I’ve always been a socialist, my whole family has. My family motto is “Crescit sub pondere virtus” which translates to “Virtue thrives under oppression”. Two of my grandparents flirted with joining the Communist party in the late 1940s when Britain stood between two emerging superpowers with differing ideologies. In the end they joined the Labour movement instead, which was almost the same for a while. My favourite musician is Bob Dylan, who famously wrote protest songs about nuclear proliferation, war, civil rights and liberty. To say that political activism and socialist ideals are close to my heart is an understatement.
So, it is with great interest that I’ve been watching the developments unfold in the Sony Hacking case. You see, it’s not just about piracy, hacking and console modification. It’s about freedom of expression and the right to be treated fairly by government institutions.
There are grey areas
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m totally opposed to piracy for financial gain. It helps fund organised crime. It puts people out of jobs. It makes people with families and mortgages scared for their future. Hacking and hardware modification for hobbyists and homebrew is something different though. There is much more scope for ambiguity there. There are grey areas.
I’m not suggesting that those who are breaking their end user agreements are right to do what they do and they’re almost certainly not right to release that work to the public where it is certain to be used for illegal and potentially immoral purposes. I’m not suggesting that the protest against Sony’s legal case is being conducted in an entirely harmless fashion. I am interested in whether it’s necessary, though.
Alan Moore is a favourite writer of mine. He wrote Watchmen, a comic book about a paranoid government imposing sanctions on masked vigilantes and forcing them to become government agents or retire. He also wrote V for Vendetta which is a dystopian view of the future in which England has succumbed to fascism (and the source of the famous Guy Fawkes mask that Anonymous uses). People are treated as parts in a machine by the totalitarian government. More importantly, V for Vendetta shows the fight against this police state and the freedom that can be found within rebellion.
makes a legal battle one of money and influence
V for Vendetta is clearly a work of fiction but, as with a lot of Moore’s writing, it has its roots in reality. In recent years we have seen an erosion of personal rights when it comes to legal action against large companies. Time and again, large companies have hired expensive legal teams to mire a case indefinitely while defendants lose livelihoods and go bankrupt trying to defend themselves. This essentially makes a legal battle one of money and influence. The recent attacks on Sony websites (as well as their lawyers’ and security consultants) is a protest against this perceived threat.
Is it right? Well, that depends on your personal perspective. I would say it’s going too far (particularly the accusation that activists are personally targeting Sony employees). I personally resent the inconvenience of not having access to the services I’ve become accustomed to (the PSN is suffering). I think the case against GeoHotz, which sparked the protests, is one which should probably ultimately result in his prosecution although what exactly for is something I’m not entirely sure about.
That doesn’t mean I’m entirely comfortable with the way Sony has gone about building their case though. Aggressively pursuing personal data of tangentially relevant parties strikes me as more than a little over the top. In short: I agree that it’s possible a crime has taken place but I don’t agree with the way Sony are being allowed by the Californian courts to attempt to prove that case. I can see why the protesters want to protest.
I can respect that conviction
The group (or groups) behind these attacks believe they’re fighting for something that’s right on a basic, human level and I can respect that conviction in a compassionate ideology. I can respect their desire to instigate change, even if I don’t condone the way they go about it. Although, I also believe that there comes a time when protest is essential to instigating change.
So, while I don’t necessarily agree with what the protestors are doing or the methods they are allegedly choosing, I can see what they believe they’re fighting against and I can sympathise with that. Does that make it any less frustrating when I can’t connect to the PSN to download the latest DLC? Of course not. Is a few days of disruption a price worth paying to ensure that all sides of an argument are heard, whether I agree or not? I think, for me, it probably is.
This blog reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the professional stance taken by TheSixthAxis or any of its staff.
quinkill
Here here, I pretty much made the same argument in comments on last article about Anonymous. People see this issue in Black and White and as you suggest the lines are not that well defined, IMO. Great read, thanks.
ray_gillespie
That’s a really interesting article, I enjoyed reading it. However, I would like to know your thoughts on socialism and liberty, two beliefs that are opposed yet both feature in your opening paragraph about your ideals. Attacking ‘the system’ is a libertarian ideal, yet attacking ‘big business’ is very much the opposite. Are the Anonymous attacks really a matter of liberty? Or are they simply a matter of one group vs another in a string of tit-for-tat attacks?
