3 ms·

Thanks for the aeinstein.org link. One thing: "no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go prison" - What use is it to go to prison? Maybe you will get so

by brendyn 14y ago

Thanks for the aeinstein.org link. One thing: "no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go prison" - What use is it to go to prison? Maybe you will get some article produced about you generation some attention, but it really doesn't seem helpful. Courageous, I agree, but is it rational? Recently I read about a small protest in mainland China about an instance of media censorship. A bunch of people singed there names on some document complaining about it, and Chinese man who was speaking to some journalists got thrown into a van and taken away. It would not surprise me if some of those people who signed their names will end up getting attacked, so anonymity is beneficial here.

z0ot 14y ago
"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
knowtheory 14y ago
You are comparing apples and oranges. This was not a protest in rural China where corrupt local communist party officials are going to come and disappear you. This was an attack on a US Federal Government website. Whoever defaced the site might get prosecuted for their endeavor, but the only purpose for anonymity here is for the instigators to avoid official reprisal and prosecution (.e.g to get away with it). Nobody in the US is going to persecute you because you think academic articles should be free (they'll largely just ignore you).
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  "Nobody in the US is going to persecute you because you think academic articles should be free (they'll largely just ignore you)." What good is the belief without the ability ("freedom") to act on it? Aaron acted on it, which was arguably a more effective form of protest, and he paid a high price too, even if one doesn't attribute the suicide to his persecution (ehem, sorry, "prosecution")... "Whoever defaced the site might get prosecuted for their endeavor, but the only purpose for anonymity here is for the instigators to avoid official reprisal and prosecution (.e.g to get away with it)." If I am reading your correctly, it sounds like you're saying the person defacing the site should volunteer his or herself for jail (albeit as an act of protest). That hardly makes sense in the best of scenarios let alone in the context of the CFAA. No sit-in protester wants to be pepper-sprayed and hauled downtown, nor would I hold it against them. Suggestion boxes are anonymous for a reason too. (Mind you, one doesn't see many of those these days; almost as if noone wants to know when something's wrong.)
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    Well, i was responding to the notion that there is nobility in this particular use of the shield of anonymity. I just happen to disagree that this is a noble use of anonymity. And, yeah, if you're going to break the law in an act of intentional protest, yeah, i hope they have the strength of conviction to own up to what it is that they're doing. Otherwise it is sort of a cowardly act of opportunity. The thing that distinguishes aaron swartz's case is that every one thinks it is insane that he was being threatened with jail time, and it isn't reasonable for him, or anyone else (save for the prosecutors) to consider 35 years in prison a proportional response for his circumstances and actions. Attacking government websites solely for the purpose of defacing them, out of protest or not, is moving out of the grey area that aaron swartz was operating in (this information is supposed to be public anyway, and he had a means to scrape them), into intentional vandalism (even if you think they are a legit cause). Anonymity in such a circumstance, again, is just a shield for people who are breaking the law. I'm not saying anonymity is a bad thing, or that we shouldn't have it, but imo, this is more an abuse of anonymity than a use. P.S. Aaron Swartz is a lamentable and reprehensible aberration, but it is an aberration. Larry Lessig certainly agrees with Swartz's objectives (just not the means). Nobody is leading a crusade against Lessig, or trying to murder, injure or incarcerate him for what he believes, or the actions he takes to further his aims. That's persecution. Abortion providers are persecuted. Information activists are not persecuted.

by brendyn 14y ago

z0ot 14y ago

"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...

knowtheory 14y ago

You are comparing apples and oranges. This was not a protest in rural China where corrupt local communist party officials are going to come and disappear you. This was an attack on a US Federal Government website. Whoever defaced the site might get prosecuted for their endeavor, but the only purpose for anonymity here is for the instigators to avoid official reprisal and prosecution (.e.g to get away with it). Nobody in the US is going to persecute you because you think academic articles should be free (they'll largely just ignore you).

vy8vWJlco 14y ago
"Nobody in the US is going to persecute you because you think academic articles should be free (they'll largely just ignore you)." What good is the belief without the ability ("freedom") to act on it? Aaron acted on it, which was arguably a more effective form of protest, and he paid a high price too, even if one doesn't attribute the suicide to his persecution (ehem, sorry, "prosecution")... "Whoever defaced the site might get prosecuted for their endeavor, but the only purpose for anonymity here is for the instigators to avoid official reprisal and prosecution (.e.g to get away with it)." If I am reading your correctly, it sounds like you're saying the person defacing the site should volunteer his or herself for jail (albeit as an act of protest). That hardly makes sense in the best of scenarios let alone in the context of the CFAA. No sit-in protester wants to be pepper-sprayed and hauled downtown, nor would I hold it against them. Suggestion boxes are anonymous for a reason too. (Mind you, one doesn't see many of those these days; almost as if noone wants to know when something's wrong.)
- knowtheory 14y ago
  Well, i was responding to the notion that there is nobility in this particular use of the shield of anonymity. I just happen to disagree that this is a noble use of anonymity. And, yeah, if you're going to break the law in an act of intentional protest, yeah, i hope they have the strength of conviction to own up to what it is that they're doing. Otherwise it is sort of a cowardly act of opportunity. The thing that distinguishes aaron swartz's case is that every one thinks it is insane that he was being threatened with jail time, and it isn't reasonable for him, or anyone else (save for the prosecutors) to consider 35 years in prison a proportional response for his circumstances and actions. Attacking government websites solely for the purpose of defacing them, out of protest or not, is moving out of the grey area that aaron swartz was operating in (this information is supposed to be public anyway, and he had a means to scrape them), into intentional vandalism (even if you think they are a legit cause). Anonymity in such a circumstance, again, is just a shield for people who are breaking the law. I'm not saying anonymity is a bad thing, or that we shouldn't have it, but imo, this is more an abuse of anonymity than a use. P.S. Aaron Swartz is a lamentable and reprehensible aberration, but it is an aberration. Larry Lessig certainly agrees with Swartz's objectives (just not the means). Nobody is leading a crusade against Lessig, or trying to murder, injure or incarcerate him for what he believes, or the actions he takes to further his aims. That's persecution. Abortion providers are persecuted. Information activists are not persecuted.