Computerized resistance after the big flood
Stefan Krempl
16.02.2000
Email Interview with Ricardo Dominguez, a pioneer of Net activism and one of the founders of the Electronic Disturbance Theater
The Tribal Flood Network family that was programmed by the German hacker Mixter has been in the news over the last few days as one of the tools probably used in the Distributed Denial of Service attacks (DDoS) last week against the likes of Yahoo.com, Buy.com, or CNN.com. Many people think that the attacks could have been a protest against the on-going process of the commercialisation of the Internet.
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
Just a few weeks ago the artist group Etoy celebrated its victory against Etoys and the action taken against the toy seller was definitely a protest against the new commercial powers of the Internet. In the toywar a tool principally working similar to DDoS tools was targeted against the Etoys website, the so-called FloodNet. FloodNet was basically developed by the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT) -- a group of activists "managed" by Ricardo Dominguez, Stefan Wray, Carmin Karasic and Brett Stalbaum -- during the Zapatista actions against the Mexican government. Telepolis talked with Ricardo about the differences and similarities between TFN and FloodNet, about the future of EDT (their site went offline after protests by Etoys and other online activists against the use of FloodNet in December) and Electronic Civil Disobedience (ECD), and about the mix of real and virtual protests.
How do you judge the recent attacks?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: This was done in a more traditional hacker disposition of secrecy and not as a specific form of information dispersal on an issue -- beyond the issue of power and who has it at the moment. |
Have these crashers "stolen" your idea?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: They did not steal anybody's idea -- they have just added another tweak to the flow of code. You must remember that the Zapatista Networks broke into the electronic fabric, as practice in 1994. Critical Art Ensemble helped to define Electronic Civil Disobedience theory in 1995 as well. The Netstrike movement in Italy emerged about 1996 as a practice that directly led to the development of the Zapatista FloodNet and EDT in 1998. Then in 1999 the rise of international Hacktivism. Each stealing from the next ad infinitum. |
Do you see any political or ideological connection between the FloodNet and DDoS tools like the Tribal Flood Network family?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: The Tribal Flood Net does function in a similar manner to the Zapatista FloodNet in terms of not destroying the web site or hacking into important data (the practice of Electronic Civil Disobedience). Unlike, the Zapatista FloodNet is/was not mass-distributed in terms of the number of individual's needed to create a disturbance on the URL -- the purpose of FloodNet is to distribute information.
EDT's actions are also transparent -- almost translucent. Everyone know what we are going to do, when, and why -- everyone knows who we are. |
Will the way TFN and other DDoS Tools were used against major web sites change your opinion about using FloodNet?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: No. I believe that different methods of Electronic Civil Disobedience should be developed for use as quickly as possible by as many groups as possible, on as many levels as possible for both on-line and off-line activism. With non-violence and mass-representation as disturbance at the heart of each script.
During the Etoy action we had a single-bullet script which could have taken down Etoys -- a tactical nuke, if you will. But, we felt this script did not represent the presence of a global group of people gathering to bear witness to a wrong, in the manner that the Zapatista FloodNet does. We call for disturbances and distribution, not destruction.
EDT also wrote back in early 1998: "While at present a catalyst for moving forward with ECD tactics, the Electronic Disturbance Theater hopes to eventually blend into the background to become one of many small autonomous groups heightening and enhancing the ways and means of computerized resistance." |
Do you consider the protests against Etoys a cornerstone in political activism on the Net?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: Etoy action showed us that Electronic Civil Disobedience is an extremely useful tool when faced with a foe that only has a digital presence. This is indeed a victory for the future of the small and the many -- something that the Zapatistas have shown as part of their networked-culture since 1994. |
How many people join your virtual sit-in's usually?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: Which Sit-In? The Etoy Sit-In's we have no numbers for. We had many different sites doing action around the world. So it is hard to know. As for the 16+ Zapatista Sit-In's between 1998 and 1999 against the Mexican Government over 100,000+. |
Why did you choose to auction off the EDT site on the
![[External Link]](http://www.rtmark.com/icons/extlink.gif)
Thing in December after it was shut down because of Etoys complaints against the Thing?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: EDT wanted to raise money for the Chiapas Media Project (a group who help Zapatista communities in Chiapas with Video and Computer development). Since the site was no longer up -- we thought it would be a good use for it. |
Did someone buy it?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: No -- not that I have heard. |
Was EDT the only FloodNet "technology"?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: At one minute after midnight on Jan 1, 1999 we gave away software to the Zapatista FloodNet -- since then several new versions have been developed. |
There are more and more critics of virtual sit-in's and Internet activism. They claim that virtual actions have no relations with demonstrations on the street and that it is rather cynical to sit in front of a computer while others fight the tear gas.
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: EDT has always promoted VR-sit-in's as part of a hybrid action that takes place both on streets and on-line. The on-line element being just one more tool that can be used by activist to bring focus on the issues at hand. EDT has never promoted the idea that only electronic action counts. Only that VR-sit-ins should be used as part of the many activist tactics use. On-line activism should be added to all the other traditions that continue to be used by activist world wide.
EDT has also attempted to define what it mean's to have individuals place themselves on-line. We don't hide behind hacker names and invisibility --the .mil's, the .gov's, and the .com's know who we are and what we do, and why we do it. We have attempted to continue the tradition of non-violence and I think we have accomplished that.
I believe it is cynical to say that only one form of activism counts and everything else does not.
As the Zapatista's say, "Each human will follow the road to action by whatever means they have at hand." This just happens to be the tool at hand for us at this moment in time. It has been our way to say "Ya Basta!!" to the forces of Neo-Liberalism. An it has been an extremely effective tool -- but it is just that *a tool.* |
What do you see as the future of Internet activism/hacktivism?
| |
Ricardo Dominguez: New methods of counter-surveillance using portable micro-webcams will grow in use, as was the case of RealVideo use during the WTO actions. Also new forms of the FloodNet system will continue to be made. We will also see the use of Psy-Op actions against governments and corporations as in the case of using Stock Trading Boards against Etoys by activist to bring it's stock value down. |
