Activists target a Google engineer at his Berkeley home

[Nye Bevan]

On Tuesday, an activist group styling itself the “Counterforce” took the San Francisco Bay Area “protests” against tech-boom-driven gentrification to a new, absurd and potentially dangerous level. They rallied in front of the Berkeley home of Google engineer Anthony Levandowski, ringing his doorbell at 7 a.m. and passing out fliers in his neighborhood that claimed he “develops war robots for the military and builds surveillance infrastructure.”

From Counterforce’s manifesto:

After previous actions against the Google buses, many critics insisted that the individual Google employees are not to blame. Taking this deeply to heart, we chose to block Anthony Levandowski’s personal commute. We also respectfully disagree with this criticism: We don’t see one action as better than the other. All of Google’s employees should be prevented from getting to work. All surveillance infrastructure should be destroyed. No luxury condos should be built. No one should be displaced…

We will not be held hostage by Google’s threat to release massive amounts of carbon should the bus service be stopped. Our problem is with Google, its pervasive surveillance capabilities utilized by the NSA, the technologies it is developing, and the gentrification its employees are causing in every city they inhabit. But our problem does not stop with Google. All of you other tech companies, all of you other developers and everyone else building the new surveillance state — We’re coming for you next

.....

It is also an act of demonization sure to backfire. I have a hard time imagining a more effective way to rally public support for tech workers than this display of juvenile delinquency. The intersection of new technology and growing income inequality presents us with plenty of real, and very difficult, issues to grapple with. How we build a fairer society that treats everyone with respect is something everyone who lives in the Bay should be concerned with.

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/22/the_tech_protests_get_personal_and_ugly/

[Th1onein]

1. I absolutey disagree with the author.

Target the Google executives, target them personally, and exclusively. Target their families, and their commutes. No violence, just make sure that they know that you're there and make sure everyone knows what they've done.

[el_bryanto]

2. Salon also had an article by someone who agrees with you

In defense of militant anti-Google protests.

Whether targeting individual Google employees is an effective tactic is not really my interest here. Certainly, I concede that it will hardly uproot Google’s hegemonic position, nor will the surveillance state be dismantled. Andrew Leonard cited one Bay Area resident describing the latest militant anti-Google protest as “a group of people violently broaching civic norms.” I say: precisely. Civic norms in our current epoch entail the forgoing of privacy, the enabling of a totalized surveillance state, the steady displacement of poor residents by wealthier implants in all major metropolises. The world’s richest 85 people have as much wealth as half the world’s population put together. These are our current civic norms; they deserve some violent broaching.

I will say when you basically admit that you don't care whether your tactics will be effective or not, you've lost me. I'm guessing that she means these tactics won't be useful in the short term, but will heighten awareness down the road preparing for a struggle against our oppressors; but even then I'm not sure I agree with her analysis of how bad things are.

Bryant

[geek tragedy]

29. I guess she would be cool with Google hiring

'Contractors' to harass these protestors at their homes .

If they think they can out-thug corporate America . . .

[el_bryanto]

30. I suspect from her perspective it's more tribal

if the Google tribe does it (or did it) it would be bad; if my tribe (the protesters) does it it's good.

Bryant

[geek tragedy]

37. there's a SCOTUS case about the Operation Rescue crowd using similar tactics nt

[CreekDog]

4. what are you blathering on about?

target this guy for what? developing the driverless car?

what's the matter with you?

partial credit for not posting anti choice nonsense *this* time.

[Th1onein]

7. What are YOU blathering about?

When Google participates in spying on Americans, I think we should target them.

And, what the hell does the OP, OR my post, in response to it, have to do with choice?

Continue with your rude comments, and you're going on Ignore.

[snooper2]

35. LOL

what's your address again?

[PeaceNikki]

19. .

Also, welcome to the wonderful world of her ignore list! You're in good company.

[geek tragedy]

25. Hey, Randall Terry is quite the role model

for some 'progressives,' no?

[Nye Bevan]

6. "Target their families"? Really?

I hope this is sarcasm and that you are not really advocating stalking the kids of Google employees.

[Th1onein]

8. NOT employees. The CEO of Google.

[CreekDog]

9. above, you just justified harassing an employee of Google

at least keep track of the nonsense you post.

[Th1onein]

13. You apparently cannot discuss anything without being rude. Welcome to Ignore.

[CreekDog]

17. .