V for Vendetta is about an attack on the state, and hence an extreme right-wing approach to proliferation of liberty. Are the attacks on Sony the same as this or the opposite?
colossalblue
Well, this is hardly the place for deep ideological discussion and I don’t want to turn this into an argument about opposing and entrenched political views but I’ll respond a little bit to clear up the misconceptions you appear to have.
When I say Socialism, I mean the ideology, not the subversion of the term adopted by so called left-wing dictatorships and the right wing machine in the U.S. Socialism is a good thing, it promotes equality and public ownership (which in turn should ensure public benefit). It doesn’t always work but no pure ideology ever does. I think it’s a more compassionate starting point for building a society because it assumes each individual to be as worthy of a place in society as any other.
I believe that a large proportion of the people engaged in these attacks might be doing so because they wish to protect their civil liberties from further erosion. I think the right and ability to protest is important to maintain. I’m happy to have a few days of mild inconvenience if it means we preserve a greater cause. I understand why some are not.
V for Vendetta is about an attack on a /corrupt/ state, that’s an important differentiation. It’s about a rightful rebellion (possibly not conducted in a positive manner) against a totalitarian regime that crushes the ordinary people and exploits them. That kind of uprising is something which is only ever discouraged by the comfortable ruling classes.
ray_gillespie
Well, I strongly disagree with your assertions that I have misconceptions or that the degree to which a government is corrupt dictates whether or not the uprising is an act of right-wing libertarianism, but I do agree that this probably not the place for deep ideological discussion :)
Peter Rushton
From what I gather, a prick name geohots was being a prick and most likely going to ensure piracy.
Anoymous being jerks, short term pain for long term gain? **** that, I’m going away over all of Easter, I then have exams, I have no free time, I would spent it if any on the ps3 probably as I’m not allowed outside the house, regardless, this is a load of ****!
Boomshanks
Neither side is making it any better with the way they’ve been approaching things. As most people on this site, I think, I agree with the message that they’re trying to convey but disagree with the methods used. This counts for both Sony and Anonymous. the problem I have with Anonymous is that the group isn’t rulebound which, in my opinion, is terrible in a battle such as this. People talking about ‘attacking’ Sony employees being one of the things.
Pete_UK
The group doesn’t have rules or laws – it has principles, which are much stronger and cannot be twisted to serve an agenda.
Boomshanks
Where are these principles if people from within the group are talking about attacking Sony employees, or even worse gathering information about their children?
Pete_UK
It was one person making one comment, not a group. Principles allow for self-policing – that idea was never getting off the ground.
OneShotWook
A good read Colossal,i’m not sure anyone would disagree with the libertarian hacker ideal but in reality i’ve never met one,those i’ve known who have used homebrew have bar none always used pirated apps and games also (years ago myself included).
I tend to think this guy knew exactly what he was doing and in doing so forced this heavy hand which shocked most of us so sympathy here also fails me.A precedent?, possibly but you only have to look at the protests in our capital every week to see the little guy has been losing across the board and over far greater issues.
Anyway it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
hdcase
“I think the case against GeoHotz, which sparked the protests, is one which should probably ultimately result in his prosecution although what exactly for is something I’m not entirely sure about.”
First of all, it’s a civil case, not a criminal case. So prosecution doesn’t come into it at all. If he lost he would have to pay damages to Sony, not go to jail.
Also I understand you’re not a lawyer but I think it’s silly to say that someone should be prosecuted even though you don’t know what laws would apply. The reason we have laws in this country are so that the government can’t just charge someone because it feels like that person did something wrong.
colossalblue
I think it’s still a prosecution in a civil case, just not a criminal prosecution. I could be wrong though, as you point out, I’m not a lawyer ;)
As for thinking he should be prosecuted but not knowing what for, I understand what you mean. You’re right, that would be pretty stupid. What my intention was with that line was to imply that I think he broke a contract and possibly conspired or facilitated piracy so he should probably be convicted (after due process, of course) but I don’t know exactly what the appropriate charges are to fit what he did.
hdcase
I see, well consider that your pro-tip for the day. In the US, prosecution refers to the government’s side in a criminal case. =)
As for the civil case I think it could go either way right now. I think a lot will hang on whether he agreed to the Terms of Service or not. Of course right now Sony says he did and Hotz says he didn’t, and we don’t have all the facts yet.
