The Rise of the Digital Zapatista

CD & ECD
Electronic Civil Disobedience (ECD) involves powerful “symbolic gestures” that enhance protest and relay messages for equality, rights of the people, and other liberties. ECD was first proposed in 1994 by the Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), which some reformers used to transition to the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT). The CAE gave the proposed practice of ECD its name aligning the concept of electronic civil disobedience with that of civil disobedience, in an effort to draw legitimacy from the legendary leaders such as Henry David Thoreau, author of “Civil Disobedience”. Civil disobedience involves trespassing and blockading as tactics for protest. ECD involves itself in these tactics by conforming them in a new setting and in a slightly different aspect. Hacktivism, virtual sit-ins, and the use of the software FloodNet are tactics used by the EDT in sending messages of ECD protest. I have spoken about these forms in my previous blog posts: The Zapatistas and Electronic Disturbance Theater and An Info-War, a Virtual Sit-In, and Hacktivists...United for a Cause.

ECD in Recent Times
As I have mentioned before, ECD first arose in assisting in the battle in Chiapas, Mexico and the Zapatistas fighting for equality and the sanctification for human rights. In recent news, there have been recent publicized forms of ECD within the school systems in California. Dr. Ricardo Dominguez, a professor of electronic civil disobedience at University of California-San Diego, as mentioned in earlier posts as a co-founder of EDT and assisting the battle in Chiapas, Mexico, posed a virtual sit-in with his students towards the president of the university. Dominguez and students on March 4 utilized both traditional forms of civil disobedience and ECD to demonstrate protest towards the increased college tuition fee at UCSD. Students, interviewed by the school’s newspaper, The Guardian, examined the relationship between physical and virtual protest. Holly Eskew, a student of Dominguez said, “On March 4, when about 400 of us and then some did the virtual sit-in, at the same time we had our real bodies protesting. We are reaching the time when we can compare our real bodies to our digital bodies and online environment.” The term "digital bodies" suggests different digital identities, evolving our physical bodies to the cyber world, something my colleagues Becca and Heather are interested in writing about. The body in relation to technology like bodies to machines, EDT has placed a notion of "embodiment" under question. They have sought to understand specific possibilities for establishing presence in the cyber world that is both politicized and collective.

The goal of EDT is to take known forms and then subvert their message in order provoke thought, discussion, and emotion. The utilizing of new media and art allows EDT to take on a more modern form of Thoreau’s more traditional “Civil Disobedience”. Dominguez and other EDT members contributed to the EZLN’s fight for the indigenous people of Mexico. Crafting themselves as Digital Zapatistas, they “attacked” websites of the Mexican government and US governments. These “attacks” were never effective…only affective—something Dominguez stresses in interviews. By digitalizing the message of the EZLN, harm was never physically seen even though the government posed threats against them. FloodNet and Virtual Sit-Ins such as the one executed against the UC system for which Dominguez is under investigation for are ways of protest that send forth messages. The key difference between a virtual sit-in and a sit-in is that a virtual sit-in must be open and transparent. My previous post has discussed this in relation to “Distrubed Denial of Service Attack” (DDoS) that Dominguez has been accused of launching.

UCSD hired Dominguez on the basis of his work in ECD in 2005. He teaches his students about ECD, having them regulate and utilize an online lab called b.a.n.g. lab, a place for numerous art projects and discussion among the UC system. He was granted tenure in 2009. Those threatening to take away his job are the same who granted him tenure. He was granted tenure for his usage of FloodNet and the usage of Virtual Sit-Ins. They hired Dr. Dominguez because of his familiarity with ECD and EDT and clearly found so much interest in his research and studies to have a class dedicated solely to ECD and a speacilist to teach it. They clearly knew what he was capable of--launching virtual "attacks", hacktivism, utilizing the internet for protest. So when these virtual sit-ins and software like FloodNet are being utilized by Dominguez and his students to send across an important message, the UCOP decides to shut down Dominguez's computer and internet connection, accuse him of a DDoS attack, and see if they can press criminal charges against him. These previous sit-ins were praised and yet what makes this one so different? This is a question that I asked The Guardian newspaper and have yet to receive a response from the author. A professor and students protesting an increase in college fees. When stated like that, it seems commendable, understandable. So why is it that protesting against the fee increase lands a professor under criminal watch? Dominguez asks the same question, “[It would be] an unwise choice for them to attempt to stop academic research and artistic research that I was awarded for in past years,” he said. “Why now? What is different and what does the administration want?” UCSD administrators say they honor academic freedom, but need to look into any potential criminal activity.

