Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Rachel Cox <rachel AT hesketh.com>]

At 02:03 PM 4/3/00 -0400, Michael Thomas wrote:
[snip]>The Electrohippies Collective have proposed a
>model of client-side distributed denial of service. This is the
>equivalent of a Denial of Service attack, except that it requires the
>opt in of many protestors to work, rather than the actions of a
>single hacker.
>
><http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/files/op1.htm>

From the article:

"Recent actions on the Internet against e-commerce sites are not
a matter of pleasure-seeking by bored computer nerds. They represent
a fundamental disagreement about the purposes of the Internet, and the
increasing emphasis on the use of the ‘Net as a vehicle for profitable
trade rather than of knowledge and discussion. As Jesus ransacked the
temple in Jerusalem because it had become a house of merchandise, so
the recent attacks on e-commerce web sites are a protest against the
manner of it’s recent development. But, do we label Jesus as a
terrorist? Those involved probably have a reverential view of the
‘Net. The public space that the ‘Net represents is being promoted
as a marketplace for large corporate interests, and many of those
who use the ‘Net for other purposes are dissatisfied with this.

"In recent weeks, there has been much discussion about ‘denial-of-
service’ (DoS) actions against certain e-commerce web sites. Whilst
the Internet was originally a place of discussion and networking, the
invasion of corporate interests into this space has changed the
perceptions of what the purpose of the Internet is. Some believe
that the Internet is no longer a ‘public’ space – it has become a
domain for the large corporations to peddle their particular brand
of unsustainable consumerism. For many this is unacceptable. The
increasing emphasis on control, driven by the needs of increasing
commerce on the ‘Net, is also seen by many as threatening the more
philanthropic basis of the ‘Nets original use.

"Whatever the views of particular people about the development of
e-commerce on the ‘Net, we must not ignore the fact that as another
part of society’s public space the Internet will be used by groups
and individuals as a means of protests. There is no practical
difference between cyberspace and the street in terms of how
people use the ‘Net."

First, they could learn the difference between "it's" and "its".

Second, I think it's a bit of an overstatement to equate DoS attacks
with Jesus driving the money changers from the temple. The Internet
is not sacred space reserved just for the righteous nonprofits among
us, nor is it of limited physical space - there's still lots of room
out there for non-commerce sites, and the cost is still quite low in
comparison with other media.

Third, were the Internet actually being taken over by ecommerce
sites, such that there were no room for non-commerce sites or that
non-commerce sites found it prohibitively expensive and could no
longer stay online, I'd agree there was justification for some sort
of vehement protest. Such is not the case. I have no patience for
this breed of "activism"; I can see no good coming from it, nor
do I believe the stated motives of the people involved. If they're
sincere, then I think they're guilty of some damned fuzzy thinking.
I don't like advertising; I don't like the horrifically consumerist
nature of our society; I don't like it that I can't get out of bed
in the morning without someone trying to sell me something; I don't
like the images of women in the popular media; I don't the over-
inflated expectations we're fed full of for things like homes,
jobs, and romance, by sappy advertising featuring perfect people;
and I don't like it that folks are starting to perceive the Internet
as a big shopping mall. Nope, I sure don't. But DoS attacks are not
the way to change that perception. One way to change that perception
is to make glorious web sites that aren't selling s**t and promote
the hell out of them.

Contrary to what the article suggests, the Internet is indeed still
*very much* a public space - far more so than any other medium I can
think of. Does anyone here have their own television show? Maybe a
few do on cable access. What about a nationally distributed newspaper
or paper 'zine? Radio show? Anything? And how many of us have our
own web site? Is there anything stopping users from coming to our
web sites? If we promote them, don't we get traffic? Heck, I don't
even promote mine and I get traffic. The last paragraph quoted
above deflates their entire argument: as long as the Internet
*can* be used by groups and individuals as a means of protest,
then it's still public space, and I've seen nothing to suggest
to me that that's in any danger.

Feh. If they want to be good little activists, why not fight for
something that's actually threatened?

-Rachel
 having a crabby day.


_____________________________________________________________________
tired of being an underappreciated functionary in a soulless machine?
          hesketh.com is hiring:  http://hesketh.com/careers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rachel Cox | voice: 919.834.2552 x16 | http://www.hesketh.com