the most important thing we have in common is that we're attentive to each other and willing to listen and work on things.
That sounds awful. From what I'm hearing from other male geeks, I'm supposed to only care if someone has the genitalia I prefer. How am I supposed to listen to someone and grope for their genitalia at the same time?
My neck of the woods has almost nothing in the way of entertainment; there's a movie theater (4 screens), a bowling alley, and...that's it for formal establishments.
But on the other hand... He may be an attention whore. And he very probably does have an anti-US agenda. And he's just as likely to be a rapist as any other person accused of rape without any other evidence. And WikiLeaks' supporters would do well to concede those points in order to make the broader point that ad hominem attacks and caricature of the organization don't make the real crimes exposed by WikiLeaks go away.
The act of civil disobedience isn't meant specifically to target laws against DDoS, but rather corporate policies acting as government-sponsored censors. To say that an act of civil disobedience must be against a state and not against corporations is to ignore that the state is a valid target because it exercises power, not because it is called a state. Corporations wield great power and as such are just as valid as targets of civil disobedience.
Civil Disobedience is not only refusing to follow an unjust law. It also involves, and in some ways requires, facing the consequences of that disobedience.
This is a tactical consideration, as much or more than it's a philosophical consideration. The reality is that engaging in disobedience (in the literal sense) always involves some risk, whether or not the disobeying party is aware of that. But the extent to which that level of risk should be taken proudly depends on the overall strategy of a given civil disobedience campaign.
Actions which require that level of voluntary submission to the consequences of unjust laws/policies tend to be more symbolic in nature—which is not at all to dismiss or denigrate those actions, but simply to distinguish them from another strategy of civil disobedience. Another strategy involves more direct and concrete disruption of the system or organization which enforces the unjust laws/policies in question. This strategy is better served by having its operatives on the ground continuing to act, rather than symbolically getting themselves locked up without cause.
This works best when strategies are combined and overlap, where there is a sea in which to swim, so to speak. Covert operations are best supported by simultaneous actions of the more symbolic kind, and by non-disobedient actions (eg. traditional protest/rally/teach-in/and so on) of sympathetic activists. It might seem unfair that some are exposed to a great deal more risk than others, but this is going to be the case when there is widespread motivation to act regardless; the people who choose that role will volunteer themselves.
The problem with underground organizations is not that they lack courage, but usually that they lack broad support. Sometimes this is because they do a poor job of articulating what they're doing, but often it's because there is little sense of strategy in activist movements of the powerless.
I'm interested, in an academic sense, in discussing the philosophical underpinnings of civil disobedience movements. But in a more direct sense, I'm much more interested in discussing effectiveness. I want to see a civil disobedience strategy that works, and that ultimately wins. It's pointless to discuss Gandhi's philosophy—as with King's—outside the context that there was also non-civil disobedience trends that were quite powerful and effective in their own right.
The British Empire would eventually have quit India regardless, as their capacity to gun down hapless Indians was severely limited by the collapse of their empire around them; but Gandhi's struggle was aided and accelerated by the fact that there was also armed insurrection and a great deal of other forms of resistance. Likewise, the strength of the US Civil Rights Movement was bolstered by all manner of disruption, not the least of which was a growing and increasingly militant revolutionary movement aimed at total upheaval of US society.
But ultimately, if we philosophically shackle to "civil disobedience" a requirement of voluntary exposure to risk when it need not be taken in order to accomplish real disruption of injustice, the consequence will be to ensure we never gain broad support. The privileged who tend to prefer covert operations will simply choose privilege and that will be the end of that. All the better, you might say. But as, again, I'm mostly interested in winning, I quite disagree.
Did you know that when people were protesting nuclear plants and nuclear weapons production, there was a whole procedure that led to virtual coordination between security forces and protesters? There was even a "How to arrest a nuclear protester" training course. Basically, the protesters were told to not put up a fight, and the security guys would be very formal and arrest them. The arrest of the protesters was part of the procedure.
I'm not sure if you're putting this up as exemplary or to mock it. I've seen this scenario play out d
Oh they'll still shout that. And to "back it up" they'll discredit WikiLeaks the same way they discredit Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill or whatever—by whining about "agendas" as if the agenda informs the data rather than the reverse.
I'm not sure you understand Anonymous' purpose here. The purpose isn't *just* to see to it that WikiLeaks remains operational, but also to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that it pisses people off mightily when corporations volunteer to be the strong arm of the state, and that there are consequences for creating a de facto system of repression in place of an overt system that would be just as intolerable.