[Skip Intro]

41. +100. He also likes to lie. n/t

[El_Johns]

10. I tend to agree. They are the ones stealing our privacy, why should they keep theirs?

Why is their theft of our personal information not a breach of the "rules of civility," but going to their houses and handing out flyers about what they're doing somehow IS?

Google put a picture of my house on the internet. I'd love to put a picture of the GOogle CEO's house on the internet.

[pnwmom]

11. This is an engineer who was targeted, not an executive.

[Th1onein]

14. Did he have a hand in the spying?

If so, target him. If not, leave him alone. But, definitely, the executives ought to be targeted.

[pnwmom]

33. The article doesn't say he did. n/t

[Savannahmann]

16. Seriously?

I was going to assume you left off the sarcasm tag, then I read the rest of the thread, and anyone who would suggest targeting families when we have a bulllying epidemic in this nation is really treading on thin ice over the lake of insanity.

[NCTraveler]

22. You're a sick fuck. Target their families? nt.

[geek tragedy]

24. "Target their families."

Yeah, go sit next to Randall Terry.

[tammywammy]

28. Target their families?

What a disgusting statement.

[snooper2]

3. assholes better watch out

Dude might just open the garage door a bit and have a mini drone fly out

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. This will end in violence.

Whether it's one of the targets reacting in violent anger or one of the protesters crossing the line into violence is hard to predict, but if this continues it will result in bloodshed, probably sooner rather than later.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. And then someone will blame the bloody outcome on "gunz!"

Completely ignoring the actions that caused the situation in the first place.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. OTOH, if people suffer consequences as a result of their go along to get along decisions,

it will result in fewer deciding to compromise principles for a paycheck.

I'm not saying I agree with this tactic, but neither am I going to say it is all bad.

Project this forward. You are a highly sought engineering genius and you get two offers, Raytheon will pay you $350K plus perqs to build a better missile guidance system, and Tesla wants you to build a smarter distribution system for their battery packs, but only offers $190K plus. Currently this is a simple decision, Raytheon is going to get its guidance system and Tesla will have to keep looking. But if the decision to work for Raytheon carried some potentially serious consequences that might effect your whole family, well $190K is a very good living.

[hack89]

18. So you want to replace the surveillance society with a coercive society

through continuous threats and intimidation against those that don't agree with you. Nice. Does this apply only to progressive coercion or are you going to let the RW play as well?

[Nye Bevan]

26. Thugs who try to intimidate Raytheon employees should go to prison.

You want to complain about Raytheon? Fine. Demonstrate outside their corporate offices? Go ahead. But leave the employees and their families alone.

[geek tragedy]

27. So, you endorse thuggishness in practice

in addition to putting it in your user name.

[pnwmom]

34. Engineers everywhere are laughing at your imagined salaries for them. n/t

[MicaelS]

39. You do NOT threatens people's families EVER.

There is no possible political justification for doing so.

If an activist threatens someone's family to me that is possible justification for the Use of Deadly Force. In other words someone could shoot their ass.

Yes, I am saying that is all bad to do so. If you do so, you should lose your freedom, or in extreme circumstances, your life.

[pnwmom]

15. So what enables "gentrification"? High salaries. So paying its employees good salaries

is evil, because that leads to gentrification.

"Our problem is with Google, its pervasive surveillance capabilities utilized by the NSA, the technologies it is developing, and the gentrification its employees are causing in every city they inhabit."

Some pretty twisted reasoning here. Paying its employees well is not something bad that they do.

[Adrahil]

32. That last part is what concerns me...

... we're not talking about executives here, at least according to the article. We're talking about an engineer. A professional, middle-class job. When we start identifying well-paid middle-class jobs as the enemy, we have a problem.

[NCTraveler]

21. Bet they used google to figure out who he is.

Probably used google maps for directions to his house. For that matter, probably used google to get his address.

[geek tragedy]

23. Assholes, not activists. nt

[FSogol]

31. Asstivists? Assholetivists?

[geek tragedy]

36. assholitarians. nt

[FSogol]

38. Good one.

[TBF]

40. Executive, engineer, or cleaning lady -

it is not the fault of the worker.

It is the system. Get rid of the capitalism and we might be able to evolve to an economic system that would put people over profits.

[Dash87]

42. What a bunch of nutjobs

I would be careful if I were a Google employee. These nuts clearly have no problem crossing boundaries that shouldn't be crossed.

Even their explanation for why they protested is unhinged.