hazelam
personally, i can live with losing the ps network for a while if it stopped sony stepping on the end user, the ultra agressive way they’re pursuing this while trying to get the other os removal suit dismissed if galling to say the least.
and there’s the issue of who truly owns the products we buy, an issue that is of great concern to me, though in my case it’s more the software i buy and whether i can trade it or give it away than the right to modify hardware i own.
the trouble is, i cannot see this working, simply put sony cannot afford to give in over this, if they give in to this, then they’re leaving themselves open to other groups who thinks if they’ve given in once, they’ll do so again.
that would be a dangerous precedent to set.
i don’t think this group can do enough damage to sony that they either have to back down or be destroyed, because short of that i can’t see sony backing down.
and whether or not this actually stands a chance of working, some of the other tactics they may or may not be employing, depending on who you believe, like going after people’s families? well.
they take that route and they stop being freedom fighters and become terrorists.
and nobody in their right mind should support a terrorist.
cc_star
There is no ‘going after people’s families’
Having looked into this today, its an anonymous message on an anonymous message board that literally anyone could have wrote whether it be a ‘member’ of anonymous or Sony’s head of PR. I’d personally errr on the side of Daily Mail-isms to say they’re targeting families.
If they stop the (D)DoS attacks on the PSN which they’ve said they have and instead will focus on uncovering the details of the staff, legal teams and judges involved from publicly available sources, I’d wonder what they’d do with that info, collate & post it online so people will send them hate-mail & spam or bogus pizza deliveries? I don’t really see what else they can do other than be an annoyance & inconvenience.
hazelam
i did say the tactics they may or may not be employing.
and i did make my statement conditional on them actually taking those actions.
if they have in fact not crossed over into taking those kinds of actions, then what i said doesn’t apply to them.
terrorism doesn’t just apply to physical violence.
making people think they might have HIV falls under that banner in my opinion.
i’m not saying they are doing this, i’m just giving my opinion of what i’d think of them if they did.
though there’s no way to know for sure it was a member of that group, there’s no way we can be sure it wasn’t either.
so i would say there’s justification for offering an opinion on either possibility, at least until we know for sure, and given the nature of the message board in question, we may never know.
unless they actually do it, mind you though, they will never be able to prove they never planned anything like this.
being anonymous has it’s drawbacks as well as it’s advantages.
Pete_UK
Hazelam, no disrespect intended but extending the term ‘terrorism’ (under its post-9/11 definition) to cover ‘making people think they have HIV’ is something that should never happen – please do not invite it.
xdarkmagician
@ Pete UK, I also mean no disrespect, but Hazel has every right to label them terrorists if she feels terrorized by their actions. I believe as you that the label terrorism is thrown about much to easily, but terrorism is a attack the preys on fears. Everybody has different fears, personally I’m more terrorized of gravity when I fly then the possibility of a guy with a bomb sitting next to me. If something is terrorizing, its technically a terrorists. Just because something horrifying happened to us/US on 9/11 doesnt give us the right to coin the phrase terrorists.
hazelam
i would disagree with your assertion that the word terrorist doesn’t apply here.
terrorism is about causing fear in a population, i don’t believe physical violence is the only way that can be done, there are the ways suggested by that unknown person on the anonymous boards.
and making these people’s families targets for harassment and who knows what else, “do what we say or we go after your family”?
whatever label you put on that it’s reprehensible.
would the thought that you might have been hiv positive for years not terrify you?
that you could develop aids, a terrible, wasting, fatal, as yet incurable disease.
next to being told you have cancer or that a loved one has died that is one of the worst things you could hear from any kind of medical professional.
i recall a time when ira bombs were a real threat in england.
the thing was, they would often send warnings to the police, so that meant people could be evacuated.
and sometimes the bombs safely disarmed.
but that still produced an atmosphere of fear, that was still called terrorism even though people weren’t killed, though sometimes they were so it’s not a direct comparison.
of course this is all dependant on them actually doing the things that mystery person suggested.
if that is in fact not something they would ever do, then we can both agree that they’re not terrorists.
Pete_UK
@hazelam; @xdarkmagician – The points you make are completely valid, I acceede to them. Thankfully, due to internal group policing inherent in hive mind constructs the call for such action from this one anonymous user will go unheeded.
