Expressions of dissent
First, whistleblowing is interesting because its role is threefold. Besides whistleblowing being a way in which the privacy movement expresses dissent, whistleblowers are also a vital source of information to the movement and furthermore often become activists within the movement themselves. Second, activist art is a way for the privacy movement to communicate its ideas and goals, to members of the movement as well as to the larger public. Although there is only a small group of activists involved in the process of creating the art, it does affect the movement in its entirety. To illustrate how art and activism merge, I analyzed two art projects associated with the movement: Panda to PandaLaura Poitras documented the project in the short film 'The Art of Dissent'. and Anything to Say?.You can follow the 'Anything to Say?' project on Twitter. Last, the privacy movement also expresses dissent through protest. This is done both through traditional types of protest such as street demonstrations, as well as through protest forms that can only exist online, for example the development, promotion, and use of tools that provide more anonymity for Internet users.
Although dissent is an element that characterizes the privacy movement, it is certainly not the only one; so do its untraditional role of leadership within the movement and Berlin as its physical meeting place. If you would like to read more about the role of leadership and meeting places within the privacy movement, you can find more information about this in my thesis.
Starting next week, I will be publishing a series of articles in which I will explore whistleblowing, art, and protest as expressions of dissent. First up is the exceptional role whistleblowing has within the privacy movement.
Jacob Appelbaum abuse victim
Hello,
I am one of the women who has been abused by Jacob Appelbaum and his entourage. I kindly request that you and Bits of Freedom please stop giving glory to this man who has done tremendous damage to the privacy human rights movement and has demoralized and driven many activists away with his widely documented and denounced abusive behaviour. Many organizations such as the Chaos Computer Club, Noisebridge and Debian have denounced Jacob Appelbaum and barred him from attenting their events. I have to wonder why yourself and by extention Bits of Freedom are pretending like nothing has happened and are continuing to cover Jacob Appelbaum in a positive light. Don’t you people read the New York Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/technology/tor-project-jacob-appelbaum.html It’s time for Bits of Freedom to join the aforementioned organizations and to do what’s right. Please stop giving a podium to abusers. Many of Appelbaum’s victims are themselves privacy activists. Why don’t you cover them instead of covering an exposed abuser?
Hans de Zwart
Thank you for your courage to write your comment under this post. I am terribly sorry to hear about what has happened to you.
The thesis that Loes has written about the privacy movement in that particular part of the world and at that particular point of time, won a
Dutch award for internet related research. We believe her research gives an interesting insight in how the digital world, social protest and
culture and the arts are interwoven.
It is in no way our intention to glorify Jacob Appelbaum. This is why in the first paragraph of the post Loes links to a Guardian article
(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project-sexual-assault-allegations) and writes “This research was finalized in 2015 and does not take into account the changes within the movement that have occured since the allegations of abuse against Appelbaum in 2016.”
Let’s hope that her series of posts will help her readers reflect on how we fight for digital rights.