Please read this: Hacktivists as Gadflies.
And this: The Apology of Socrates, by Plato. Yeah, it's a little long. So?
This is the beginning of an assignment that is the beginning of your major assignment due at semester's end.
Due this week: one post by Saturday night and one reply by Monday night: based on both these readings, what is a "gadfly"? What function can a person acting the gadfly play in society? Did Socrates deserve what he got?
Begin thinking about this question (due, in a tight, well-written original blog post of 750-1000 words, by May 7--this counts for way more than one ordinary week's post): Identify a hacktivist you think is making a good contribution to society. To what extent is your chosen hacktivist or hacktivist group functioning as a "gadfly"? To what extent--based not only on Plato's Apology of Socrates, but also on AT LEAST ONE OTHER MORAL PHILOSOPHER (Kant, Rawls, Nozick, Locke, et. al.)--is your hacktivist doing the right thing? Why? Do they deserve to be prosecuted when they break the law? Would Socrates approve of your hacktivist?
A gadfly is a person who prods a larger or more powerful entity into an action. In this sense Weev is a gadfly because he exposed a security hole that showed at&t was not properly protecting the privacy of their customers. This lead them to fix the security flaw, and also prosecute Weev. In Socrates' apology, Plato attempts to go over Socrates' defense verbatim. Socrates is essentially labeled a heretic for influencing people in ways the state deemed wrong. He acts as a gadfly because in his attempt to teach people a logical or aesthetic way to observe the world, he has upset the larger sphere of influence which observed a polytheist greek religion.
ReplyDeleteGadflies seem to prod the established system, which in turn prods them back, HARD. However, the established system will eventually evolve due to their status quot being questioned. So I feel that gadflies kind of propel us into progress.
Socrates was forced to commit suicide by poison, or be deported. He obviously did not deserve death for attempting to examine and explain the world and society around him.
"So I feel that gadflies kind of propel us into progress"
DeleteI agree, but if this is the yardstick with which we use to measure, then I think fewer people are actually gadflies. I don't think Socrates's status as a gadfly is debatable, but some of the characters in the NY times article are- Individually at least. I think Weev brought greater attention to web based security practices, but harmed themselves more than they helped society.
I have a different opinion about gadfliles. I think that gadflies are the laws and rules to extend their dominance and how many times the hosrse will get a sting from the gadflies.
DeleteA Gadfly is an entity that pokes or prods another entity, in order to keep it awake of active. Socrates considered himself a Gadfly in the way that he kept the Republic on it's toes, he kept them from slipping into a stagnant way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Socrates deserved his punishment. Of course I see this from the point of view of someone who has freedom of speech and the right to due process with a just trial. Things were not as fair and balanced in the first century.
Socrates spoke his mind, and at that time, that could be punishable by death. I feel that it was a little humorous from Socrates to not to even consider death as a punishment, but was willing to accept a fine. Perhaps exile would have been more reasonable on the part of the court.
"Things were not as fair and balanced in the first century"
DeleteGiven the parallels introduced in the NYT article, I'd argue that things are still STILL not fair and balanced. Aaron Swartz drank the modern day hemlock when he ended his life in response to forthcoming legal action against him. In addition, the sentences of Weev and Brown are hardly fair.
A gadfly is an individual or group of individuals that provoke, stimulate, prod or in some way prompt a larger and/or more prominent entity to acknowledge or bring forth change, usually through questioning or pointing out flaws in their logic, reason, laws, ethics or ideologies. Though not necessarily always the case, these gadflies may serve as a nettle or an irritant to members of society whose views differ from theirs, or to the "lazy horses" which they prod.
ReplyDeleteThe function of a gadfly in society can take on many forms and can also result in a wide range of responses or consequences. On the positive side of the spectrum, gadflies and their tactics can bring awareness, reason and an obvious face to social and political issues that may otherwise go unnoticed or dismissed. They may also bring about reform of some sort through their expositions of/on these issues.
On the other end of the spectrum, individuals or a certain subset of society may find their tactics annoying, extreme, malicious, detrimental, etc. These same people or others having the power to fight against these gadflies may in fact do so, sometimes going to great lengths to make sure that these gadflies suffer significant negative consequences or extreme repercussions for their actions. They may also do so to make an example out of the gadflies and set precedence, so as to deter others from taking a similar course of actions.
Although Socrates could be easily considered annoying, pompous and needlessly relentless, among other things, the punishment he received (death) was in no way fitting of any transgressions that he may have committed. It was obvious that his character and his tactics were disproved of, misunderstood, and untenable to his fellow citizens, and since he went to great lengths to "quarrel" with them and refute everything that they believed in, they persecuted him. Unfortunately, Socrates did not yield, displayed no remorse or diplomacy, and was not given very many options in terms of punishment. This lead to his death, which was a very extreme consequence to pay for being a mere gadfly.