Galgomite
Seems like everyone’s acting out of a feeling of powerlessness. Anonymous thinks the courts aren’t working and so pursues vigilante justice. Sony thinks the courts aren’t protecting their IP sufficiently and so are making George Hotz an example. And George Hotz… well, he had the power from the start, and he used it carelessly. I still don’t feel badly for him.
xdarkmagician
There are companies in this world right now fighting to patent human genes. They literally want to own life. They claim that a patent on a gene that causes breast cancer is the only way to secure their medication for breast cancer. Meaning no other company could manufacture medicine for breast cancer because it would violate the patent. They keep losing but they keep trying, because if they achieve the patent, they would control all medicine, how we get treated, what we pay, and who they treat. They want an un-regulated world where corporation is King. Where the only regulation is profit motivated. No matter what the product, corporations think that they are the only ones capable of regulation their products, just ask the tabacoo industry. Consumers have rights, period. But consumer rights come at the cost of the corporation, so corporations fight to remove them. I’m glad that there are people in this world who fight for those rights, even if it disrupts my personal life… or yours (sorry).
xdarkmagician
My only concern is that sometimes these groups are acting rash and out of spite, I still support the idea, but I wish they would act as tactical about it as their opposition. These grass roots activist don’t have the same capital or resources as a corporation, so they end up making what amounts to guerrilla assaults and end up being resented because of it. If all the activist groups were removed from this world people would miss them alot more then they think, these groups may not be perfect, but then again, if the corporations were perfect there wouldn’t be any need for them.
Pete_UK
The only reason these assaults end up with people resenting them is due to media spin – if the honest facts were made apparent and expressed fairly on say, the 6’o’clock news, that resentment would be greatly diminished, and given a fair hearing you might see these guerrilla assaults turn into something more constructive. At the moment though those involved are so oppressed by the media and governments that organising anything more substantial is next to impossible.
hazelam
maybe they would be seen in a better light, but some of the things people have suggested, on the groups own boards not some biased news site, do not paint them in a good light.
and unfortunately for them, the way they’ve chosen to go about what they’re doing there’s no way to know if those comments were genuinely from a member of the group, some radical faction or just somebody out to make them look bad.
anyway, i think the community reaction wasn’t entirely negative towards this group until the latest piece of news about their possible plans for escalating their actions.
believe me, i support some of their ideals, ownership of our purchases is a concern of mine, if you’ve read any of my views on drm and online passes and the like you’ll know i don’t believe these companies have a right to dictate what we do with what we’ve bought and paid for.
and some of sony’s actions while pursuing this case have been less than scrupulous, but then i wouldn’t say geohotz is a blameless victim either.
and his actions since the case began has looked a little suspect.
should he be found guilty?
honestly, i don’t know, but i’d hate to think he was found guilty because of legal tricks if he’s actually not guilty.
or whatever the equivalent of being guilty is in a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal trial.
xdarkmagician
That’s just it though, they can’t. They’re technically criminals in the minds of non-supporters, and the courts. They can’t do anything substantial until they adopt new tactics, you can’t fix everything buy turning on a computer and masking your IP address. Every person they upset becomes another Sony supporter, even if they don’t support Sony willing, they support Sony by turning a blind eye to the cause. Until they mature in their actions mainstream won’t treat them any different. Every battle anonymous wins will only be a battle won, they’ll never win the war. While they can no doubt, be able to maintain ping protest indefinitely, that’s about all they can do. Laws need to be changed, and for that we need a credible source to appeal to lawmakers. The whole ownership/ free information war won’t be won with just a Sony loss. The entire industry needs to lose. I want to win the war not just a battle, otherwise it’ll just start all over again with some other tech company.
OneShotWook
xdarkmagician i think upset is too strong a word for inconvenience,sony supporter is too strong a label for someone who knows of the issues but simply doesn’t share the instigators ‘battle’.
Many causes tout the subject of the ignorance of those not willing to take part,which is in itself an act of selfishness.
Is cheap rabble rousing any better than corporate manipulation? it is possible for it to remain a matter of informed opinion and is not always down to ignorance.
I don’t mean to offend here but the ‘simply by turning a blind eye you support’ mantra is not so black and white and is usually provocation not fact.
zb100
Great article. Thank you for restoring my faith in TSA.