mexico for spring break, then maybe then some of you would notice how messed up 80% of this world really is. Maybe you even put a couple of concepts together and realize how much of this misery is being exploited by us. A lot of it down right criminal. Hmmm.. nah. Stay home kids, the world is too ugly and the truth too unbelieveable. Where's my McDonalds hamburger anyway?! Peace
I'll trust my conscience and my conscience alone.
I will not believe something is or is not justified simply because someone or something else ("public morale") disagrees with me.
In reality, delegating responsibility from an individual to a collective is not possible and should not be used as an excuse.
Aren't kettles already black? Would this be the same as 'painting the sky blue' or 'painting dirt a brownish color' or 'painting Grimace purple'??
In a sense, both hacking and cracking are 'isms' by nature and by the nature of the corporate world's response to them. By positioning themselves as the sole power in dictating the use of their products and services, corporations force both hackers and crackers into a politics of opposition. Both the hacker and cracker are forced to challenge the corporation simply in order to excersize what is (in the eyes of hackers at least...crackers often admit their actions are illegal or even unethical, if still justified) their right. It is the plight of anyone who is forced to witness a constriction of their rights (all those who are able to perceive it at least)...if they wish to continue excersizing the rights which have been denied them through newborn restriction, their actions (however benign) MUST BE POLITICAL....
yes, i can be rather red sometimes...
...they always mean "Distinctions between one kind of egg and another are never relevant".
And it's just *never* true. The assertion that "criminals are criminals" mindlessly lumps in Nelson Mandela with Jeffery Dahmer. "Hacking is hacking" puts RMS in the same category as RTM.
As it happens, I'm generally against breaking into computer systems as a political act; I just thought you should know that statements like "criminals are criminals" is a big flag that you're going to be talking nonsense.
--
Xenu loves you!
From what I hear, these people just deface websites. How is that Robin Hood politics? There isn't any taking from the rich, giving to the poor. Just some vandalism. No one really benefits (except for the cracker, who can say that he defaced the web site).
nWo 4 Life
Sorry, you are close but incorrect. They know what they do is illegal... they want to be able to say that it is MORAL. And, do it with a straight face talking to their mom and pop.
Sure, it's Robin Hood politics. And what praytell is wrong with that, if you live in Sherwood Forest?
s/nerd/boss/
I don't feel defacing websites or redirecting traffic to a Fluffy Bunny (McBoobiez) take on McDonalds is quite the same thing.
It's like distinguishing between active and passive demonstration, but the article seems to place it under only one umbrella, in the unfortunate way the media confuses hacking, cracking, writing virii, or other criminal activity.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I steal from the rich... then call it a day.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Sheesh
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Well, what the Grauniad (it's known for its spelling) seems to be doing is a sort of trendy middle-class pseudo-intellectual form of scare-mongering - much like the tabloids do with things like pedophiles and ecstacy and other modern dangers.
Claric
--
There's no problem that cannot be solved with a suitable amount of high explosives
And if language was a logical process, that would be the end of it. But language is NOT a logical process: it's fluid, changes constantly, and is primarily defined by what the masses think is correct, as opposed to the technically correct definition.
Friends, I don't mean to start a flame war, but we've lost the public definition of "hacker". WE know the difference, but to the world at large, it doesn't matter. Thank Matthew Broderick, any number of uniformed journalists and government officials, and the Entertainment industry in general for it, but they won this particular semantic war, and we lost. Can we move on to more important issues ???
If that's not hacktivism, I don't know what is.
--M.
"just as bad as the targets actions" Meaning the hackers are no better than their target is by defacing them.
360 degrees of Karma
I can't wait until this overinflated market falls down, and all you reactionary, right-wing, individualist, ayn-rand-reading, libertarian-capitalist, black-turtleneck-swathed, diamond-rio-wearin', law-abiding, afraid-of-police-pepper-sprayin', afraid-to-do-anything-but-criticizin', egotistically-sniggerin', hard-drive-comparin', career-minded technophiles are out on the street begging for change to buy blank WORM-CD's so you can sell pirated mp3 albums for food.