That's ridiculous. The purpose of civil disobedience is to disrupt unjust (according to the disobeying party) policy and make it too costly to maintain. That there is some risk involved is a consequence of the injustice; wanton self-risk without regard for purpose is exactly how *not* to accomplish anything worthwhile in activism. It's at least as useless as having neither purpose nor taking risk, but quite a bit more destructive as it's likely to cause needless waves of repression in response.
Civil disobedience is, for the most part, flat out illegal too. And, for the most part, it involves disruption of other people's services. What makes it "right" rather than "wrong" is not a matter of whether there are laws against it or whether people are depending on you not doing it, but whether those laws or that allocation of services is just in the first place.
You don't think that the Mississippi sit-ins disrupted white folks' services at restaurants? You don't think countless young activists engaged in non-violent actions that nonetheless violated various local apartheid laws?
Civil disobedience is a term which distinguishes non-violent resistance from violent resistance, not non-resistance from resistance.
Corporations and governments have a great deal more power to do harm than you or I have. With scarce few exceptions (on both ends), I doubt the journalists of the world will be infiltrating individuals' personal data out of a sense of moral duty until they're sure that all of the world's powerful organizations are both harmless and well-meaning. On the contrary, it's those very organizations who are so preoccupied with invading our personal privacy.
In terms of morals, I think two principles, applied consistently, go a long way toward assuaging concerns like those you've voiced:
1. Any moral principle should be universal, all other factors being equal—that is, any two entities with the same circumstances engaging in the same activity are morally equal.
2. Enforcement priorities begin at the highest levels of power.
"Why not to train soldiers not to laugh and joke when they shoot at people from a helicopter?"
Well that's all fine and good, but then we won't have anyone shooting journalists from helicopters. Won't someone think of the journalists who haven't yet been shot from a helicopter?
There's also a ton out in the open that's morally bad and would motivate people to become enemies and seek out morally inconsequential but strategically valuable secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
It's going to be a hard day for hackers when even geeks realize that passwords might include spaces.
the most important thing we have in common is that we're attentive to each other and willing to listen and work on things.
That sounds awful. From what I'm hearing from other male geeks, I'm supposed to only care if someone has the genitalia I prefer. How am I supposed to listen to someone and grope for their genitalia at the same time?
The figurative consequences just aren't as exciting.
Lovely stories for the confused and privileged.
Being so insecure as to forego dating opportunities is a shame, but being so insecure as to forego business opportunities is illegal in 57 states.
My neck of the woods has almost nothing in the way of entertainment; there's a movie theater (4 screens), a bowling alley, and...that's it for formal establishments.
Obviously you're not a golfer.
But on the other hand... He may be an attention whore. And he very probably does have an anti-US agenda. And he's just as likely to be a rapist as any other person accused of rape without any other evidence. And WikiLeaks' supporters would do well to concede those points in order to make the broader point that ad hominem attacks and caricature of the organization don't make the real crimes exposed by WikiLeaks go away.
The act of civil disobedience isn't meant specifically to target laws against DDoS, but rather corporate policies acting as government-sponsored censors. To say that an act of civil disobedience must be against a state and not against corporations is to ignore that the state is a valid target because it exercises power, not because it is called a state. Corporations wield great power and as such are just as valid as targets of civil disobedience.
Civil Disobedience is not only refusing to follow an unjust law. It also involves, and in some ways requires, facing the consequences of that disobedience.
This is a tactical consideration, as much or more than it's a philosophical consideration. The reality is that engaging in disobedience (in the literal sense) always involves some risk, whether or not the disobeying party is aware of that. But the extent to which that level of risk should be taken proudly depends on the overall strategy of a given civil disobedience campaign.
Actions which require that level of voluntary submission to the consequences of unjust laws/policies tend to be more symbolic in nature—which is not at all to dismiss or denigrate those actions, but simply to distinguish them from another strategy of civil disobedience. Another strategy involves more direct and concrete disruption of the system or organization which enforces the unjust laws/policies in question. This strategy is better served by having its operatives on the ground continuing to act, rather than symbolically getting themselves locked up without cause.
This works best when strategies are combined and overlap, where there is a sea in which to swim, so to speak. Covert operations are best supported by simultaneous actions of the more symbolic kind, and by non-disobedient actions (eg. traditional protest/rally/teach-in/and so on) of sympathetic activists. It might seem unfair that some are exposed to a great deal more risk than others, but this is going to be the case when there is widespread motivation to act regardless; the people who choose that role will volunteer themselves.
The problem with underground organizations is not that they lack courage, but usually that they lack broad support. Sometimes this is because they do a poor job of articulating what they're doing, but often it's because there is little sense of strategy in activist movements of the powerless.