Questioning and Support
As Dominguez was attended a meeting on campus to be questioned, students and several other supporters gathered by the Silent Tree on library walk at the unviersity. Dominguez, void of legal representation, fielded questions and chose to postpone the meeting. Students and supporters wore white masks with X's on them to represent the university's attempt to silence academic freedom. Something UCSD administrators said they honored... Dominguez rejoined the supporters, giving them thanks and listened as they read letters that spanned the globe, which voiced solidarity, alliance, and outrage at the administration’s criminalization of his work.

The digital Zapatista rose again and along the way educated this generation's youth of the importance of ECD, letting voices be heard and teaching students artistic ways to politicize using new media. As Thoreau once said:
The law will never make men free. It is men who have got to make the law free.

...and that is exactly what Dominguez, the Zapatistas, EDT, students, and virtual sit-in activists are trying to do.

An Info-War, a Virtual Sit-In, and Hacktivists…United for a Cause

Henry David Thoreau once said "That government is best which governs least". He then changes ground and asks “not at once” to be rid of government “but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step towards obtaining it”. Organizations like the Electronic Disturbance Theater who take action through electronic civil disobedience are in different forms of protest making the government know what kind of government it ought to be--delegated by the people who command respect and equality.

As mentioned in “The Zapatistas and Electronic Disturbance Theater” post last week, I viewed the birth of the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT) in relation to the Mexican Zapatistas and discussed a few of the technicalities of protest they demonstrate including their software FloodNet which allows activists to form some sort of electronic artistic way to send across messages of protest/disturbance. FloodNet has been the source of virtual sit-ins practiced by EDT members and participants all over cyberspace. A virtual sit-in is another form of electronic civil disobedience (ECD) created by the EDT.

Before I begin, please view the two videos which will discuss the information war, virtual sit-ins, and hacktivism—the main three topics of this post. Keep in mind that it is difficult to separate each topic into a category of its own because they are interlaced and cannot exist without the other. In these videos, you will see the uniting of the three…



Information Warfare

An infowar is a war of words, a form of propaganda, a desire to push words for action. The internet has allowed a pathway for a cyber infowar to take place. The internet allows activists to incite action as opposed to simply describing the information. Information Warfare was involved in the Zapatistas action for equality from the Mexican government in Chiapas, MX. The Zapatista experience has been a war of words instead of a prolonged military conflict. Of course there is still a strong Mexican military presence in Chiapas, however as mentioned in my earlier post, there was no way for the Zapatistas to battle alone. In no way could they take down the Mexican and US governments and so EDT joined with the Zapatistas to create an Information War that led to virtual sit-ins and hacktvism using the FloodNet software. The fighting technically ended on January 12, 1994 and since then there has been a ceasefire and numerous attempts at negotiation. Scholars, activists, and journalists have said that the Zapatistas owe their survival to this war of words. It is the propaganda that has been unleashed by the Zap leaders like Subcommandante Marcos and non-Zapatista supporters throughout the world. Communication and information has been spread through the famous Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, a more traditional way of sending out information but it has also been distributed through e-mail since the digital Zapatista took rise January 1, 1994 with the aid of Ricardo Dominguez and the Electronic Disturbance Theater (Wray). The infowar provides a way to not only incite action but to do so on a global level. After the Acteal Massacre of 1997, the word spread all over the internet and within days, protests and actions were going on at the Mexican consulates and embassies all over the world. The internet has been seen as a source for activists to communicate and take action. In order for an infowar to take root, electronic civil disobedience comes into play exposing new varieties of protest including virtual sit-ins.

Virtual Sit-Ins

Virtual sit-ins began in 1998 as an online activist tool created by Dr. Ricardo Dominguez which allows activists, using FloodNet, to potentially flood and take down a website. They use an HTML-based program that targets a specific website and allows other activists to join and participate. As each individual joins in the protest, the website is forced to refresh the page which draws in more traffic and eventually leads to a prevention of use. This form of technology reveals the reasons as to why individuals participate in the protest and tells how long it will last thus giving it far more meaning. But how?..

