The pros and cons of worldwide net activism

I also posted this at the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate. I serve as Senior Policy Analyst for Technology for the Institute.

As new tools of civic and civil protest evolve – as in Iran, where protesters are using social networks to keep the rest of the world apprised of the response to that country’s recently held elections – they present both new opportunities and new challenges for freedom of speech.

Protesting using Twitter

Twitter has been singled out as the key communication platform for protesters and those watching them since last week’s election. It has enabled people around the globe to read real time accounts of the happenings.

It has also enabled people around the globe to participate in the protest in ways some have never seen before.

Such armchair activism has included setting up proxy servers to help Iranian tweeters get around government blockades of the site.

Another example was the attempted DDOS attacks on Iranian web servers from abroad (DDoS stands for Denial of Service, a method of hacking that involves sending lots of web requests every second with the hopes of overloading a web server and rendering a website unusable/unavailable).

Principally, the inclusion of non-Iranians in these protest efforts is a good thing. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. However, these particular actions raise serious ethical and legal questions that must be thought through.

As interested activists and citizens, we must be prudent in our actions to ensure they help more than hurt.

For instance, are we comfortable with the idea of private citizens using private networks to engage in network “warfare”?

By doing so, do we make our civilian network infrastructure a valid target to an adversary? What risks are associated with a group of private citizens sending an unintended message to a potential adversary in the form of a coordinated network disruption?

Perhaps we are, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Earlier this year, Russia basically did this to Georgia, and caught a lot of flack for it. This sets a precedent that is dangerous, especially if we don’t understand its consequences.

Another question: if the attacks were actually successful, wouldn’t we be destroying the only portals we have into the very place we’re so interested in?

After all, foreign journalists have been banned from covering the demonstration, and many have been jailed and/or beaten. To choke off an authentic supply of information would be strategically foolish.

Technology is an increasingly powerful and important part of our society and our culture. As it expands to touch more parts of our lives, we must be ever-mindful of its drawbacks as well as its benefits.

One Love. One II.

How the Left must handle President Obama

I was recently asked to comment on an article by Linda Burnham about how the Left, specifically the anti-Capitalist Left, should feel about and work with the Obama Administration. It’s called “Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency”.

There is real debate about how ardent Leftists, Progressive activists, think-tanks, etc. should approach the government under President Obama. Groups that have felt alienated by American politics and the pervasiveness of Conservative ideology have been frustrated & cynical for the past 60 years. They are not content with incremental solutions to big problems. They are almost offended when with presented with nuanced distinctions in policy or rhetoric that at the end of the day is not demonstrably different from the status quo.

While I find myself in this group much more often than not, there are some real opportunities to make progress on a fundamentally Progressive agenda. We must take proper advantage of these times, lest this once-in-a-generation opportunity pass us by.

Here is my full response:

5 Reasons Why Barack Lost the 1st Debate

I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.

What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:

1. Too much agreement
2. Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
3. Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
4. Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
5. Venezuela is a rogue nation

(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)

Debunking the racism survey

via Christian Progressive Liberal from Jack and Jill Politics

They Can’t Have That – Why I Don’t Trust Political Polls

Because when it looks like the outcome is not what those in charge would like to see, a statistical poll is published to scare the masses into doing something else.  Check out the results of the following poll about the “Racial Divide” in America:

Asked how much of America’s existing racial tension is created by blacks, more than one-third of white respondents said “most” or “all,” and 9 percent said “not much.” Only 3 percent of blacks said “most” or “all,” while half said “not much at all.”

Nearly three-fourths of blacks said white people have too much influence in American politics. Only 12 percent of whites agreed. Almost three times as many blacks as whites said blacks have too little influence.

Far more blacks than whites say government officials “usually pay less attention to a request or complaint from a black person than a white person.”

One in five whites have felt admiration for blacks “very” or “extremely” often. Seventy percent of blacks have felt the same about whites.

I have several problems with this poll.  First, it was conducted by individuals at Stanford University.  Given that Stanford is indeed, a premier, Ivy League of the West Coast College; the fact remains that it is also one of the most politically conservative colleges in the collegiate education system.  Because this is a historic election year, in which the real test will be in whether or not white people can really put aside their bigotry and make a choice based on qualification as opposed to race.

