[Nettime-bold] Fw: Re: <nettime> if ($hacking =~ $terrorism) {

["Lachlan Brown" <lachlan@london.com>]

> on the other hand, if i set my time machine back a few years and tell
> my few-years-ago-self that legislation would be on the table to label
> e-graffiti (and even less destructive acts) terrorism punishable by life
> imprisonment without chance for parole, my few-years-ago-self would
> probably laugh at it as sci-fi paranoia.
> 
> one person to whom i forwarded the article responded with "and no dressing
> up like indians and throwing cargo in the bay!" which seems to tie into
> the gist of other discussions here along the lines of "today's terrorists
> may be regarded tomorrow as freedom fighters."

Yes, 'dressing up as Indians and throwing tea in the harbour' is specifically cited in UK legislation as just cause for the imminent arrival of the Redcoats. "Patriot" being 'the last refuge of the scoundrel' as Dr Samuel Johnson said once carried the force the word 'terrorist' carries in Britain today.

However, hacking is not terrorism. Unless the hack is specifically intended to disrupt electronic networks to influence by terror government and public opinion, or the hack contains content shown to be intelligence to aid an act of terror. I can't think of any possible example where terror could be induced by code and distributed computing.
Irritation, boredom, hilarity, annoyance, yes, but outright 757 --> WTC terror, no.

 The basic legal argument is that acts of terror are, to put it mildly, undemocratic means to influence opinion and policy. Hacking is more likely to impact upon individual, institutional or corporate rights, for which there is ample contingency in the criminal and civil laws of most countries.

This is a relief for me as I (who can hack a bit of html together, knows what a 'meta tag' is, and am wicked on mixing peoples email list up to devastating and disorientating effect) have been branded 'Hacker' by some snivelling little market whimp fascist eager to please his fat cat bosses. I have no desire to be branded 'terrorist'. Going by the paranoia building in recent posts to Nettime, I state this merely as I would not wish to end up in a 'Detention Centre in Woomera' though I an think of several potential candidates among my colleagues and former colleagues who should. Not because they have done anything to deserve such a fate, but because I would like to see them there.

  I meant to write further on the New Anti-terrorist Legislation in the UK, the likely successor model for EU and US which will impact rights and responsibilities in numerous ways and will get on with this.

  Just writing to make it clear that Hacking is NOT Terrorism. 

Especially, I repeat, especially if it is effectively employed to bring about peace during the build up to a disasterous war. 


 Lachlan

http://third.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Alexander <plagiari@plagiarist.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
To:  <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Subject: <nettime> if ($hacking =~ $terrorism) {


> sorry if this info has already been posted here; i may have missed it:
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257
> 
> on the one hand, i think most of us guessed right away that the recent
> terrorist activities would open the door for all sorts of oppressive
> agendas to get pushed through, so this is not surprising.
> 
> on the other hand, if i set my time machine back a few years and tell
> my few-years-ago-self that legislation would be on the table to label
> e-graffiti (and even less destructive acts) terrorism punishable by life
> imprisonment without chance for parole, my few-years-ago-self would
> probably laugh at it as sci-fi paranoia.
> 
> one person to whom i forwarded the article responded with "and no dressing
> up like indians and throwing cargo in the bay!" which seems to tie into
> the gist of other discussions here along the lines of "today's terrorists
> may be regarded tomorrow as freedom fighters." it holds very true here, as one
> can assume that, if it goes through - or even if it doesn't - it will be a
> handy tool against potential hactivism - at minimum for the "chilling
> effect."
> 
> however, i'm looking on the bright side: as the dude responsible for the
> Blue Screen of Death, it should be pretty easy to get bill gates locked up
> for life. :-)
> 
> (while i'm at it, i'd also like to suggest that hard drive manufacturers
> may be considering a an intellectual property suit against the Justice
> Department, for trademark tarnishment of "ATA.")
> 
> ok, so maybe i'm not funny. fortunately john ashcroft is. from the
> article:
> 
> "Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the
> proposal's definition of terrorism. 'I don't believe that our definition
> of terrorism is so broad,' said Ashcroft. 'It is broad enough to include
> things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the
> purpose of government.'"
> 
> hmm, does that last part include .... voting?
> 
>  -@
> 
> --
> 
> plagiarist.org
> Recontextualizing script-kiddyism as net-art for over 1/20
> of a century.
> 
> }
> 
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
> 
> 

-- 

____________________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 



Powered by Outblaze


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold