[pp.int.general] General Strikes
Justus Römeth
squig at dfpx.de
Mon Nov 22 20:35:25 CET 2010
In Germany for example a general strike put down a military putch in the
early 19twenties. One of the first things Hitler did when he got power
was to dismember the Unions (#3 after Communists and Social Democrats).
On 22.11.10 20:12, Francisco George wrote:
> General Strikes, a strike directed to protest against *government
> rules*, are not that common in the US, in fact I think General Strikes
> never occured in the US. Tell me if I'm wrong. If we except the strike
> in Boston against the British empire that wanted to increase the taxes
> on TEA, if I do remember well that protest turns in the Idenpendancy
> war against UK war that would set the spark of the French revolution a
> few years later.
>
>
> But here, in Europe, they are quite common and are part o the history
> of any Sindicate movement.
>
> Best regards
>
> Francisco George
>
> 2010/11/22 <pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net>>
>
> Send pp.international.general mailing list submissions to
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> pp.international.general-owner at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-owner at lists.pirateweb.net>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of pp.international.general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Kenneth Peiruza)
> 2. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Marcus Kesler)
> 3. Re: Terminology: P2P (John Fanning)
> 4. Re: Terminology: P2P (Marcus Kesler)
> 5. Re: Terminology: P2P (Maxime Rouquet)
> 6. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Richard Stallman)
> 7. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Choms)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:03:49 +0100
> From: Kenneth Peiruza <kenneth at contralaguerra.org
> <mailto:kenneth at contralaguerra.org>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>>
> Message-ID: <4CEA7845.6060801 at contralaguerra.org
> <mailto:4CEA7845.6060801 at contralaguerra.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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 R?meth 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
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:00:24 -0600
> From: Marcus Kesler <marcus at d-usa.info <mailto:marcus at d-usa.info>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=4DGqzz1ius1q-dPB0OeGurgG7BCDi1EYqF-Q_ at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:4DGqzz1ius1q-dPB0OeGurgG7BCDi1EYqF-Q_ at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 R?meth 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:22:25 -0500
> From: "John Fanning" <john at netcapital.com
> <mailto:john at netcapital.com>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> To: "'Pirate Parties International -- General Talk'"
> <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>>
> Message-ID: <06f001cb8a59$18413480$48c39d80$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> It is moronic. The internet itself runs p2p.
>
> john
>
> - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P
> itself is
> illegal.
>
> John W Fanning
> Chairman Netcapital
> john at netcapital.com <mailto:john at netcapital.com>
> facebook.com/gninnaf <http://facebook.com/gninnaf>
> twitter.com/john_fanning
> 781-925-1600 <http://twitter.com/john_fanning%0A781-925-1600> Direct
> 650-814-8800 Cell
>
>
> CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Unless otherwise specified, all ideas,
> creative concepts and opinions, including?
> any attachments, as well as the selection, assembly and
> arrangement thereof,
> are the sole property of Netcapital.com LLC
> ? 2010, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The content of this email is the
> property of
> Netcapital.com LLC and is?
> protected by U.S. and international copyright and other intellectual
> property laws. You may view, download, print and?
> retain a copy of pages of this email only for your own personal
> use. Except
> as expressly provided above, you may not?
> use, download, upload, copy, print, display, perform, reproduce,
> republish,
> modify, license, post, transmit or distribute any?
> information from this email in whole or in part without our prior
> written
> permission. If you wish to obtain permission to?
> reprint or reproduce any materials appearing here contact the
> sender. All
> rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net>
> [mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net>] On
> Behalf Of
> Justus R?meth
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:42 AM
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Subject: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
>
> Just a quick thing that I read multiple times, and would like to get
> accross:
>
> - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P
> itself is
> illegal. I for one enjoy downloading stuff like Ubuntu via
> torrents, for
> example. Now sharing copyrighted material, on the other hand, is
> illegal
> in a few countries, may that be P2P or by other means. I think it is
> important to distinguish between the two, as it is legally (!) not the
> same thing. If we don't distinguish between the two, how can we expect
> lawmakers from traditional parties to do that?
>
> Thx for reading this.
> -J
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:40:03 -0600
> From: Marcus Kesler <marcus at d-usa.info <mailto:marcus at d-usa.info>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>>
> Message-ID: <4CEA8ED3.4070101 at d-usa.info
> <mailto:4CEA8ED3.4070101 at d-usa.info>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> But most of the special interest groups are moronic enough to pretend
> that it is only used for criminal purposes.
>
> On 11/22/2010 9:22 AM, John Fanning wrote:
> > It is moronic. The internet itself runs p2p.
> >
> > john
> >
> > - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P
> itself is
> > illegal.