Michigan election update

By now, many of you have heard about what is happening in Michigan with the GOP trying to prey on people who are going through foreclosure and trying to disenfranchise them. So for all the call and emails I have received, I want people to know that we are on top of the situation. However, for as fun as it may be to beat up on Republicans, we need to make sure that our folks know how to fight back. First, being foreclosed on your home is not a valid reason for you to be challenged at the polls. So for the record:

If you move within 60 days of the election and you don’t change the address on your driver’s license or ID, you’re still eligible to vote at your old address, even if that address has been foreclosed.

I work with the Michigan Election Coalition and we are coordinating efforts to make sure have the proper information and the other way we fight back is by making sure that OUR folks are poll watchers and actually sign up to work the polls. For people that want to be poll watchers and otherwise get involved, contact the Michigan Election Coalition Coordinator, Tierney Eaton at michiganelectioncoalition@gmail.com and visit the website by clicking here.

Get off the sidelines, it’s not a game out here.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

Live at the DNC – I survived a PUMA

I’m finally at a place where I can write a full on post about what I’ve seen thus far at the Convention. It’s been interesting. In order to stay up to the minute on what I’m seeing, follow The SuperSpade on Twitter at http://twitter.com/superspade, where I’ll be sending updates from my phone on various events.

The PUMAs are coming

My shuttle ride in from the airport was 2.5 hours long. I shared that shuttle with an Obama volunteer, 2 Hillary Clinton delegates from Virginia, and a woman from Real Democrats in DC. What I found in them all were women that were ostensibly passionate about democratic and the Democratic Party, but who underneath were actually angry and disappointed in their party’s treatment of Hillary Clinton and how the party selects its nominee.

Some of the arguments made sense, but others had a strange hint of ‘my discrimination is better than yours’, even if it wasn’t intentional. For example, the Hillary folks never liked the caucus process, and I never really understood why. Now I do. They felt like caucuses gave some voters the chance to intimidate other voters in certain districts. Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be confused: that is code for Black voters scared away white voters in Black districts. It’s just like calling Barack Obama arrogant: the “pc” way of saying that he is out of place.

They did have a different take on why her time as First Lady should count as experience: the analogy was a family-owned business. In many cases, the husband’s name is on everything (loans, bills, etc.) and the wife may not even be on the official payroll. Nevertheless, she contributes to the business operations (management of paperwork, employees, travel planning, etc.) and also is effectively a consultant on business strategy and decisions (e.g. Should we open another store across town? Should I hire an intern? etc.). This I think has merit, since I KNOW that I consult significant other when making business decisions. The nuance of this though was probably lost in the election mayhem.

Another thing they said was that a lot of older women in the Northeast were withholding their money from the DNC, which is dangerous considering the amount of money that the Republican Party has been raising ($75 million compared to the Democrats’ $28 million).

What do they want?

Something has to be done to bring these women to the table. When I asked the woman from Real Democrats who she wanted held accountable, her answers were:

• The Democratic National Committee for ignoring their complaints on caucus practices
• The Obama Campaign for doing that and taking these upset voters for granted

None of these women had plans to vote for John McCain. They said that most of these women in their movement were hardcore Democrats that wouldn’t cross over; they’d rather stay home than do that. The problem is, crossing over and staying home have the same effect. I pushed her on this point and here response was “no stance, no respect.” Truer words were never spoken, even if I don’t like this particular context.

The really scary part: Hillary doesn’t control them

The press and the Obama campaign keeps saying that Hillary Clinton needs to “get her supporters in line.” These women were very clear when they said to me that there was nothing that Hillary Clinton could do or say to change their position. Nothing. What that means is that this thing has legs all its own, and their going to keep kicking and screaming.

Hopefully though, it’ll somehow die this week.

One Love. One II.

UPDATED: The SuperSpade on NPR's 'Day to Day' Thursday

Last week I recorded an interview for the Day to Day show on NPR. I was asked a series of questions relating Barack & Michelle Obama’s “terrorist fist bump,” as well as the election as a whole and whether or not there was an understanding of the Black experience in white America.

That interview is set to air on Thursday, 25 June 2008. Check your local listings to find out when it’s on in your area so you can hear it live. For those that can’t here it or those who are in places where there’s no NPR, I’ll put a link on this site as soon as I have one.

UPDATE: I’ll be on the What’s the new what? segment of Day to Day. The audio and my comments will be available on NPR’s site.

One Love. One II.