From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 10:59:17 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> This scheme is a thin
> disguise. Obviously, the participants are deliberately trying to set up a
> veil of plausible deniability. They want to be participants without
> consequences. The law doesn't recognize this status.
Well, I'll freely admit I'm proposing thinly-disguised deliberatly
provocative acts since Mr Bokov called for a discussion of tactics of
leaderless resistance.
I had perhaps a similar idea I posted a while back about copyrighted
books finding themselves distributed on the internet as a result of a
multitude of reviewers each employing fair use by quoting a paragraph or
two in an online review, followed by nefarious hackers making lists of
links to the reviews in paragraph order.
Given that such reviews might be marginal contributions to criticism ('I
loved this book. The first paragraph set the tone. Here it is:') I
suppose one could make a case that the individual reviewers were
knowingly participating in some sort of conspiracy, even though they had
no contact with each other (having perhaps only RSS syndication of their
reviews as a common element). They'd probably be easier to track down
than the nefarious link lister.
I wonder if this parallels the sixties development of hallucinogens
where new chemicals were concocted after the last week's drug had been
declared a controlled substance. As I recall some law was passed to end
this trickery (though I understand we're all guilty of this, having some
of these proscribed chemicals in our brains at all times). Would one
have to outlaw all innovative ways to configure network-coordinated
groups to prevent such configurations from being used for illegal purposes?
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 11:02:39 MST