> >
> > John W Fanning
> > Chairman Netcapital
> > john at netcapital.com <mailto:john at netcapital.com>
> > facebook.com/gninnaf <http://facebook.com/gninnaf>
> > twitter.com/john_fanning <http://twitter.com/john_fanning>
> > 781-925-1600 Direct
> > 650-814-8800 Cell
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
> > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Unless otherwise specified, all ideas,
> > creative concepts and opinions, including
> > any attachments, as well as the selection, assembly and
> arrangement thereof,
> > are the sole property of Netcapital.com LLC
> > ? 2010, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The content of this email is the
> property of
> > Netcapital.com LLC and is
> > protected by U.S. and international copyright and other intellectual
> > property laws. You may view, download, print and
> > retain a copy of pages of this email only for your own personal
> use. Except
> > as expressly provided above, you may not
> > use, download, upload, copy, print, display, perform, reproduce,
> republish,
> > modify, license, post, transmit or distribute any
> > information from this email in whole or in part without our
> prior written
> > permission. If you wish to obtain permission to
> > reprint or reproduce any materials appearing here contact the
> sender. All
> > rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net>
> > [mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net>] On
> Behalf Of
> > Justus R?meth
> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:42 AM
> > To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> > Subject: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> >
> > Just a quick thing that I read multiple times, and would like to get
> > accross:
> >
> > - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P
> itself is
> > illegal. I for one enjoy downloading stuff like Ubuntu via
> torrents, for
> > example. Now sharing copyrighted material, on the other hand, is
> illegal
> > in a few countries, may that be P2P or by other means. I think it is
> > important to distinguish between the two, as it is legally (!)
> not the
> > same thing. If we don't distinguish between the two, how can we
> expect
> > lawmakers from traditional parties to do that?
> >
> > Thx for reading this.
> > -J
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:53:30 +0100
> From: Maxime Rouquet <maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org
> <mailto:maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <4CEA91FA.3020000 at partipirate.org
> <mailto:4CEA91FA.3020000 at partipirate.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/22/2010 01:16 PM, Brendan Molloy wrote:
> > It is basically illogical to ban an entire concept, because
> copyright
> > infringement is rampant using the client/server model (RapidShare et
> > al), peer-to-peer (DC++, Gnutella, ED2K, BitTorrent) and the
> > sneakernet.
>
> That is not completely illogical. Our enemies are mostly
> intermediaries
> in music or movies distribution that are afraid because there are
> becoming useless.
>
> P2P is a greater enemy to them than direct download or streaming,
> because it makes people understand we do not need centralized
> distribution with such intermediaries anymore.
>
> Direct download and streaming sites make money, they can be more
> easily
> taken down, taken control of, or heavily taxed in the benefit of these
> obsolete intermediaries. P2P is free and decentralized, which is in
> complete contradiction with their way of doing. So if they can have it
> disappear, they will.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:36:12 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org <mailto:rms at gnu.org>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Justus R?meth <squig at dfpx.de <mailto:squig at dfpx.de>>
> Cc: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <E1PKZNE-0004FW-O1 at fencepost.gnu.org
> <mailto:E1PKZNE-0004FW-O1 at fencepost.gnu.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>
> I disagree here. You don't 'punish' unlawful/immoral actions by
> other
> unlawful/immoral actions.
>
> I think we are not talking about the same issue. You seem to be
> talking about whether Operation Payback is right or wrong. I am
> saying that question is a distraction from the real issue, and we
> should not be distracted.
>
> If our adversaries are citing the actions of Operation Payback to
> paint themselves as victims and win support for their oppressive
> plans, that is a fallacious argument. How should we refute it?
>
> It is a common practice for those with power to deflect attention from
> their big wrongs by focusing condemnation on the smaller wrongs of
> people opposed to them. The "moderate" opposition, fearing being
> associated with this criticism, often bends over backwards to condemn
> those smaller wrongs. By doing so, it supports the distraction
> campaign.
>
> Whatever we say about Operation Payback's DDOS attacks, we should not
> make them the focus our attention. Instead, we should put that issue
> in perspective by showing that the publishers are doing far nastier
> things. Society should put a stop to them. Then it can look at
> smaller issues such as DDOS attacks (if they continue).
>
> --
> Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org <http://www.fsf.org>, www.gnu.org <http://www.gnu.org>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:14:45 +0100
> From: Choms <choms at botmania.net <mailto:choms at botmania.net>>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>>
> Message-ID: <7104D1AF-83CD-4D8F-BF3F-1D95D09FE5C7 at botmania.net
> <mailto:7104D1AF-83CD-4D8F-BF3F-1D95D09FE5C7 at botmania.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> El 22/11/2010, a las 16:00, Marcus Kesler escribi?:
>
> > 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.
>
> As long as I know, a General Strike is against state, not
> employees against their companies, so... what's the difference
> between a General Strike and a DDoS who protest against some laws
> (state) and companies (part of the power of the state)?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Inside the building? that, refereed to computers, it's called
> cracking... go inside a system and broke it from inside, ant yes,
> that is illegal... Make petitions from Outside to a server is more
> like ringing the bell for a lot of people at same time... so the
> people inside the building doesn't know if open the door or not...
> like the demonstration in front of MCU :P
>
> So is erroneous your statement, is not private property (unless
> you think your internet line is private property of your ISP).
> Also, in a normal strike people also prevents workers and
> customers to enter the shop.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I agree with this part, but I refer to Stallman's mail... It's
> simply a distraction method... Payback is unrelated to any Pirate
> Party, why are you making a relationship between both groups
> sending a open letter about it? If is not our problem, why we have
> to intervene?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Really I understand you want to protect your PP, but you have to
> admit that the letter was unnecessary and offensive for that
> group. There's another ways (in the case that, after this
> conversation you still think that the letter was necessary) to say
> the same thing without offending people.
>
> Salu2
>
> >
> > Marcus Kesler
> > Administrator
> > Pirate Party of Oklahoma
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> pp.international.general mailing list
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
> End of pp.international.general Digest, Vol 45, Issue 47
> ********************************************************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20101122/4b3dd5a9/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the pp.international.general
mailing list