[Nettime-bold] Yay! or Nay? re Amy Alexander's Post

["Lachlan brown" <editors@london.com>]

I'm using the editors@london.com account as lachlan@london.com is no longer available to me.


'Terrorism' - its an important legal point and one that is worth reiterating indefinitely to assure the freedoms of individuals, collectivities, and even companies are ensured - is an inter-state, infra-state or supra-state matter. Your State has no business in PEACTIME redefining 'terrorism' to cover the mundane civil activity of 'hacking' whether this be chucking strings of code together or 'hacktivism' in its broader sense (as it was defined by Wark to cover cultural production in general) which may be understood as exercising the right of free assembly and association, and in some respects also the freedom of expression. The civil and criminal codes of most countries already cover 'cracking' in the technical sense.

However, we are now at War. In War reason has no arsenal. 

We have permitted our governments to take us to War. Even the country I am 'making a return' to, Canada, has declared War, joining the 'coalition' despite a string of insults from the Governement of our American kin (Canada's best contribution will be in the field of 'intelligence', Canada's best response will be drawn from the depths of its cultural 'resentisment') In law a condition of war now prevails. We have thereby surrendered normal freedoms to this contingency of War which include the implementation of 'war measures' designed to assist in the waging of war. The extraordinary powers of the UKs Anti-Terrorism Law were 'war measures' powers for a time of peace. The repressive aspects of this Law and additional repressive measures in the interests of waging war will now become implemented generally.


There was a brief period in which the proclamation of war was, in fact, illegal as no enemy nor state had been identified. America allowed its humanity- its reaction to witness, real and televised, of events in NYC -to blind itself to what is effectively a coup d'etat - whether designed or not, this is the outcome.

The nineties and very early noughties was a time when we could freely exchange opinion and even be critical and creative in aesthetics and in politics (except at Goldsmiths College, University of London). This was our right. It is one of the rights the War is being waged to uphold, or so we are being led to believe.

We permitted our witnessing, our reaction and our failure to adequately analyse an act of terror to be 
articulated by our governments to begin a process that will end our civil rights. We allowed our humanity to be used against us.

We are not permitted to identify with the position of our enemy. We are not permitted to provide counter media. We are not allowed to share in the decision making process whereby 'enemies' are identified. We are not permitted to provide comfort or support to our enemies (however they are defined).

Nettimers. You are in many countries. Some of your countries may remain neutral. In these countries can you begin to implement measures whereby those of us in States that are at war may continue, where possible, to communicate, make media, dissent. Electronic/mainstream/alternative print media.

As I say, there was/is a short time where the 'inertia' of culture - the residue of rights and beliefs we still/once breathed like air, and that we assume/assumed are still available to us, permit/permitted us to speak, behave, and believe as if the true conditions we are now under are merely a bad dream.

Use this time wisely. Consider the broad based nature of the threat to our rights, to our CONSTITUTIONs, versus the threat of 'terrorism' and 'networks of terror' real or imagined.

Consider our affinities which lie in the celebration (even in, or should I say especially in, our hot cultural contest in the public, aesthetic, politic and ligitic realms) of our differences.

Consider the world we have, and the world we are being led to. 


The Anti-Terrorism Law in the UK was a piece of war measures legislation adapted to a country at peace. Full War Measures legislation to last the War of 'infinite justice' or 'enduring freedom' will now be imposed generally.

A successful defence could be based on the fact that 'enemy' is a pretty ill-defined category in this war 'a network of terror', assuming reason has not become the first casualty of war. Of course, at War, reason and reasonableness are the first things hauled before the summary Military court, blindfolded and led to the wall. 

Choose Yay!
or
Choose Nay.

Lachlan



On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Lachlan Brown wrote:
>
> However, hacking is not terrorism. Unless the hack is specifically intended to disrupt electronic networks to influence by terror government and public opinion, or the hack contains content shown to be intelligence to aid an act of terror. I can't think of any possible example where terror could be induced by code and distributed computing.
> Irritation, boredom, hilarity, annoyance, yes, but outright 757 --> WTC terror, no.
>
>  The basic legal argument is that acts of terror are, to put it mildly, undemocratic means to influence opinion and policy. Hacking is more likely to impact upon individual, institutional or corporate rights, for which there is ample contingency in the criminal and civil laws of most countries.
>

well, yes, it definitely seems to defy logic and i think most people's
understanding of existing legal definitions, but, if the securityfocus
article is correct, then:

"Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the
provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to
crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to
deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that
harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a
computer are included in the definition of terrorism."

meaning, they're planning to write certain network/systems-based misbehaviors
into the legal definition of terrorism in the US anyway.

note, this is a quote from www.securityfocus.com - a well-known computer
security website. i have not been able to locate the actual text of
the ATA that includes this so far. (seems the recent revisions aren't
on the eff site?) anybody know if this is online someplace?

and yes, you bring up the "hacking" vs. "cracking" terminology issue,
since you and i and millions of others "hack" at code without breaking
laws or even being naughty. it's "hacking" as opposed to "cracking."
it's interesting to see security focus using the term "hacking" rather
than "cracking," which is usually a faux-pas made by the non-technical
press. i'm guessing they may have used the term "hacking" because the ATA
seems to be including offenses that aren't strictly "cracking" in the
sense of breaking into a machine. (or they're just lazy or trying a
cheap trick to get their readers' attention. :-) )

-@

-- 

____________________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 



Powered by Outblaze

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold