Re: Re: Exactly 500 word essay on "Why hacking is cool, so that Marcus changes his web site"

["Marcus J. Ranum" <mjr () ranum com>]

Jonathan Karon wrote:
> It seems when you say tyranny, you're really saying "physically coercive
> governmental entity".

Well, yeah, that's what "tyranny" is: a government with absolute power.

> What about societal / economic systems that are
> implicitly tyrannic, and engineered to both support a governmental
> status quo and be self sustaining?  To refer back to a previous thread,
> if you don't have the language or genetics for dissent, are you not
> living under a tyranny by default?

I'd hesitate to use the word "tyranny" for economic or social
dominance, but I don't want to split semantic hairs, either.
The real question, I suppose, is whether that cultural, economic,
or social dominance was maintained or acquired through use
or threat of force.

It's always a matter of degree, of course, and that's one of the
most interesting things about the history of revolutions. Locke's
argument (which greatly influenced the American and French
revolutionaries) is that political power is granted by the consent of
the governed, and that revolutions are not entered into lightly
or because of small errors on the part of leadership. Indeed, The
Preamble of The Declaration of Independence is basically an
argument in response to Locke's writings on when revolution is
justified.

The question is whether cultural, economic, or technological
dominance is enforced or granted. To make it worse, they're
all intertwined and it's hard to separate them out. For example
let's look at a case in point:
        "Does the US control the internet?"
There are so many factors involved in answering that, we could
argue all day (so let's not) but I think we can agree that the
underlying technologies are well-enough known outside the
US that our control of the Internet (if there is any) has largely
been granted - it would be expensive and painful for the rest
of the world to decide to split off a new Internet. So, one of us
might feel that it's a US hegemony whereas another of us might
feel that it's something the US has been allowed to maintain
because it's cheaper and easier to allow it than to fight. Another
example of this is:
        "Does the US control the GPS?"
Again, the technology is well-enough understood that any
country that wanted to build its own need "merely" to invest
the billions to do it. US hegemony over GPS has been largely
granted because it's cheaper to leave it that way and because
we haven't made a fuss about it. Where things would get interesting
would be if we threatened to shoot down any alternate GPS
constellations that someone (say China or the EU) wanted to
put up. Or if we threatened economic consequences.

Where all this stuff gets interesting is at the point where
nation-states (or maybe WAL-MART or Microsoft) have so
much leverage that they can apply dominance in subtle
ways. I know this has been a long and apparently rambling
answer, but it's all relevant - "tyranny by default" does
not exist. Tyranny, I believe, is active abuse of power
(economic, political, technological, social) - the question
is whether you object to the existence of power whether
it's being abused or not!

> In terms specific to this discussion, what if your struggle is not
> against a government, but rather against the "free market" corporations
> that hold sway over that government?  In that context, where consumer
> credit is the gold standard of business, personal information is
> currency, and crucial systems are only crucial for ongoing profit, any
> compromise that disrupts the norms of business is a strike for freedom. 

The question I think that needs to be answered is whether a
revolution is appropriate, at this time.

By adopting the rhetoric of a revolutionary, are you implying that
it's time to dissolve the US Government because it has broken
its compact with The People?

The People judge when it's time for a revolution by either supporting
the rebels or by supporting the state. In its most basic form, this
becomes "voting with your blood" - what the democratic process
tries to avoid. (Democracy is just a sexy U/I atop warfare designed
to avoid it by indicating who would win if it came to armed conflict)
and rebels that call for rebellion too soon are considered "crazies,"
basically. Consider, if you will, Timothy McVeigh as a rebel. Most
of The People consider him a crazy, a terrorist, someone who
committed a horrible act. Apparently he did feel he was striking a
blow for freedom. The People weighed his actions and effectively
concluded that he did not have standing to declare that The State
should be dissolved. Succintly: the vast majority of The People
agreed that he was wrong.

McVeigh was wrong for another reason: unlike the founding fathers,
who wrote a beautiful Declaration of Independence, stated their
case clearly, and then grabbed their guns - McVeigh struck
without first asking for redress. McVeigh launched a military
first strike, with no attempt at diplomacy. Locke's "Right of
Revolution" depends on the notion that you have a duty to first
attempt to remedy the situation from within, before you can step
outside the system and call for its destruction. The reason for
that is simple: in a democratic society, if your attempts to change
the system from within are met with disinterest or skepticism,
it may be the case that you do NOT have a mandate from
The People. In which case, in a democracy, you're the minority
and, if you're playing by the rules, you shouldn't be a sore
loser.

> Any compromise that shows an individual how vulnerable they are to the
> whims of business is a strike for freedom.

No, it is not.

In fact, it is an attempt to bypass the political process through
unilateral action.

Like terrorism, such attempts to bypass the political process are
an implicit admission of a LACK of mandate from The People.
Terrorism and ad hoc strikes for freedom are the acts of people
who have looked at the democratic process, decided that they
didn't like the way the vote went, and decided they knew better
than the majority, anyhow.

So - I challenge you: If you REALLY believe what you claim,
that the US is suborned by commercial interests which need
to be fought - if you REALLY believe that The Constitution is
threatened by enemies from within, or without - run for office.
Go to Washington. Speak out. Organize. Lobby. Speak to
Congressmen. Talk to the media. But don't be like Tim McViegh
and arrogate upon yourself the standing to launch a unliateral
first strike.

And, if you lose in your attempt to change the system from
within, don't just assume that you were right and The People
were wrong. Put differently: Microsoft did not gain 99.99%
market share because everyone hates their products. If
you hate Microsoft's products, that's fine, but consider that
the operating system election was run and Microsoft won
by a landslide. Further, bear in mind that, when you take
upon yourself the mantle of a revolutionary you are saying
you've stood forward on behalf of The People. In that sense,
you are acting, as well, on my behalf. So, let me speak for
myself: if I catch you "hacking" on my behalf, I will do my
best to see you face a jury.

> And a reminder - political history is written by the victors, and only
> sums up the obvious.  That failed, fallen, and disfavored dictatorships
> always went down in history as physically coercive merely means that is
> what they were remembered for.  And yes, violence is a very effective
> means of coercion.  But so is societal suppression, newspeak and, my
> favorite, the American Dream.

You, clearly, do not understand The American Dream.

It is The American Dream that, among other things, lets you post
pseudo-revolutionary self-justifying immature blather on Internet
mailing lists.

mjr.