I like Slashdot and all, but geek culture is starting to wear thin on me. I can't count the geeks I've met who don't give a shit about anything but the next Star Wars flick, career move, or electronic gizmo. They seem incapable of any opinion that isn't petty criticism or condescending mockery.
I have absolutely nothing to say to these people who have no connection, no empathy for the plight of the world; who refuse to acknowledge that their expensive lifestyle is supported at great cost by the majority of the world's population; who seem to think that just because property destruction is a defined as a crime, and "hurts" corporations, that it is "violent"; who secretly voted for Bush because they're suddenly in those higher tax brackets (and want to see lower capital gains taxes); who maintain a air of being "above it all" because politics and demonstrations and actions are for the "hot-headed youth" and in their self-proclaimed maturity do absolutely nothing about the state of the world;
[gasp for air]
because what they truly love (in this order) is:
-1- their computer
-2- their significant other (sometimes the same as #1)
-3- their cell phone / palm-pilot
-4- their posh urban apartment in a completely gentrified neighborhood
-5- Natalie Portman
Have at you, geeks / nerds / 1337 h4X0rs / whatever! See you in the streets!
[pink beam of light]
Horsepucky. Boycotts work, but only when people realy want them to. Boycotting something like like RJR or the MPAA is a cakewalk compared to, say, boycotting the only economically viable method of getting around your city.
"Just turn off the TV." "No more Mac and Cheeze." My goodness, the hell we'd be going through. Please.
Don't confuse "Boycotts don't work anymore" with "People are too lazy to boycott anymore". Do you honestly think that sacrificing your digital toys could even start to compare to the daily hell of not having reliable transportation in an urban area? And yet people have done just that, for months on end, with fairly constant harassment from law enforcement and the rest of the community.
Boycotts are hard. They will affect your daily life, sometimes profoundly. This does not mean, however, that they're no longer possible; it just means that our society doesn't give enough of a damn yet to make their own lives less comfortable.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
There's a part of me, indeed I believe a part of everyone, that pines for the utopian-socialist environment portrayed in popular media (Star Trek among the chief offenders). Most of me, however, is a realist (and materialist): I need to make more money to get what I want in life. I make money as a hacker, so the erroneous use of the word hack and all its derivatives by the media and, now it seems, educational institutions is a direct affront to my way of life.
Unfortunately, especially in recent years, I have to be very careful in using that word to describe myself. In some circles, I will openly declare myself a hacker: I hack code for a living. I hack code for fun. In others, I simply say that I work with computers. I've never written a so-called email "virus" (another sad misnomer), nor defaced a website, nor participated in any type of DOS attack, nor any of the other malicious activities that are typically associated with the term hacking. If these activities are now labeled Hacktivism by some idiot sociology professor in another country, I want no part of that term.
On the flip side, I like the term Hacktivism if used in a more positive light: people that author such fabulous applications as gimp, gcc, cvs, and other tools that allow others to work in a more cost-effective manner (and indeed to extend and modify these applications for other purposes) are the true Hacktivists. People that write something for their own use and then give the code to the public domain or offer it under an open source license of some guise - even though there is no quantifiable market for such - these are the true Hacktivists. People that write DeCSS in haiku as a method of demonstrating the power the First Amendment affords to the people, people that port perfectly good UNIX applications to Win32, people that speak out on /. - these are the true Hacktivists.
Let us grab this term and make it our own before it serves to hurt us! Has anyone registered Hacktivism.[insert-your-TLD-here]???
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
You believe people are right when the Slashdot editors tell you that they are.
