From Anonymous To Shuttered Websites, the Evolution of Online Protest 82
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."
little man vs. business (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??
Protests need to mean something. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Ethical DDoS protest (Score:5, 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.