[zmgsabst]

> The community I’m talking about definitely weren’t like secretly building tools for these agencies. I mean this sincerely I have no idea what point you’re making.

You knew exactly what point I’m making, because it’s the first thing you responded to. And indeed, what you responsed to throughout your question. So no, you’re not being sincere.

Those groups always interacted and your bald assertion of their morality is directly contradicted by my experience of their interactions (eg, criminals and government corresponding at UW) and the change in Boomer and Gen X hackers following 9/11.

> There was a prevalent community of programmers and hackers who understood what these organizations represented and would never be on a forum blithely talking about some tool they made as if it was acceptable.

From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab?

Again, my experience from Seattle is that the idealism was always more show than reality — and government technologies were not only consumed, but built on contract when interests aligned (eg, stopping cyber warfare or dismantling terrorist networks).

What you’re describing — ineffective moral absolutism — wasn’t what I recall from the 90s hacker ethos that always existed in a liminal zone, but rather the 2010s era co-opting of existing groups (eg, Anyonymous) for moral crusading.

[user3939382]

> From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab?

This is a logical non sequitur. It’s like being fed your lunch by your kidnapper and when you protest they say, you’re using the energy I provided to protest. Like that’s a contradiction somehow, it’s not.

Whatever the participation in the past may have been does nothing to excuse or make okay future behavior.

And to the extent I did understand your point, I was confused because it was such a strawman. As I explained I wasn’t talking about every person in computing (of course). Interacted doesn’t mean they were the same or had no moral distinction.

> ineffective moral absolutism

I don’t even know where to start with how flawed your thinking is. Effectiveness isn’t the driver for having morals. And obviously it was effective because I’m here protesting. Neither is it absolutism. Objecting to the gross abuse of our government doesn’t equate with absolutism.

Computers should serve their owners not corporate interests and dragnet surveillance. That was understood. 2010s Anonymous was a different thing in a different context that I wasn’t contemplating.