What happens then? Media outcry and security everywhere tightened up beyond recognition. People who fsck up websites for fun are just adding fuel to the "we need tight security on the internet" arguments which make the internet practically unusable for the rest of us. I'm not against activism, but it might be an idea to keep it to the proper channels where it is less likely to be confused with random vandalism.
I think everyone is missing the point. Obviously rooting webservers and posting some shpeel about anything is lame... But what about the people pushing technology to help activists? What about the tech teams at the Independent Media Centers? Or the people at hactivist.com who do hacks that don't break the law?
DoS attacks cost the target money, sometimes lots of it. Money spent on repairing a database or paying someone to block IPs at the router is no different from money spent replacing the windows that the bricks were thrown though. There's also the loss of business in the case of commercial targets.
Unfortunately, your attitude prevails. People who would be far too chicken to ever hurl a brick in the name of their cause think it's fine to ruin someone's website and trash businesses with DoS attacks. They seem to think they're some kind of badasses when they run their URL pounding scripts.
Before you take this kind of action, think about the people you're affecting. It's highly unlikely that every one who works at a particular web site is responsible for whatever pissed you off. You may be putting a bunch of cool open source geeks out of a job just because you dislike something that one lawyer said.
Why do people have these irrational attachments to the first meaning they encountered of a word?
Aside from the racial slur, "cracker" means someone who break protective mechanisms to get at the things protected, like cracking a nut. Ever heard of safecrackers? Ever see the TV series "cracker" about a spooky crime-fighting psychiatrist who did mind-reading by analysis?
Just because one subculture adopts a word doesn't mean that they gain a monopoly on it.
Personally, I refer to people by whatever term they would like me to use, unless I don't like them.
Funny, I prefer to use an accurate term, whether I like them or not. The names people make up for themselves are usually misleading.
---
I have to agree here. As much as I like the idea of this hacktavism, in theory, in practice its not going to work. I really get the feeling that this is the work of some people who just don't grasp the true nature of what they are fighting against.
It reminds me alot of "Propaganda By example". Its good to learn from history. An anarchist campaign about a hundred years ago aimed at usining assasination and bombing to bring down the wrath of government, and sew distrust and malcontent with the government.
In theory its great. In practice it backfired so horribly that 100 years later bombs and mindless destruction are still synonomous with anarchism in many peoples minds.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
A cracker is somebody who cracks warez, and/or a pejorative term for a white person. Any other meaning is never going to catch on in the media, nor with the old school. It's just too complicated to remember the distinction all the time. The people who are hackers by anybody's definition have done some... uh... mischevious things in their time; it's part of the nature of the beast. To say that "a real hacker would never break into a computer system" indicates - to me - a lack of understanding of the original meaning of the word. Of course a real hacker would break into a computer system, if it was an interesting enough problem and they didn't anticipate anybody having a problem with it. I agree that the media should widen it's definition of what a hacker is, but that's not the argument I usually see, especially here on slashdot. I see a lot more of "they aren't a real hacker, because they break into systems and/or do security stuff", which is plain silly.
Personally, I refer to people by whatever term they would like me to use, unless I don't like them.
Besides which, if you are doing something unexpected, unforseen, or disallowed to any system (which is my pocket definition of hacking) somebody is always going to think it's bad, until you laboriously convince them otherwise, on a case by case basis.
Why get caught up in semantic arguments when you could be doing cool things and get noticed for THAT, instead?
It's nice to hear the sentiment behind activism, particularly in relation to large corporations swamping the market with inferior products and trying to eclipse the hope that we have for something better. However, I am concerned with the potential for activism generally, and particularly activism that involves surreptitiously cracking into computer systems, can easily be turned against itself.
Just consider that during the 1960's, when the civil rights movement and civil rights activists were at their strogest, so was the KKK. In terms of corporate involvement now, activist cracker break-ins will only firm the resolve of businesses, tighten security, and remind the government that they should give even more power to corporations to "protect" themselves from these activist crackers.
