DIGITAL ALQAEDA

Recently a young man committed suicide when the prosecutor's net was closing in on him. This has set off an extraordinary debate on, among other things, the (American) Legal system, freedom of speech(!!),  ownership, control, and freedom of internet and trite old 60's debate on individual Vs the Establishment. The interesting thing about these debates is that you get to hear only one side: the side of the Digital Elite.They expose, they argue loudly, they condemn chide and they threaten in turns; they are the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one. And them being Digital Elite the dissenting voices are not heard - who would want to have a spat with Mike Tyson in the parking lot or with a man carrying an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine?

By all accounts the deceased was a talented young man in the prime of his life and as such it was a tragic waste of a life. It should be considered a waste, even if he hadn't been talented. We lose tens of young people in their late teens every year, unable to cope with the academic and social pressures of the elite institutions into which socio-political engineering parachutes them. They are all tragic and unnecessary deaths which could be avoided if only those responsible had exhibited some wisdom instead of political expediency. Talent alone - or more accurately, the lack of it - does not determine if a death is justified or not. No death, especially at such a young age, is justifiable, whatever the reason.

But the arguments put forward by the Digital Elite  are, to say the least, disingenuous and expose their arrogance and desire to be held to a different - and lower - standard of behaviour. 

The facts of the case are that the deceased young man, Swartz, downloaded millions of documents from two subscription-only databases.The documents are apparently in the public domain and are not the intellectual property of the database owners (MIT and JSTOR). When the prosecutors closed in on him Swartz, fearing sentence as long as 50 years in prison, committed suicide. Even before the case has gone to court the prosecutor has been vilified, the justice system faulted  general threat of retribution made and the deceased sainted.

The entire digital world was immediately up in arms over the incident rounding on the prosecutor in particular and the establishment in general. I wouldn't be surprised if, unable to withstand the intense pressure from the Digital Elite, the prosecutor herself were to commit suicide. I would be equally unsurprised if some of the Digital Elite were to actively seek and work towards such an outcome which they would proceed to justify as a justifiable retribution to avenge a wrong.

The Digital Elite argument is threefold:

1. The rules of normal society do not apply to the Digital Society, especially where it concerns rights and wrongs. Swartz was a digital genius and did not deserve to be treated like a criminal of the garden variety.

2. Swartz has been arguing for freedom on the net. Therefore his act was justified and not criminal.

3. He was anti-establishment and thus deserved a different treatment. One writer went so far as to compare him to Noam Chomsky and Establishment's tolerance of him notwithstanding an uneasy  relationship.

The digital vigilantes have promised to let loose their digital wrath on all and sundry who don't agree with them and have promised specific retribution against MIT. They may also take out (only digitally, I hope) anyone who dares to disagree with them.

What is the merit, if any, in their arguments?

Lets dismiss 4 straight away because it is trite, it is old, has been advanced since 60's and still does not hold water. Simply being anti establishment does not exempt one from the current laws of the land. You will have to change those laws. You are anti-establishment because you are convinced that it is wrong and that conviction arises out of well- reasoned thought. Establishment, having exhausted its reasons, normally reverts to "because  I say so and I am the Establishment" , leading to an impasse.The anti-establishmentarian has no option but to attempt to change the establishment's norms.

Being anti establishment is not a walk in the park; it entails taking on the might of the establishment and all its apparatuses. By nature it is a painful, and one who undertakes it better be ready to be ostracised one way or another and for all manner of minor, major and severe harassments. It is not for the faint of heart. Gandhi took on the colonial establishment and Mandela the apartheid one. They both paid for it  with significant chunks of their lives being taken from them in the form of imprisonments. Even at the height of their struggles neither they nor their supporters cried out for a special or lenient treatment. They paid for their convictions. Do the Digital Elite have what it takes to be anti-establishment? I fear not. Which explains in part their vehemence and anger. Their argument seems to be "we are right and you are wrong". And they carry a very big digital stick which they are not loath to use.

The other three arguments of the Digital Elite have a common and very disturbing underlying theme: "we are the digital elite and the laws of ordinary mortals don't apply to us". The proponents of this line of thought glorify the derring-dos of digital felons who in turn are deified. Stealing may be bad, but digital stealing is nothing short of genius. It seems that the act itself is forgotten if the means are exotic, complicated and requires considerable intelligence. The use of technology seems to cleanse the act of moral turpitude and legal culpability. It is somewhat like saying that one who breaks into your home is a felon; but the guy who cracks the combination of your lock and walks in is a celebrity. By vesting the morality in the tools of the (mis)deed, the Techies are treading on very dangerous ground indeed. A theft should be a theft, period.

A theft is the taking of something that does not belong to you. It does not matter if the person you are taking it from had himself stolen it in the first place. If you were to steal it in order to restore it to its rightful owner, your act is still a theft but the severity is somewhat ameliorated by your intent which is to right an earlier wrong. This latter act can lead to all sorts of moral and judicial complications which is why the simple injunction that "two wrongs dont make a right". If you were socially minded or brave enough to liberate something from someone in order to restore it to its rightful owner, then you should be prepared to pay the price for your act of felony. The problem arises when you punish another man's felony and hold it contemptible and expect to be lionised for your own. This is exactly what the digital elite are doing.

There is another disturbing aspect to the Digital Elites' line of argument. It is a sort of "I am a celebrity, get me out of here" kind of argument. These are claims for immunity on the basis of their elite status. They are so arrogant that they do not even attempt to take a superior moral position, however tenuous, in their defence. The cornerstone of their entire argument is their superior technical abilities. It is as if their technical skills have banished into irrelevance the norms of ordinary discourse. They are not guilty because they say so and they say so because the rules don't apply to them - they are the Digital Elite.

There is a plain and simple lack of balance, moderation and tolerance of dissent and the "other". The world is what the Digital Elite decree it is. Their world view does not provide for dissent, difference or debate or any civilised form of discourse.  Even when they attempt to engage with the world order they so detest, it is always in the shadow of the threat of a digital attack.

Where have we seen this form of behaviour before? The rejection of accepted behaviour, the extreme focus in their cause and lack of balance, an inability to engage with the world and an inability to even see alternate viewpoints let alone accommodate them? A total rejection of due process and instant delivery of justice from the barrel of an AK47?

Doesn't that sound remarkably like Al Qaeda?