[IP] do read. Operation Chokehold -- and the Trapped Ambulance

Noted without comment:

Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

An interesting question is whether an action of the sort described can or should be regarded as "violence."

More generally, what is the meaning of "violence" in cyberspace?

herb lin

From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:01 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] do read. Operation Chokehold -- and the Trapped Ambulance

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: December 17, 2009 1:14:02 PM EST
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Operation Chokehold -- and the Trapped Ambulance

               Operation Chokehold -- and the Trapped Ambulance

                 http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000656.html

Greetings. Yesterday I suggested that "Operation Chokehold" -- an
apparently satirical call for an iPhone-based protest against AT&T's
mobile data network that appears to have rapidly morphed into a real
event -- was irresponsible and even potentially deadly
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000655.html ).

A number of iPhone users and others contacted me with their arguments
about why Chokehold is a simply grand and glorious idea.

Let's explore their thinking, along with an ethics quiz question to
ponder. We'll leave aside for now the obvious point that purposely
flooding the network with data in an explicit attempt to disrupt its
operations is certainly a violation of the AT&T Terms of Service.

Some observers feel that since AT&T's mobile data network is so bad in
many areas anyway, hardly anyone would notice even a large-scale
attempt to flood the network with data in protest. Others suggested
that AT&T was "so evil" (some mentioned their ongoing PATRIOT Act
wiretapping concerns) that any protest was justified, and that to
argue against protesting corporate activities would reduce us to --
for example -- the current situation in Iran. A couple of people were
concerned that the protest had been compared with terrorism in some
quarters. I would call the protest potentially criminal, but not
terrorism -- given that the latter generally involves a different
motivation, at least by my personal definitions.

A more common theme -- which I noted as a legitimate concern in my
original item -- is that important services perhaps shouldn't be using
these kinds of public mobile networks in the first place. This is a
serious issue, but the reality is that given the funding and other
limitations of many public safety infrastructures, it is not uncommon
for some workers, who are going to do anything they can to get their
jobs done (whether officially approved or not) to use ordinary cell
phones and conventional mobile data resources, at least as fall-backs
to their official equipment.

Several people suggested that even though the problems with AT&T's
mobile data network are already very well documented, the protest
would help to highlight the situation and emphasize how dangerous it
was to use that network for crucial activities.

The issue of public safety takes us to the ethical quiz. I find it
very useful when analyzing Internet issues to try find historical or
non-Internet comparisons and analogies that might help to focus the
situation.

So let's think about a typical freeway (or thruway for you
Easterners). This freeway is pretty busy much of the day. Sometimes
it's awful -- traffic slows to a crawl. Ambulances, whose drivers are
always trying to find the quickest routes to move their patients,
sometimes choose to use the freeway at times when they expect the
traffic will be relatively light and especially when their patient
needs particularly urgent care. Getting stuck in traffic -- for
example behind an accident -- could result in a dead patient (this is
not merely a hypothetical outcome).

Now one day, the "Our Freeways are Too Damn Crowded" group coordinates
a protest among their members. They want to completely shut down a
major freeway at midday for an hour, when it would ordinarily be
moving along pretty well in that particular area.

At the designated time, drivers from the group synchronize their
movements across a section of freeway and pretend to have simultaneous
engine failure, completely blocking the road.

The ensuing mess takes more than an hour to clear up. Just behind the
protest blockage is a now trapped ambulance carrying a critical
patient. The ambulance driver -- based on his experience and traffic
reports up to that hour -- had chosen to take the freeway as the best
route for that particular trip.

Due to the delay, the patient dies.

The ethical question: Should the protest organizers (and/or the
persons who actively engaged in the protest) be held culpable in some
manner for that death?

If your answer is no, then a secondary question would be how many
deaths would be required "up front" for you to change your mind? 5?
100? Or do you feel that innocent deaths -- even if low
probability -- resulting from such an event are always justified
to make a point?

Please be sure to include the text of a condolence letter to the
families of any victims with your replies as appropriate.

Odds are that the Operation Chokehold protest won't kill anyone. It
may in fact not even be significantly noticed. Those aren't the
issues. The question is whether even taking the risk (whether
proposed satirically or seriously in the first place)_for the purposes
of protesting iPhone performance is worth the chance of innocent
persons being harmed, however small that risk may be.

Common sense, and basic ethics, say no.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
  for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

interesting-people message