I can even envision a sneaky corporation (redundant, yes?) hiring their own "cractivists" away from public notice to crack into their systems, do negligible damage, and then lay a heap of blame on whatever activist organization that corp. doesn't like. This sort of thing may even yield government support for the corporation.
It would be a shame.
It seems like, with everything else, there is no quick and easy way to fight activist causes. It comes down to the need to issue protest through the appropriate channels, decline to purchase products, and tell the story of why your cause is important. It's slow but it seems like the only solid way to support causes and be an activist.
As can be seen from this article in The Register it's not just people out to have fun anymore. The Middle East conflict has spilled over into cyberspace. Is this the first conflict to do this?
Sixpints couldn't be more foolishly wrong about the Guardian, one of the best newspapers in the world -- its reporting on the Balkans alone putting American rags to shame.
style protests.
Oddly enough, one of the things I remember about them is angry teens spray painting graffiti.
I also remember riots, tear gas, shootings, stealing from "the man", kids dying from drug overdoses, etc.
Jerry Rubin, bless his little insurance selling little Yippie heart, entitled his book " Do It!" ( Perhaps he should have sued Nike?)
The phrase comes from a suggestion in the book. Jerry advises angry, protesting teens to walk into a bank and attempt to hold them up by threatening to shit on the floor, and if they refuse to give you the money. . . Do it!
Yeah, angry teens used to be so much better than they make them today.
KFG
I think true Robin Hood hackitivism would mean reverse-engineering a big corporation or government controlled product/process, creating your own version of it, and just giving it away to others.
Mostly it would be software, but it could be other things as well. Consider a corporation that produces an AIDS cure, patents it, and sells it for oo-gobs of money which would make it difficult for those from poorer countries to get a hold of it. Now imagine that somehow you were able to figure out a way that people with the right materials could create the cure on their own without as much cost. So you, the hactivist, would say fuck the corporation and give the knowledge out to as many people as you can hoping that the right people can make the stuff much more readily available to those who need it. That would be true hactivism.
What the article talks about, as many others have pointed out already, is just cracktivism.
Tyler
Happy people make bad consumers.
The fools who run the corporate monstrosities will merely use these outbursts to persuade governments to further enshrine their power. The answer in reality is to hit them where it really hurts - financially - don't buy the product!
Oddly enough, in the UK, The Guardian (formerly The Manchester Guardian) is seen as a trendy middle-class pseudo-intellectual broadsheet, remember that when considering the points in the article.
As opposed to Isrealis with carbine rifles? I think it would be a welcome change.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"There's a big difference between staging a sit-in and defacing someone's property. I'm bothered by the trend torwards destructive behavior in the name of civil disobedience. It is totally unacceptable"
Well, that has always been THE problem. Back in the 60's and early 70's, many sit-in's and civil disobedience turned into Violence and the defacing of property. For years after the war was finally over, Californian voters refused to raise taxes to build necessary new schools based on "why should we build more when they burn or destroy the ones we have".
It is impossible to control those who prefer violence even when they are suporting the same cause you are.
To seperate the alturistic 'white hat HACKER' from the damage done by the "my way or the Highway Cracker' is NOT likely and the bad guys get ALL THE PRESS.
The protesters of the 60's were all labeled 'UNAMERICAN' and were looked upon by the majority of the population as rabid radicals, due to the 'Burn Baby Burn' crackers of our time.
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
I know, I know, semantics. But still, it would be nice if the word at least reflected what people are really doing: cracking into other people's systems to make their voices heard.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
As such, it is to be encourage. People who enjoy breaking into computer systems will never disappear - it is far better to have them be white hats than black.
The average 'hacker (surely it should be 'cracktivism') enjoys breaking into computer systems for the intellectual thrill of it, and also the illicit thrill. It might be wise then to keep hacktivism's slightly disreputable reputation - it is important that they still get the illicit thrill, whilst still being white hats.