Stefan Wray, who has been mentioned in earlier posts, sees the form of virtual sit-ins, a new form of civil disobedience, when compared to the traditional form of civil disobedience, allows an ECD actor the ability to participate in virtual blockades and sit-ins from home, work, school, and virtually any location where there is access to the Net. Dominguez says in regards to electronic civil disobedience that it:

allows us to think about the question of art becoming a social manifestation, allows us to think about art allowing communities who do not have access to power to make themselves present, that allows the unbearable weight of human beings to put a stop to the crisis that is around us—especially the juicy crisis of education. It allows us to see that art is an active space in public culture and that it cannot be disregarded.

Dominguez views virtual sit-ins from an active EDT member viewpoint. The art assimilated with cyberspace allows activists to voice their message of protest in a different and unique way.

The goal of the Electronic Disturbance Theater is to take the traditional and respected form of civil disobedience and attach it to the cyber world. A virtual sit-in on an internet website allows for the same purpose of protest in a different form. Just like an embodied traditional physical sit-in, in order to be effective, a virtual sit-in also needs a lot of people in order to make a purpose clear. Participants are noticed and seen as a force. For a virtual sit-in to be effective, it must be transparent and open access.

There is a difference between a virtual sit-in and a “Distributed denial of Service” (DDoS) attack. With a DDoS attack, unknown individuals become channels in increasing traffic to certain internet addresses, making it inoperable and threatening a crash of the system. In a DDoS attack, identity is obscured and there are extended assaults motivated by retribution, financial gain, and an attempt to censor freedom of speech. A virtual sit-in differs greatly in that the individuals participating in the sit-in have a goal, a reason, for protest and they make that known. Actions are stated, grievances are described, participants are known, and once it is over, there is no physical damage done. Participants use the FloodNet software and the reload/refresh button on a webpage that eventually sends a cross a message in the URL. The message is a digital artistic form of speech in protest. In order for these virtual sit-ins to uprise, hacking must occur and in an activist form, Hacktivism, comes to rise.

Hacktivism: “Words AS War, Not Words FOR War”—Ricardo Dominguez

Hacktivism, according to the Electrohippies, is a function that combines hacking and activism in a technological sense to provide “Hacktivism”. Hacktivism is a legal “tool for open and focused action against injustice and human subjugation.” Hacktivism uses creative ways as have been previously mentioned to send forth messages. Hacktivists take a piece of technology, a URL code, a website, and envision a use for it beyond what it was designed for. This innovative thinking combined with a hacktivist’s desire for truth and rights in a social or political context allows for progressive movements in digital protest.

Hacktivism has already been mentioned in my previous post and throughout this one. Using FloodNet, participants would visit a website and then download the Java Applet software which would access the target site and reload or refresh every couple of seconds. The protests allow protestors to leave personal statements on the targeted server error logs. With the Zapatistas, for example, browsers were pointed to non-existent files which included the names of those murdered in the Acteal Massacre on the target server. The server would return and log the message “[murdered victim’s name] not found on this server.” This was a creative form of protest with the intentions to send out a message of non-violent awareness, protest, and a re-visitation and reminder to the murderers. Brett Stalbaum, the creator of FloodNet characterizes the software as “conceptual net art that empowers people through active/artistic expression.”

Hacktivism is a peaceful form of protest that organizes a mass amount of people with using FloodNet to create a “symbolic gesture”. Digital activism and hacktivism allows people in different parts of the world to view things that have been censored by their government. Hacktivism exposes truth in an artistic and meaningful way. The video below shows the political exposure which raises awareness to citizens in several different countries. The traditional ways of protest are also viewed in this video. The concensus is that cyber-activism provides a platform for several more people to take a virtual stand to relay the same message across.

Electronic Civil Disobedience combining FloodNet software, the information war, virtual sit-ins, and hacktivism allows for an undoubted measure of activism and protest to come about through a mass load of messages and participants. But are these methods of protest even effective? Stefan Wray analyzes the word effective and defines it in the light of hacktivism in that "if hacktivism is to draw attention to particular issues by engaging in actions that are unusual and will attract some degree of media coverage, then the effectiveness can be seen as high...hactktivism appears to be a means to augment or supplement existing organizing efforts, a way to make some noise and focus attention."

Wray describes this generation as a period of expansion and not contraction. "The nature of cyberspace is extraterritorial. People can easily act across geographic political borders." Hacktivism on the rise provides for endless opportunities that exist in some combination of word and deed. Where is hacktivism going? In my up and coming posts I will be discussing modern forms of hacktivism in current events, its effectiveness and the frontier ahead.