I'm interested, in an academic sense, in discussing the philosophical underpinnings of civil disobedience movements. But in a more direct sense, I'm much more interested in discussing effectiveness. I want to see a civil disobedience strategy that works, and that ultimately wins. It's pointless to discuss Gandhi's philosophy—as with King's—outside the context that there was also non-civil disobedience trends that were quite powerful and effective in their own right.
The British Empire would eventually have quit India regardless, as their capacity to gun down hapless Indians was severely limited by the collapse of their empire around them; but Gandhi's struggle was aided and accelerated by the fact that there was also armed insurrection and a great deal of other forms of resistance. Likewise, the strength of the US Civil Rights Movement was bolstered by all manner of disruption, not the least of which was a growing and increasingly militant revolutionary movement aimed at total upheaval of US society.
But ultimately, if we philosophically shackle to "civil disobedience" a requirement of voluntary exposure to risk when it need not be taken in order to accomplish real disruption of injustice, the consequence will be to ensure we never gain broad support. The privileged who tend to prefer covert operations will simply choose privilege and that will be the end of that. All the better, you might say. But as, again, I'm mostly interested in winning, I quite disagree.
Did you know that when people were protesting nuclear plants and nuclear weapons production, there was a whole procedure that led to virtual coordination between security forces and protesters? There was even a "How to arrest a nuclear protester" training course. Basically, the protesters were told to not put up a fight, and the security guys would be very formal and arrest them. The arrest of the protesters was part of the procedure.
I'm not sure if you're putting this up as exemplary or to mock it. I've seen this scenario play out d
Why didn't I think of that and write "law (or policy)"? Oh wait, I did.
Middle class schmuck doesn't care what's happening to anyone else in the world, story at 11.
Oh they'll still shout that. And to "back it up" they'll discredit WikiLeaks the same way they discredit Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill or whatever—by whining about "agendas" as if the agenda informs the data rather than the reverse.
A great deal of the south-eastern United States during its apartheid era. That's where the example comes from.
Having assumptions confirmed is the difference between being a street preacher and a lecturer.
I'm not sure you understand Anonymous' purpose here. The purpose isn't *just* to see to it that WikiLeaks remains operational, but also to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that it pisses people off mightily when corporations volunteer to be the strong arm of the state, and that there are consequences for creating a de facto system of repression in place of an overt system that would be just as intolerable.
Also it's apparently for the lulz.
That's ridiculous. The purpose of civil disobedience is to disrupt unjust (according to the disobeying party) policy and make it too costly to maintain. That there is some risk involved is a consequence of the injustice; wanton self-risk without regard for purpose is exactly how *not* to accomplish anything worthwhile in activism. It's at least as useless as having neither purpose nor taking risk, but quite a bit more destructive as it's likely to cause needless waves of repression in response.
Refusing to sit in the back of the bus is most certainly civil disobedience, if the law (or policy) says you must sit in the back of the bus.
Civil disobedience is, for the most part, flat out illegal too. And, for the most part, it involves disruption of other people's services. What makes it "right" rather than "wrong" is not a matter of whether there are laws against it or whether people are depending on you not doing it, but whether those laws or that allocation of services is just in the first place.
You don't think that the Mississippi sit-ins disrupted white folks' services at restaurants? You don't think countless young activists engaged in non-violent actions that nonetheless violated various local apartheid laws?
Civil disobedience is a term which distinguishes non-violent resistance from violent resistance, not non-resistance from resistance.
You said woody.
In terms of area, the planet Earth is mostly uninhabited.
Wait. People don't like the smell of farts, so people aren't supposed to fart anywhere? Good luck with that crusade.
Corporations and governments have a great deal more power to do harm than you or I have. With scarce few exceptions (on both ends), I doubt the journalists of the world will be infiltrating individuals' personal data out of a sense of moral duty until they're sure that all of the world's powerful organizations are both harmless and well-meaning. On the contrary, it's those very organizations who are so preoccupied with invading our personal privacy.
In terms of morals, I think two principles, applied consistently, go a long way toward assuaging concerns like those you've voiced:
1. Any moral principle should be universal, all other factors being equal—that is, any two entities with the same circumstances engaging in the same activity are morally equal.
2. Enforcement priorities begin at the highest levels of power.
"Why not to train soldiers not to laugh and joke when they shoot at people from a helicopter?"
Well that's all fine and good, but then we won't have anyone shooting journalists from helicopters. Won't someone think of the journalists who haven't yet been shot from a helicopter?
There's also a ton out in the open that's morally bad and would motivate people to become enemies and seek out morally inconsequential but strategically valuable secrets.
Wait, so you're saying it was slow?