> I really like this attitude. And this is an interesting story that we
need to track.

A new message from Phineas Fisher: http://pastebin.com/TY42yRau

------

From a conversation with a journalist asking what I think about some
proposed government spyware regulation:

(me)
I saw, I don't really care so much about that kind of stuff though.
Intel agencies and police do what they want regardless of regulations,
and criminals like me do what we want regardless of regulations. I guess
it just provides a way for professional activists to feel like they're
accomplishing something.

(journalist)
Perhaps. So you take an absolutist view that laws can't stop, nor slow
down, abuse in this case?

(me)
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is reformists like them that
petition those in power for change can never accomplish anything more
than cosmetic reforms. Meaningful reforms, that resulted in real
improvements in peoples' lives, like the 8 hour workday or the end of
legalized segregation, were all the result of revolutionary movements
aiming to completely transform society, that represented an existential
threat to the system, to the point that those in power had to concede
something in order to maintain control.

States have realized that trying to completely suppress dissent, trying
to stamp out social movements as soon as they appear, doesn't work. It's
far more effective to manage dissent, to create acceptable and
ineffective channels for it, and through a variety of carrots and
sticks, co-opt and push social movements into those channels. That's the
role that most professional activists and the institutional left, albeit
unconsciously, play. Their professional success, access to the media,
and access to those in power to "win" cosmetic reforms are all
contingent on them helping to condemn and isolate those engaging in
"inappropriate" (read: effective) action, and praise those doing "good"
(read: ineffective) work.

A rare counterexample in the world of professional "internet rights"
activists is Gisela Pérez de Acha, who wrote a well researched report on
how the purchase and use of Hacking Team's software violated laws across
Latin America [1], but also writes editorials defending anarchists [2],
and is currently tweeting in support of the resistance in Oaxaca. And
no, "expressing solidarity" with the teachers in Oaxaca doesn't count
for activists in the US. It's easy to "support" movements far removed in
place or time, when there's no cost in doing so. Plenty of people that
today "support" road blockades and plaza occupations in Oaxaca were
quick to regurgitate the media's slander of BLM and OWS. Plenty of
people that today "support" the civil rights movement would be the
target of King's Letter from Birmingham Jail if they were alive in the
60s. And I'm sure plenty
of people who condemned the rioters in Ferguson support the Boston Tea
Party.

[1]
https://www.derechosdigitales.org/wp-content/uploads/malware-para-la-vigilancia.pdf
[2] http://www.sinembargo.mx/opinion/16-11-2014/29153

Unfortunately, especially among "privacy", "anti-surveillance", and
"internet rights" activists, that level of awareness is very rare. Most
lack any broader critique of the system outside of their very narrow
focus on surveillance (or even just specific kinds of surveillance),
lack any understanding of history and social movements, and lack any
chance of actually changing anything. But I'm not saying activism is
useless. Is writing a report on the legality of Hacking Team's software
going to change much? No, but I think it's still valuable work to be
doing. Showing the system won't even follow the rules it writes for
itself helps to delegitimize it, and is important work that, as part of
a larger movement, can result in change. What I'm saying is that
successful social movements have always had a wide variety of people
participating with a diversity of tactics. Activists need to stop
promoting their methods as the "correct" way to effect change. They need
to encourage and support those acting outside the confines of
professional activism, not condemn and illegitimize them. At least, if
they actually care about changing the world, and not just about
do-goodism, promoting themselves, and advancing their careers.