Anonymous Launches White House Petition Saying DDoS Should Be Recognized As A Valid Form Of Protest
from the if-you-have-to-ask-what-a-valid-form-of-protest-is... dept
A few years back, we had an interesting discussion over whether or not distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) could be seen as a valid form of protest -- the modern equivalent of a "sit-in." There are significant similarities between a DDoS and a sit-in. And, we've seen at least one lawyer make the claim that his client was exercising his First Amendment rights when DDoSing a local city government. Law enforcement, of course, wants to take it to the other extreme, seeing DDoS attacks as being a form of hacking, or even a type of terrorist attack.Slashdot points out that some members of Anonymous have set up a We the People petition on the White House's website, asking the government to recognize DDoS as a valid form of protest.
With the advance in internet techonology, comes new grounds for protesting. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), is not any form of hacking in any way. It is the equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a webpage. It is, in that way, no different than any "occupy" protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.(Random aside before I get into the larger discussion: you would think that people posting a petition to the White House would spend at least a little more time proofreading what they write, or getting more input before posting it. While the intent is clear, the typos and grammatical structure of the petition is atrocious.)
It seems unlikely that this petition will get the necessary 25,000 votes. Or that the White House will even care if it does. The problem, as always, is that much of this depends on where you sit as well as your knowledge of technology. You can make a reasonable argument for why a DDoS is just the modern equivalent of a sit-in. But you can also make a reasonable argument for why a DDoS is like hacking a site.
But here's the larger point: When you have to petition the government to get them to tell you what form of protest is "okay," you've probably already lost the battle. And that's part of the larger problem here. It seems clear to me that many of the DDoS attacks done by Anonymous are, quite clearly, done for the purpose of expression. They are trying to make a statement, and it sometimes works (though, it frequently backfires). I'm sympathetic to the claim that it's the modern equivalent of a sit-in, and find it troubling that the government is arguing it's something much, much worse. At the same time, I often think Anonymous' rush to DDoS undermines its larger efforts at times, and simply reinforces in the minds of some that Anonymous is made up of bratty, destructive kids. But, having to ask the government to say your form of expression is legitimate expression suggests that the government has already won.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymous, ddos, protest, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I cannot and will never condone the use of DDoS attacks as an alternate form of legal protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...but they appear to have a bloody good point, and that's annoying. DDoS is a non-intrusive "attack". It doesn't involve hacking, stealing passwords, using worms, backdoors, anything.
The occupy analogy actually HOLDS. It's a non-violent, non-intrusive, and non-destructive denial of service. It's a hell of a lot more benign than pro-lifers physically pushing and insulting people outside abortion clinics.
I have to ask myself: why is DDoS worse, than 100 people locking arms to keep people out of a business while singing and chanting? The inescapable conclusion is that it is not. It just happens to be branded as illegal. It's different from a physical protest, and different scares old people - but it's not really any better or worse, and certainly no more dangerous. Quite the opposite in fact. Far less danger is posed by a DDoS than an actual physical demonstration that always runs the risk of derailing into violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DDoS'ing is nothing like a sit-in. Often times, those who "participate" in a DDoS attack don't even know their computer is a compromised part of the distribution and would end up protesting against beliefs they never held.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Possibly you are conflating two separate issues?
One could equate ddos to a crowd shouting, is that now illegal too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That WOULD be hacking. Not of the DDoS target - but of the machines used. That's a different story though.
As for "Netflix dies if amazon is attacked" - well, this is true with physical blockades too. If you block access to one business, many nearby business will also be affected. Especially in things like malls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, this is only one of many ways to perform a ddos ... therefore the presence of a ddos does not imply it was created via a botnet - get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has to be distributed to be a DDoS, but it doesn't have to use a hacked botnet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem rather sure of yourself, but that does not make you correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But using illegal means to use your DDoS attack as a protest would make the protest you make illegal. So attacking your target through hacking computers to send a bottle neck of traffic to your target (a DDoS attack) would definitely be illegal.
A protest is meant to grab the attention and persuade, not force, the opposing side to listen and consider the situation at hand to get results in your favor. DDoS attacks are more like hijacking an airline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, one could call the Slashdot effect a ddos - it does not require a botnet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So do a DDoS that redirects the traffic to a separate site with its own info, and lwave the original site untouched (but trafficked).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How does this work - exactly?
