On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Kate Krauss <[email protected]> wrote:
> To me, the real question is, *If* Bluecoat, why are things going so well > for them when they are a 45 minute drive from activists in San Francisco? > Happy to explain--off this list--what this means in terms of political > strategy and offline, nonviolent direct action. > > This is definitely not an indictment of any group--there's amazing > activism going on an a zillion fires to put out. > > But there are great opportunities to be explored. > > Kate Krauss > (formerly of ACT UP Golden Gate, a group that successfully targeted major > companies on the peninsula, from SF) > Seconded. Cisco is based in San Jose as well, and they are certainly not immune from criticism, given that they sell censorship/filtering equipment to pretty much anyone. I've stood in the street with an anti-Bluecoat sign, but in terms of long-term damage, Cisco is probably the winner. From an activism perspective, it's important to pick One target and focus all energy there. Divided attention among the base means a higher likelihood of failure. You also have to pick a target where there's a reasonable chance of success. If five hundred activists protested in front of Bluecoat HQ, they'd likely change their internal policies because they are small enough that it would have a dramatic impact on their business to *not* acquiesce. If the same activists protested in front of Cisco, I'm not sure there'd be much change, if any. Geography is also a factor, as Jillian mentioned. To reiterate: Bluecoat is winnable with the right strategy. best, Griffin Boyce -- Please note that I do not have PGP access at this time. OTR: [email protected] / [email protected]
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