A gadfly is a persistent irritating critic; call him a nuisance, one that acts as a provocative instigator, a catalyst of sorts, and an increasingly annoying person. He/she criticizes they that consider themselves powerful, dispense injustice, and do not accept criticism, and neither do they own up to their wrongs and mistakes.
ReplyDeleteA gadfly never shuts down the doors of truth. He stands to be counted on purpose. He/she bashes bad governance and draconian laws meant to bring down those that speak against them. Consider Hacktivists for example. They face the unjust wrath of the law for exposing the truth. They are demonized because the judicial system is ill informed about their activities, hence victimizing them.
Socrates per se, never deserved what he got, because his rights of expression were suppressed in the name of expending justice. He believed that injustice may not be answered with injustice, he was guided by reason, and he favored truth as the highest value. This was in total contrast to the setup in then Athens, hence leading to his execution because he was true to himself and he spoke the truth.
I think it's interesting that you use truth as the narrative for your post. I feel that at this point an activist fights for what he/she BELIEVES is true. Opinion is the key word here. Activists promote their own opinion, and what they believe to be true. So are we so sure that all activists are just in their pursuit of exposing the truth AKA: their own personal opinion?
DeleteI think its safe to say, with the above definitions taken into account, that a gadfly is an activist. I say this because the goal isn't too be secretive, it's too shout the cause from the roof tops; to cry out for change. At the same time however also doing something to stick it to the establishment that goes beyond activism.
ReplyDeleteDid Socrates get what he deserved? In a way he did, just as Weev, Barrett Brown, and Aaron Swartz did as well. They choose to raise a ruckus in a manner that wasn't acceptable with the law or the powers that be. Is this right? I say no, but it doesn't appear that things will change in this regard anytime soon
You say that "They choose to raise a ruckus in a manner that wasn't acceptable with the law or the powers that be. Is this right?"
DeleteAre you saying that the law or the powers to be are always right? Are you saying that if you do not feel that they are right that you don't have the right to question their actions and ideologies? If you feel that he deserved the sentence that he got, I'm quite certain that the population worldwide is a lot larger than it should be, as a large amount of people should be sentenced similarly to the way he was based upon what you are saying. Among these people would be individuals like Copernicus, Martin Luther King, any of the founding fathers, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Ghandi, and the list goes on and on and on...
No, the powers that be are not always right. My view is that they wield the club of the majority/prevailing attitude/current law and you have to be aware of this when being "gadflyish". For instance, I think Brown's cause was very worthy of attention, but he shot himself in the foot by allowing credit card numbers to become the issue. If your going to prod the beast, do it in the best manner possible so it doesn't end up hurting you more than it does good. I think Socrates put it nicely when he said,
Delete"there are plenty of persons, as they
soon enough discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing: and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me:"
I definitely agree with that point and feel that it is much better stated than the one previously. So now, given this clarification, at what point do you think that it is worth it to be a gadfly? Maybe for Socrates it wasn't the best idea, especially given the fact that he acted with impunity and impudence, and his resulting death most likely did almost nothing for his cause at the time, so the ends did not justify the means. However, what about for an abolitionist or one who does it for a harshly oppressed society, such as the particular group Albanians that were persecuted under the rule of Slobodan Milosevic? Or someone who was to have done it under the tyranny of Hitler?
DeleteI understand what you mean, Capn. However, I think that the Mentor's quote on the situation is more appropriate: “My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.”
DeleteWeev exposed a flaw in At&T's security. He didn't hack anything. When he posted this information on Gawker he may have crossed the line, however; due to the publicity of this information the security flaw was fixed. This kid has to spend 3 years in jail. In the long run he's the reason this security flaw was fixed and should be appreciated, not condemned.
Socrates was condemned to death for essentially mocking the democratic system of the time as well as his jury. He exposed the corruption of the state in his diatribe; explaining that he his accusers nothing but rumoristas and gossipers. He mocks the jury when he suggests that he should be a guest at the Prytaneum for the rest of his life.
"What would be a reward suitable to a
poor man who is your benefactor, who desires leisure that he may
instruct you? There can be no more fitting reward than
maintenance in the Prytaneum, O men of Athens, a reward which
he deserves far more than the citizen who has won the prize at
Olympia in the horse or chariot race, whether the chariots were
drawn by two horses or by many. For I am in want, and he has
enough; and he only gives you the appearance of happiness, and I
give you the reality. And if I am to estimate the penalty justly, I say
that maintenance in the Prytaneum is the just return."
But I have to wonder: why is it that if you choose to expose the flaws of a system; you deserve punishment? Could this simply be the materialization of the Mentor's quote?