Sounds more like a mitm attack to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Wally on Jan 11th, 2013 @ 7:48pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Wally on Jan 11th, 2013 @ 7:48pm
It should be noted that the leaders of these groups range in age from 16 to 57. Anonymous is believed to be more of the digital form of the Peoples' Liberation Front. Very secretive, very determined, and lots of cell groups. Best modern example (sorry for the American analogy) is a group of terrorist cells...without terrorists...who do various things in the name of the organization.
The hierarchy is messed up and while in the past, it was a group effort, it is no longer the case. I see many problems involved with the way they work. There is a very good Article on All Things Digital about Commander X that I would recommend reading as to why a DDoS attack is not a very good form of protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Wally on Jan 11th, 2013 @ 7:48pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So yeah, ddosing is like a sit-in in that respect, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point of sit-ins during the civil rights era wasn't to protest legally. The whole point was to break segregation, and is so doing, highlight the injustice of those laws. Alternatively, the point of a sit-in is to demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice yourself to highlight the seriousness of a cause -- e.g. I think XYZ business is so evil that I am willing to go to jail for trespassing to highlight this.
Legalizing sit-ins would take much of the symbolic impact out of them. It would not, however, make them any less annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may as well make doorways illegal. Only a few people can fit through them at a time. A thousand people trying to fit through at the same time is exactly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and 1000 people trying to get into walmart at black friday opening is not the same as 1000 people showing up and blocking the door so no one else can get in.... and you know it.... there is a huge difference and you are being disingenuous by trying to use that analogy.
while i agree that ddos can be used as a form of protest, but not legal in the same manner as sit ins and spouting your preferred rhetoric at 150dB at midnight from your window can also not be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"1000 people trying to get into walmart at black friday opening is not the same as 1000 people showing up and blocking the door so no one else can get in"
While there is intent on the later, and there is no intent on the former. What you have in reality, is a situation where, you are trying to relate door blockage to government controlling speech.
The simple fact is that peoples speech is far more important than that of the governments or the governments ability to block free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scary mobs will always have legality on their side after all they will be the ones making the laws and enforcing their laws.
Doubt?
Ask the Sirian soon to be ex-president if that is not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a very liberal attitude, did someone disagree with your opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In theory, some things are legal - however in practice they will most certainly bring you some amount of distress. This is what civil disobedience is all about, the demonstration of a willingness to endure the bullshit in order to bring the topic into the limelight.
Some people have problems distinguishing between civil disobedience and terrorism, or possibly they are intensionally blurring the line between them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not to say that civil disobedience is the only valid response to a bad law. Ignoring a bad law can be a legitimate response, too.
Until 2003, some sex acts, between consenting adults and performed in private, were illegal in some parts of the United States. I'll wager that there are people here who broke some of those laws, though not with the intent of being identified and taken to court to challenge the injustice of those laws.
Even if you're too young for that, many have treated some of the laws on drug use or possession, or some of the weirder copyright laws, in much the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The punishment is way, way, way out of proportion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the answer is yes, then sorry, but you deserve what you get.
If you only used your own computer... then a smaller punishment is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the answer is yes, then sorry, but you deserve what you get.
You really think a lengthy jail term is a fitting punishment for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/29/using-thermodynamics-100-year-old-technology-to-break-the -20-per-mwh-barrier/
I thought you might get a kick out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed, they certainly is annoying! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution to bad speech
Maybe the DDOS'ers should remember that.
A DDOS attack is not speech. It's the suppressing of speech. At a sit-in, people can carry signs or talk to passerby to explain why they are there. That can't happen at a DDOS. The average Internet user will not even know there's a "protest" going on - they'll just know the site is down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution to bad speech
I'm not sure if there is a digital equivalent of a sit-in since hacking a site and butting up your own banner compromises the remote system in a way that the owner can no longer trust it and would also shut them down. I suppose putting up informational and parody sites would be good. I did like Anonymous' real world tactics of picketing sites and putting up informational posters.
