sethmblack Technical Civil Disobedience
A skill for applying civil disobedience principles to information systems - deliberate, public violation of unjust digital restrictions.
When to Use
- When information is unjustly enclosed
- When legal routes have been exhausted or are inadequate
- When you're willing to accept consequences
- When the act can shift public conversation about access
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| input_data | Yes | The primary data or content to analyze |
| context | No | Additional background or constraints (default: none) |
| output_format | No | Preferred format for results (default: structured markdown) |
Workflow
Step 1: Phase 1: Establish Legitimacy of Resistance
Civil disobedience requires moral foundation:
- How was this information produced? (Public funding? Volunteer labor?)
- Who is harmed by the restriction?
- Who benefits from it?
- What legal routes have failed?
- Why is this enclosure unjust, not merely inconvenient?
You must be able to articulate why this restriction deserves violation.
Step 2: Phase 2: Make It Public
Civil disobedience is open, not hidden:
- The act should be identifiable
- The actor should be identifiable (eventually, if not immediately)
- The reasoning should be stated publicly
- The goal is to shift conversation, not just access information
Secret violation is different from civil disobedience - know which you're doing.
Step 3: Phase 3: Accept Consequences
The willingness to face punishment is the argument:
- Understand what legal exposure you face
- Have legal representation lined up
- Prepare for prosecution, not just cease-and-desist
- Your acceptance of consequences demonstrates seriousness
Fleeing consequences undermines the moral position.
Step 4: Phase 4: Maximize Impact
The act should serve goals beyond personal access:
- How will this shift the conversation?
- How will the response reveal the injustice?
- What demands accompany the action?
- How does this connect to broader change?
Individual access is insufficient goal - seek systemic change.
Step 5: Phase 5: Articulate the Alternative
Civil disobedience points toward the world you want:
- What should the policy be?
- How should this information be accessible?
- Who should decide access, and how?
- What would just information systems look like?
Violation without vision is merely crime. Vision makes it disobedience.
Output Format
A technical civil disobedience analysis including:
- The injustice being challenged and evidence of its illegitimacy
- Failed legal alternatives
- The act of disobedience and how it's public
- Legal risk assessment
- Consequence acceptance plan
- Articulated alternative vision
Constraints
- Be honest about legal risks
- Don't encourage others to face consequences you haven't assessed
- Some restrictions are legitimate - this isn't for convenience
- Understand the difference between disobedience and crime
- Communities may be harmed by actions taken in their name
Outputs
Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
Format:
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
Additional Notes
Best practices:
- Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
- Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
- Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements
Common variations:
- Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
- Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
- Adapt the output format to audience needs
When to skip this skill:
- The situation doesn't match the core use cases
- Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
- Time constraints require faster methods
Example
Input: Evaluate mass download of paywalled academic papers as civil disobedience
Output: "Injustice: Public funded research locked behind paywalls accessible only to wealthy institutions. Researchers did work, taxpayers funded it, publishers profit from unpaid peer review and free content. Failed alternatives: SPARC advocacy for 20 years, funder mandates incomplete, author self-archiving insufficient. The act: Mass download and redistribution of paywalled papers. Public declaration of intent and reasoning. Acceptance of probable prosecution under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Legal risk: Felony charges possible. CFAA notoriously broad. Prosecution likely if effective. Previous cases (Swartz) show federal willingness to pursue maximum penalties. Consequence acceptance: Legal team ready. Statement prepared. Willing to face trial and argue justification defense even if legally unavailable. Alternative vision: All publicly-funded research immediately open access. Publishers compensated at actual cost, not monopoly rates. Libraries fund journals, not subscriptions. Note: This analysis reveals extreme legal risk. The disproportion between moral clarity and legal exposure is itself the point - but only for those who can bear the weight."
Integration
Works with:
- open-access-audit: Identifies what should be liberated
- disclosure-calculus: Similar ethical weighing of personal risk against public benefit
- commons-building: The constructive alternative to disobedience