Slashdot Mirror


From Anonymous To Shuttered Websites, the Evolution of Online Protest

silentbrad sends this excerpt from the CBC: "The days of screaming activists marching with signs in hand to voice their displeasure at a particular politician are changing rapidly – just ask Vic Toews. Canada's public safety minister was the latest in a string of public-policy lightning rods to feel the wrath of Anonymous, a loose coalition of web-based activists who went after Toews for his overly vociferous promoting of the government's online surveillance bill. ... Graeme Hirst, a professor of computational linguistics at the University of Toronto, says that while Anonymous does share some properties of older protest movements, sometimes its motives can be called into question. 'It's a kind of civil disobedience, so we can immediately make analogies to the Civil Rights movement of the '60s,' Hirst said in an interview. 'On the other hand, it's not entirely clear that Anonymous is as altruistically motivated as those protests were.' ... Hirst viewed the January showdown as 'the first legitimate online protest' that was really only about the online world and suggested that the key to its success was that it was organized not by individuals but by organizations — and ones with clout. ... Another apparently successful online campaign was the Cost of Knowledge protest started by an international group of researchers in January, following a blog post by Cambridge University math professor Timothy Gowers."

12 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. little man vs. business by CimmerianX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >>Hirst viewed the January showdown as 'the first legitimate online protest' that was really only about the online world and suggested that the key to its success was that it was organized not by individuals but by organizations

    So when big entities and businesses want to protest, that's fine.
    When the little man wants to protest via non-violent, civil disobedience, that's not only illegal (by design all civil disobedience is illegal), but it's also immoral and evil??

    1. Re:little man vs. business by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      based on what, exactly? What makes them thugs?

      DDOS'ing a website? Because that is actually called civil disobedience.

    2. Re:little man vs. business by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Informative

      Civil disobedience usually results in a slight inconvenience, a small percentage of lost profits, and most importantly, high visibility for the chosen cause.

      A DDoS, document theft, or slander campaign results in a destroyed career, ruined business, and a poorly-edited headline on a nerd's news site.

      Anonymous is as much an activist group as I am a turnip.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:little man vs. business by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      DDoS does not destroy careers or ruin businesses. That's ridiculous. At most it may incur a small loss of profits for that 1 day, which fits your definition of "civil disobedience".

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:little man vs. business by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Civil disobedience isn't just disruption. Civil disobedience entails the breaking of laws such that one's subsequent arrest/prosecution can reveal the injustice of those laws to the public, which then brings about a change in the social/political atmosphere, leading to progress. The intent of black students to sit in white only restaurants was not to punish those restaurant owners who may have supported segregation laws; their intent was to put a spotlight on the unequal treatment despite claims of "separate but equal." That's how you practice civil disobedience -- by targeting specifically unjust laws, breaking them, and exposing them to the public

      Now compare with Anonymous, what laws did they break in an attempt to reveal their injustice? They only broke fraud and network intrusion laws. Does that mean they were against fraud and network intrusion laws out of the belief that those laws were unjust? There is no way one can logically compare Anonymous with historical examples of civil disobedience.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  2. In a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vic Toews tried to bring in legislation that would allow the police, or any designated authority by the ministry, to spy on any internet communications without a warrant. In an interview, Toews then admitted that he had not actually read the legislation, and tried to lie and say that there were no such provisions in the bill (proposed act of legislation).

    Anonymous didn't like this, and decided to spy on Vic Toews, releasing personal information about the Minister of "Public Safety" and his multiple indiscretions, including baby-sitters, mistresses, and judges that he nominated while Minister of Justice.

    All the whilst, the Conservative (see "Republican") government is under investigation for election fraud for having identified members of other parties, then sending them robocalls telling them that their polling (voting) location had changed to a ficticious location. This resulted in close ridings (electoral districts) being taken by the Conservatives when elderly voters were unable to find the correct location to vote! (source: CBC News)

  3. Protests need to mean something. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The way that a lot of websites blacked out their sites in protest of the SOPA bill was very powerful.
    1. They Protested a particular thing.
    2. People knew what they are protesting against.
    3. The Protest was done at the risk of the protesters. Blacking out your site for a day could loose customers.

    Anonymous on the other hand is Stupid protesting.
    1. Their protest is sparse and could be about a lot of things possible contradictory.
    2. People usually can only guess what they are protesting about.
    3. Protesters are hiding under the vale of anonymity so they will not loose their jobs/reputation the next day.

    The problem there are just too much stupid protests out there. Not that their goals are not worthy of protesting but they are just stupid in their protest.
    When ever an activist group targets to correct too many points they rarely get done.
    For example CFC were hurting the Ozone layer. The found a good solution to replace it and they protested to get CFC banned. It was an easy sell.
    Carbon is causing global warming... Well we don't have a good way of reducing carbon yet, and protesters are protesting a wide variety of untested methods of reducing carbon, as well they will protest against alternatives such as nuclear.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. People do whatever is easiest to be heard. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 2

    Before, the easiest way to be heard was to walk outside and start screaming with signs.
    With the arrival of the internet, it's much easier to have your voice heard, so many of the screams and signs have been digitized.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  5. Ethical DDoS protest by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think I recall Stallman likening DDoS to a picketing. There do seem to be parallels. I wonder what the ethical and practical implications would be if there were a tool that requested a web page over and over again that only worked when it was visible on screen, only ran one instance per computer, and prompted the user every five minutes? As far as I can tell, that would be as close to an equivalent to a picketing as you could manage online, and it would represent the people who are willing to get involved rather than the computer time people are willing to throw at it. It's true that such a tool would be easily hacked to get around its limitations, however it would be easier to use an illegitimate DDoS tool instead if that's what you wanted.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Ethical DDoS protest by staticneuron · · Score: 2

      I think I recall Stallman likening DDoS to a picketing. There do seem to be parallels.

      The picketing that is allowed is something that is next to the entrance of a business that is informing but not blocking entry and exit to said business. And mainly it has to be off the property of the business because they can hit the protestors with trespassing.

      Problem with a DDoS is that it is everything that is NOT allowed in a peaceful picketing. It denies access to a site, Which is the equivalent of blocking the doors to a business. Also any modification of a site is messing with the companies property, which wouldn't be allowed in real life either.

      It is about "how" things are done not why.

  6. Motivations by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it matter if Anonymous is less altruistic than the Civil Rights Movement? The important thing is that they're more altruisitic than our political, economic, and social leaders.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  7. Re:Could it be? by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 2

    The Boston Tea Party was a form of civil disobedience. It helped formed this country.

    While I do not partake nor am a member of Anonymous, I do agree with their general premise, as well as the simple fact that quite frankly, nobody else is doing anything that is actually causing a stir and even making the public realize something is wrong.

    If the US stays in this general direction for I would say max 50 years, there will be another revolution. All it is going to take is a few sparks, the politicians and corporations have already laid the groundwork.

    To me it is almost sad how much this country has squandered away. There was a time when I was really proud to be an American, those times are now few and far between.

    --
    -Noc