I, @trakgalvis, am Dr Kalvis Jansons in real life, a retired UK mathematician who has always liked to fight injustice, particularly in situations where my formal and informal expertise is relevant. I know a fair bit about computer security, am a passionate advocate of free software and am an expert lockpicker. My original childhood interest in locks was essentially as a physical puzzle, in the same spirit as a Rubik's cube, say, but before they existed, and it was in fact my interest as a child in how things work that led to my profession as a mathematician. None of my skills have ever been used for criminal activity as I hack my own machines and pick my own locks. My interest is in solving and understanding crimes and showing people how to protect against them. So, I am not a hacktivist but would have many skills in common. I would describe myself as a political activist with an interest in science and technology.
I do not agree that you can fight evil with evil as that just results in more evil. So, given that, where do I stand on the Anonymous movement? I have found the dynamics of this movement fascinating. However, I do not sympathize with their criminal activity. They have been very effective in spreading a lot of useful information on important issues that have profound implications for the future of the internet. Also, the press often overlook a lot of the completely legal activity of this movement. I am a fan of WikiLeaks, and I believe that Bradley Manning is a hero and is the Daniel Ellsberg of our day. So I do believe there is a point when all of us should be willing to whistleblow to expose evil in our organizations. I think the only time we should ever break the law is when we can expose or prevent a greater evil. I therefore have no sympathy for the acts of some of the hacktivists which amount to blackmail and intimidation.
I believe that copyright and patent law is in desperate need of reform and that both the creators of intellectual property and the consumers need protection from the large corporations that usually consume most of the profits. My outrage over the closure of Megaupload was because of the lack of due process and America's apparent belief that it rules and controls the internet. Similarly, my objections to SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc. are because these are bad laws and agreements which will have profound detrimental effects on the internet and seek to protect outdated and unworkable business models.
Regarding the Richard O'Dwyer case, whether one believes he committed a crime or not, whether one believes his activities were morally acceptable or not, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that any trial should take place in the United Kingdom, and, for this reason, I strongly object to an extradition treaty which gives most of us the impression that we are ruled by the United States. Also, it is quite possible that a UK court would not consider his activities illegal.
Similarly, in the Gary McKinnon case, the United States appear to have exaggerated and distorted the facts in this case to achieve the criteria for extradition. Anyone familiar with the facts of this case knows that if it was considered by a UK court, it would in all probability be considered a minor offence. However, if extradited, he could spend anything from decades to the rest of his life in prison.
I believe that the extradition agreement with the United States should be totally scrapped to avoid further abuse.
It certainly appears as if the UK is rapidly becoming a corrupt police state and UK justice often seems far from blind. I believe that the machinery of the state should be as open as possible which would reduce the opportunities for corruption and increase public confidence.
So I do believe there is a lot wrong with the world and the UK in particular, but, as far as possible, I would like to achieve those changes by evolution rather than revolution. But, if evolution is impossible, I would consider revolution preferable to the status quo.