--
A "white hat" is someone who understands security, and uses it to advance security, not to break into other people's systems without their permission. For example, I'd concur with the people who put the "Powered by IIS" message on www.apache.org that this was a gray hat activity, not white hat as Apache said.
I can think of situations where breaking into systems without permission would be justifiable (happens all the time in Buffy!) but it's still Black Hat, I think.
--
Xenu loves you!
At its most effective, hacktivism will not cripple internationalization or globalization, it will merely raise the costs of doing it. This would have the reverse of the intended effect; only those capable of reaping immense profits will do so, thus fostering a nastier bunch of corporate mercenaries.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
For a start it is far to easy to counter. Do you think a major corporation or dictator will roll over after you deface their website? Any form of protest needs to be both uniform and solid as a rock - People power in the philipines comes to mind. It also needs to hit the targets in the pocket. Hacking website or server does neither.
You are entirely correct in equating database alterations to throwing a brick through a window. Both of these are destructive acts. But what is destroyed by a DOS attack or replacing a web page while keeping a copy of the original version?
I think anyone who believes that the internet is the last, best, hope against the corporate media (and the Plutocratic movement in general) would agree that 'Hacktivism' has to be a part of it. It's been said previously that this struggle amounts to writhing around in quicksand unless part of it includes taking the offensive. As far as this example, I agree with some of the others, defacing websites accomplishes nothing. It'd be nice to see 'Hacktivism' as a way to get the truth, not as a way to be a 'rebel' and grandstand on big name websites. I don't know item one about hacking, but I know that people who do would be a lot more helpful if they were sneaking onto business networks and snagging documentation on a companies' political contributions, or memos promising bonuses to the representative of an insurance company that turned down the most claims. Anyway, you get the idea.
Crackers always feel a need to justify thier actions because few people wants to just say "I am a baaaaad boy".
Some excuses are:
"I am trying to show the weaknesses in thier security system"
"I am protesting THE MAN"
"If thier security is this weak, they deserve it"
"The net should be open for everything"
"I am only having fun but I never do any real harm"
It is a rare individual who says "I am trashing other peoples hard work because I like to". Which of course is what they are doing. It really bothers me when I hear about people cracking a system because it means some group of people are going to be getting little sleep and working overtime to fix "a problem" that really should not be an issue. I really hate the excuse "they deserved it" because it assumes that human beings can not be trusted to be good people and that everybody must be thought of as a potential "intruder".
The only "benefit" a cracker has ever had was to make people less trusting about giving computer access AND to produce a multi-billion dollar security industry. Thanks but NO THANKS.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Hacktivism is very real, although often it is misdirected and simply mindless defamation. Across all canadian governmental departments we've been warned of a crew of brazilian crackers that have been defacing our web sites in protest against the Health Ministry's embargo on brazilian meat, which has been found to carry diseases in the past few months. Although I personally think this isn't the right way to protest, it's how they choose to do it, and they do it without any class or professionalism. They just mess up our pages and write "Fuck canada and their racist people".. and of course we reply "Fuck brazil and their idiot crackers". I'm not saying hacktivism is always this bad, sometimes it truly is the best way to get a decent message out, especially when that message is being shunned "to protect the public" (read : because some rich fucker's got his hand up our asses). Defacing a high-visibility website won't change the world, but it will help inform people if the message is clear and positive. Whacking apple.com's entry page and writing "Steve Jobs licks goat nads" might seem funny, but it has no meaning or goal. It just pisses people off without any positive effect. That sort of activity certainly isn't "Robin Hood".
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Civial Disobedience is almost always considered criminal at the time it is being done. Ghandi was considered a criminal by the government he was protesting against. The US government considered the protestors at Kent State to be criminal, so much so they decided to shoot them rather than let thier message be heard. and many people considered Martin Luther King's followers to be criminal. History however shows these people to be what they were. It was they who were the Heroes and the government to be unjust and criminal.
