[hackerspaces] revspace and randomdata in the news re wikileaks ddos story

[Matthew McCabe]

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Thoreau-Emerson-and-Transcendentalism.id-134.html

On Saturday, December 11, 2010, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-shudders-at-large-block-of-uninterrupted-te,16932/
>
> /troll
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Matthew McCabe <matt at mrmccabe.com> wrote:
>
> http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>> Law is societal ethics.
>>
>> If you breach law, you breach ethics as defined not by you, but the society
>> you are a part of.
>>
>> Breaking the law is unethical.
>>
>> QED
>>
>> /troll
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Yves Quemener <quemener.yves at free.fr>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you equal disobedience with violence and revolt ?
>>>
>>> > Until you have rendered the application of law a functional
>>> > impossibility, all that you are is either a worthless protestor or a
>>> > criminal.
>>>
>>> That I can agree on, but in democracies, retorting to violence and
>>> secession is not the only mean to achieve that. Retorting to numbers is
>>> the
>>> other way. If millions refuse to respect a law, it is likely to change. If
>>> millions support one person that broke a law, it is likely to change.
>>>
>>> If we say "keeping websites like wikileaks online is worth breaking some
>>> bad laws" it is a political message that will have a strong impact on
>>> policies if millions support it.
>>>
>>> But you are right on something : I am personally too coward to go break
>>> laws and risk jail time. I prefer to pursue the slower but safer legal way
>>> of developing software that can help. However, I see no contradiction in
>>> supporting publicly the persons that have the guts to stand up.
>>>
>>> When a journalist or a human rights activist is arrested in an
>>> authoritarian country, we have no problem supporting this person even when
>>> it means supporting a "criminal" by local standards. Why can't we accept
>>> that there might be similarly bad laws progressively coming in our
>>> democracies and that peoplke breaking them might be ethical ?
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2010 01:13 AM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>>> > To the "revolutionaries" and "activists" of the world.   If you are
>>> > going
>>> > to revolt... bloody revolt already.  Stop threatening to do it and just
>>> > get
>>> > it over with already.
>>> >
>>> > Standing around with a sign, and ddosing mastercard is not a revolt.  A
>>> > revolt is a group of guys with assault weapons siezing territory and
>>> > shooting otherwise would be authority figures.  Unless you are willing
>>> > to
>>> > go kill people, and probably yourself in the process.... by all means
>>> > stop
>>> > pretending anything done is somehow analogous to revolt.
>>> >
>>> > It's not.  Until you have rendered the application of law a functional
>>> > impossibility, all that you are is either a worthless protestor or a
>>> > criminal.  That's reality.  Cold and hard.
>>> >
>>> > Sorry if you delusional belief in your revolutionary hat is challenged
>>> > by that.
>>> >
>>> > /troll
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
>