Privacy Advocacy Groups Versus Intel - a possible comparative case study?

Social movements using the internet to fight multi-billion dollar corporations isn't new. In 1999, Intel, a giant in the computer processor manufacturing industry, faced a public relations crisis when they launched Pentium III, which included an electronic personal serial number (PSN) that would allow web sites to verify the identity of those who wished to use their virtual facility. Controversy ensued when three privacy advocacy groups joined together to boycott the new processors and mounted pressure on Intel to change its product due to privacy concerns. This campaign was almost exclusively headquartered and executed on the internet. They created a website to headquarter the campaign www.bigbrotherinside.com (a clever play on words of Intel's marketing slogan)which contained all relevant information about the campaign.

Similar to Greenpeace versus Nestle, there was an extreme imbalance of power with Intel being one of the largest manufacturers in their industry, making 85% of the world’s computer processors at the time. Also similar to Nestle, it was not the first time that Intel had been accused of controversial practices (in 1995, Intel introduced the first Pentium processor knowing that it was faulty). This campaign was also a huge success as within 16 months, Intel capitulated and said it would stop using the PSN in its next generation of computer processors.

So by comparing the online tactics used by social movements in 1999 (Web 1.0) to the way that online tactics are being used in 2010 (and the associated advent of social networking tools and technologies) (Web 2.0)), this could be a really good way of illustrating just how (or if) social activism has changed in the 21st century...