It is interesting to note, the protestors of the WTO in Seattle, the Republcian and Democratic National Conventions were considered criminal and arrested, however, the protestors in Florida during our last Presidential election were left alone. The difference being, in Florida, both sides were supporting the Status Quo.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
If you're serious about hacking as a tool for forcing social change, then you need to focus on the ones that have let proverbial cats out of the bag - cracks like DeCSS or SDMI-defeaters and hacks [engineering sense] like Napster. These embody true "direct action in cyberspace to attack globalization and corporate domination". These are the cyber-accomplishments that are shaping political, legal, and cultural dialog about issues precisely because they're forcing the issues upon the public consciousness.
Of course, there's less room in activism like this to tout how l33t you and and give m4d pr0pz to your h0m1ez, but it's where honest-to-goodness geeks are making a real impact.
The only cause I could think of would be to make corporations more aware of security issues with certain products. But I guess the term "ethical hacking" covers that. I don't see Greenpeace for instance hacking the Shell website... not enough exposure for them.
Personally I think the general defacement of a website is downright dumb and those responsible seem to forget its outright illegal for one.
Its nice to get a message across but hacking for a so called cause only makes things worse for the hackers, and can sometimes work to the advantage of the target, as they can turn it around and misconstrue the scenario as something of a terroristic attacks. Not only that but the media has the whole concept of hackers distorted to hell due to some of these "hackers'" actions
I've interviewed about a dozen of hackers, a virus creation group, and a script kiddiot defacer. Now the "hackers" I've interviewed are not what media considers hackers, these are professionals in the security field so don't get it distorted, however the script kiddiot defacer and others I've spoken with use the curtain of "hacktivism" to solely get attention, nothing more.
If someone really wants to get a point across I think they should start an organization and speak up on it to raise awareness. "Hacking" to promote an idea is no better than what the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square in my eyes, its painting the kettle black at any cost.
Don't get me wrong I believe in Freedom of Speech, Privacy and all that good stuff, but at the same time I hate racism, I will not condone someone from saying what they want on a racist site. I don't think double standards should apply on subjects, and while some of the older hackes from the mid - late 90's were funny as all hell, no one has the right to take away someone freedom of mind, speech.
360 degrees of Karma
We have a long history of civil disobedience. However that disobedience wasn't destructive. There's a big difference between staging a sit-in and defacing someone's property. I'm bothered by the trend torwards destructive behavior in the name of civil disobedience. It is totally unacceptable. Having a noble cause doesn't make it right. If it did, we'd be supporting all terrorists as they firmly believe their cause is noble and right too.
Robin Hood is about the people with nothing attacking and taking what belongs to the rich for use by themselves. Thats what this is about.
Of course some would consider it inapproprate allocation of resources but that is always the case with any sort of wealth.
"...the folks capable of, say, defacing a website, usually aren't the same folks able to intelligently communicate a message." Nice choice of words there, Taco. It's interesting of you to insult the intelligence of what is probably a fairly decent portion of your readership. (Of course, I totally agree with what you said.)
So what happens when corporate web sites are defaced? Usually two undesirable things happen, only one of which is important to this posting. First hackers get a bad name since the press abuses the use of the term. Second the cause gets a bad name because people resort to vandalism. To make matters worse most of the vandalisms seem to be done by the barely literate.
The corporation makes the news (more press for them, somewhat sympathetic even if the vandalism accuses them of clubbing baby seals with Tibetian infants and using the fur in a southeast asian sweatshop/child labor camp), there is yet more outcry against 'hackers' and the message behind the cause gets buried beneath the bad press.
I don't know what the answer to good advocacy are, only that these are more often than not harmful. If you stage a peaceful demonstration it might not make the news which doesn't accomplish anything. Maybe whats needed are vigilante press agents releasing easily consumed memes for the masses to propogate.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
If you can't defeat them, humiliate them!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17408.html
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer