3 ms·
1) It's "Hacktivist," not "hackivist." 2) I appreciate the sentiment, but this is a bad idea on a few fronts. It's more proof that we (as in the US as a state
by lallysingh 17y ago
1) It's "Hacktivist," not "hackivist."
2) I appreciate the sentiment, but this is a bad idea on a few fronts. It's more proof that we (as in the US as a state) don't know how to engage, manipulate, or antagonize an opponent properly.
It's very tempting to just go ahead cowboy-style with technology, as it's politically pretty innocuous. No soldiers in harms way and no collateral or even property damage make for very few apologies. But, they're still playing with fire they don't understand (and in capitol hill's case, can't even see or hear).
Then again, outside of a full-on war, state actions seem to follow an "everybody do their own thing and only worry when we conflict between departments" pattern that's depressingly familiar.