[pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback

[Marcus Kesler]

Howdy, I am sorry if part of my response is due to a loss in
translation. I realize that we are having this discussion in English
and that many of the participants are form multiple countries.

If you want to compare the DoS with real world examples, then I think
we need to make some distinctions clear:

DoS vs. Strike: A DoS is not the same as a strike. A strike is
initiated by the employees that are refusing to work to lobby for a
change. It is an action between employees and employer, not anything
close to Anon vs. RIAA et al.

DoS v. Street protest: In my opinion, a DoS is also very different
from a street protest. The real world equivalent would not be marching
on the street, it would be sitting inside the doorway of the business
and physically preventing customers who want to enter the store from
doing so. You are not on public property anymore, you are actually
entering the building. The requests have to reach the physical servers
hosting the information, they do not only affect the connection (ie:
street). Even in jurisdictions where protest are legal, even if a
permit is required, you can still be charged with interfering with a
business. And even if you protests are legal, if you enter a business
to prevent customers from entering you can still be charged with
breaking the law due to trespassing.

On the issue of "civil disobedience":

The United States Pirate Party, as well as the Pirate Party of
Oklahoma, simply cannot condone any unlawful actions, even if we think
that the laws are completely and utterly wrong. For the Pirate Party
(in the US) to even appear to endorse these actions would mean the end
of the Pirate Party (in the US). There is a reason why the Green Party
in the US is not calling for a great "Smoke In", because it would mean
the end of the Green Party. We can have a month long philosophical
discussion about "is Anon right or not", but if it is illegal then the
Pirate Party (in the United States) cannot condone these actions.

For me as the administrator of the Pirate Party of Oklahoma I fully
support the letter asking Anon to stop, if for no other reason as to
make it very clear that the PPOK will make sure that our activities
are fully within the scope of the law.

For me it is not an action against Anon, it is an action to protect
the Pirate Party in Oklahoma.

Marcus Kesler
Administrator
Pirate Party of Oklahoma

On 11/22/10, Kenneth Peiruza <kenneth at contralaguerra.org> wrote:
> IMHO, what Anonymous did is neither illegal nor immoral. At least where
> I am.
>
> As explained before, it is the net-equivalent to a street protest.
> Remember that street protests were illegal, immoral, forbidden and
> prosecuted for centuries. Nowadays everyone allows them on "the free
> world", and they are still prosecuted in dictatorial regimes. It took
> more than a century to achieve this right, don't start splitting it
> between the net and outside it.
>
> I expected Pirate Parties to fight for right-equivalence inside and
> outside the net, but this discussion shows how some pirates believe in
> apartheid between these two words.
>
> We are fighting because we have less freedom on the net than outside it,
> then, are we against strikes? Are we against our right to strike? are we
> accepting the lobby's crafted vocabulary?
>
> Remember what do the companies say about the protesters: they damage the
> economy, they don't let the people to go to work and so on: bullshit,
> it's a worker's right. Destroying stuff is a different thing, that is a
> sabotage, and sabotage should be illegal.
>
> A netstrike is not a sabotage, it's a strike, as when it ends,
> everything keeps running as expected, so:
>
> 1) it is not an attack: this is just using their words, crafted to make
> us look like criminals. This is as mislead as talking about Intellectual
> Property, when debating about Copyright, trademarks or Patents.
> 2) it is not illegal here (and it shouldn't be illegal to reload a
> website, we should fight for this right worldwide)
> 3) shouldn't be forbidden if it is announced and it's not forever, as a
> strike.
> 4) moral values are bullshit, as they differ from culture to culture and
> from time to time. It wasn't morally unacceptable to kill your child in
> the Roman empire, neither IS unlawful to kill a traitor in a war,
> neither killing a white guy who had sex with a non-white in the British
> colonies 200 years ago, so, moralists stay at home, please, as moral
> expires and law is made by the lobbies.
> 5) Traditional strikes do also cause a Denial of Service, and nobody
> says it is a DoS, people names it Strike.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
> Al 22/11/10 09:50, En/na Justus Römeth ha escrit:
>> I disagree here. You don't 'punish' unlawful/immoral actions by other
>> unlawful/immoral actions.
>>
>> On 22.11.10 09:34, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> Shutting down publishers' web sites is a nasty thing to do, but the
>>> publishers have done much nastier things to people.  For instance,
>>> setting up technological products to restrict their users,
>>> and imprisoning people who make technology to break those restrictions.
>>>
>>> When anyone objects to the former, we should respond by pointing out
>>> the latter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>