The other day his Twitter feed was cleaned up and a single tweet remained: http://twitter.com/#!/atopiary/status/94225773896015872 reading "You cannot arrest an idea". I guess he saw this coming.
Almost positive that's a direct quote toward the end of Alan Moore's V for Vendetta . Which kinda makes me grin and roll my eyes at the same time.
I've been listening to the teaching company's audio lectures on the history of freedom, and I think the idea that "you can't kill an idea" is also represented in Socrates & Jesus-- both of their influences did not waver after death.
/historynerd
Any way we could get you to share more of your story?
Not much to say. It was part of operation sundevil. I was never arrested or indicted and eventually got all my equipment back. I'm not sure if it is SOP, or the Secret Service thought they were dealing with violent criminals. But they knocked down the front door with one of those rams you see on TV , ran room to room "securing" everything. Once they realized they were dealing with a scared 13 year old they seemed mor…
> It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. ~Voltaire Our governments have no comprehension or understanding of the prospects or implications that the internet has on modern civilization. When an individual can take down an organizations method of operation (mastercard/visa/paypal), it isn't the individuals fault (regardless of their actions) it is the organizations fault.…
> When an individual can take down an organizations method of operation (mastercard/visa/paypal), it isn't the individuals fault (regardless of their actions) it is the organizations fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It's illegal, they get arrested, it's simple really. > You don't blame someone for stealing from a bank when they pile gold bullion in the entrance without a guard in sight. You blame the bank because…
>Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law.
I think it's more relevant that what they did was willfully malicious. I probably regularly violate laws that I'm not even aware of, but the fact that I'm not intentionally doing harm to anyone establishes some kind of innocence.
> When an individual can take down an organizations method of operation (mastercard/visa/paypal), it isn't the individuals fault (regardless of their actions) it is the organizations fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It's illegal, they get arrested, it's simple really. > You don't blame someone for stealing from a bank when they pile gold bullion in the entrance without a guard in sight. You blame the bank because…
>Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law. I think it's more relevant that what they did was willfully malicious. I probably regularly violate laws that I'm not even aware of, but the fact that I'm not intentionally doing harm to anyone establishes some kind of innocence.
One of the critical measures though is that most activists openly do so. Someone up-thread mentions that MLK was a criminal, and he was. As was Ghandi, and others. But they said here I am, here is what I am doing, and why I am breaking this law. And for civil disobedience to be effective, here's the kicker, they welcomed and expected the punishment. The idea that we would arrest another human being for sitting at a l…
Civil disobedience is only one of many forms of activism. The people who ran the underground railroad were in no hurry to make their identities known. Where they any less activists for it? An arrested hacker activist is a hacker in activist. Expecting them to allow themselves to become arrested is absurd.
Actually, forcing arrests is a very effective form of civil disobedience. One of the most effective civil disobedience campaigns I have seen was one that aimed to poke holes in wide and loosely defined laws being used by police for openly racist reasons (that is, we don't like your kind here). Some states in Australia have laws that can be used to arrest almost anyone for very little reason. For example, public nuisance, indecent language, resisting arrest (yes, people are often charged with, and only changed with, reacting to police attempt to arrest). Basically the campaign involved indigenous Australians going alone to places they knew would get them arrested, getting arrested, and then refusing bail. When bail is refused you are assigned the first available court session. The plan was a success, after 2 weeks the courts were completely clogged with cases judges would instantly throw out (because the prosecution case was beyond flimsy). Attention granted, laws were slightly changed, and some police officers were charged with contempt of court. Allowing yourself to be arrested is a valid activist tool for change.
The top minds behind Lulzsec are worth more to federal authorities ALIVE - when (or if) they are caught. By alive, I mean: not in a prison cell. Frank Abagnale Jr. comes to mind.
No they're not that good, if the arrests are correct then they're actually pretty bad. For the little value that they are worth, they're worth far more as an example to be made for others.
Actually, arresting them is next to worthless. Does the oodles of cash spent each year pursuing, prosecuting, jailing, fining, policing and enforcing vandalism cases result in decreased vandalism? Boredom is a social problem, no amount of enforcement will reduce bored kids desire to break stuff. If anything, drawing attention to Anonymous only attracts more people to it.
> When an individual can take down an organizations method of operation (mastercard/visa/paypal), it isn't the individuals fault (regardless of their actions) it is the organizations fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It's illegal, they get arrested, it's simple really. > You don't blame someone for stealing from a bank when they pile gold bullion in the entrance without a guard in sight. You blame the bank because…
>Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law. I think it's more relevant that what they did was willfully malicious. I probably regularly violate laws that I'm not even aware of, but the fact that I'm not intentionally doing harm to anyone establishes some kind of innocence.
"The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently."
One may still be charged with obstruction of justice if there is a definite attempt to make unavailable evidence needed for a case, even if the unavailability is temporary until a suitable mirror can be found. It's such a broad definition for a criminal charge to have, and in this case I really think they would consider it.
Don't be silly. If a murderer burns the clothes in which he perpetrated the murder, he's not 'destroying evidence' in addition to being a murderer. Something must first have been determined to be evidence, before destroying becomes a criminal act. Neither are you obstructing justice by hiding evidence.
Actually, I believe that is the case, although the charge pales in comparison to murder. IANAL, but the Green River Killer was convicted of contaminating a crime scene because he left false evidence to throw off investigators. From that, it appears that intentionally tampering with evidence of a crime - even if you created it - is illegal.
So we shouldn't arrest people when they commit a crime because others are committing the same crime? Or because they're doing it in a high-profile manner? I'm not sure what your point is here.
I think his point is that by doing this we are simply treating the symptom (breach in security), and not the cause (unsound security measures). It appears to me as "security theater" in every sense that I understand the phrase.
Although, of course, the police aren't the ones who would be patching up the security vulnerabilities anyway. So arresting unethical hackers and securing systems aren't mutually exclusive. What a country!
Don't be silly. If a murderer burns the clothes in which he perpetrated the murder, he's not 'destroying evidence' in addition to being a murderer. Something must first have been determined to be evidence, before destroying becomes a criminal act. Neither are you obstructing justice by hiding evidence.
For similar reasons you are not compelled to incriminate yourself.