Though I do agree with Anon on having no problem with them wrecking pedo sites. And yes that is in essence me preferring my own personal moral code over that of others'. But I think the vast majority of the world would agree that things go to farm when yo victimize the innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
"Though I do agree with Anon on having no problem with them wrecking pedo sites. "
I totally encourage those sites to complain to the police when this happens. Preferably the FBI. They should make sure law enforcement knows exactly what kind of website they are running so they fully understand the situation. I'm fully confident that justice will be served.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
after the pedo sites, do you go after some other cause you don't agree with, perhaps you don't like online gaming ?? so are they your next target ?
if you come across someone doing something illegal, you are duty bound to report it to the appropriate authorities.
You are committing a crime if you take the law into your own hands and take lynch mob action.
What if you decide you do not like black people are they next, or jews ?? are they after the blacks, or women, or people who drive big cars and use lots of fuel ??
or someone who has a different hair style to you ?? or a certain tattoo ?
or if you say something (under free speech) that you don't agree with ?
it's not the job of Anon to be our law enforces, nor do we want them (or need) them to take on that role.
In your world it becomes the biggest and strongest who takes everything.
That is why we live in a society with rules and law's and boundaries we do not cross.
If you want to live in Mad Max's world go for it, see how it works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
You are black, you are white, you are something different in the eyes of someone else. For governments to say this is different than for an individual. People should remember this or repeat the horrors of the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
No, the same rules have to apply, and free speech rights is the right to say what you want, even if you don't like what that other person is saying, you are standing up for his right to say it.
to make a decision as to who has that right or not based on what they are saying is not supporting free speech, it is denying it.
SO muzzling any speech is against free speech, and the right to reply.
So if you want to muzzle the government, but let the citizen talk that is a suppression of the freedom's you are supposed to hold high.
so you all for 'free speech' as long is you agree with what they are saying !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
These are strategies. The tactics are when one tries to out shout the other in order to make their speech more prevalent. I am sure there are other tactics, many mentioned in this thread, but they are just tactics.
Ddos is a tactic. It has its appropriate place. When it is used within a dysfunctional strategy (NOT organized and communicated succinctly(military strategy and political strategy are different)) it is not appropriate.
If they want to use Ddos as a tactic, then they need to have an effective PR campaign that lets folks know what they are up to. If they just want to be petulant, then let them continue as they have been.
Strategy cries to be open in political settings. Look at all the political communicators who make a living at letting you know what their strategy is. They don't tell you their tactics.
The folks at anonymous need to go back to Sun Tzu school, and not just a few of them. As an organization they need to have some cohesive goal. As a disorganization they need to have a reasonable way to condone or not any action, or have ways to lop off those that go outside whatever loose guidelines they come up with.
As a non membership type organization, Anonymous has a difficult task in establishing such a framework in a believable fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
You are the old way of thinking I am afraid to say.
Centralized decision making is not that good, we have been trying that for what millenia now and it keep yelding the same results over and over again.
Centralization always start benign and ends up in authoritarian fashion.
Besides Anonymous do have a form to coordinate ops, is called Twitter have you heard of it?
They even appropriated old code and re-purposed it.
Youtube: How to Use LOIC Tutorial
The new order is f-decentralized-self-organizing-structures(the "f" is for you know ...)
Other example of a f-decentralized-self-organizing-structure that happened in the US is the Tea Party.
People don't need to be organized they just need to have a common goal and they all will gravitate towards each other naturally, there is no need to a central decision making for purpose of coordination, just use whatever social network you got, from anologue to digital, it worked before Christ and it is working today in a even bigger scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
Moreover I think it is important to recognize how the internet is changing global politics. A "sit-in" as a localized form of protest that requires a group of people to be together in physical space. Such forms of protest 1) not always possible and 2) not always effective especially when you are talking about global communities addressing global issues.
The internet is a public or shared space like that of a city but it exists on a different scale and requires different modes of interaction. In this light a DDOS "attack" is an analogue to a sit-in. While this is not a very good argument for making DDOS attacks legal (as many have pointed out), it is important to recognize DDOS attacks as a form of protest/speech rather than acts of terrorism. What is at stake is how much power the government should have to regulate these activities.
Moving into the future, we must protect our rights/abilities to use the internet as a platform for protest, we must encourage creative modes of political speech and we must stand together in solidarity against any attempts by the unaccountable hierarchical powers that be to encode such act as "terrorism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
is Techdirt speech ?? do you think a reasonable response to not agreeing with a TD article would be to DDoS it and down it down ?
or would you prefer to exercise your own freedom's and express your own opinion ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
How can burning the American flag be protected speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
yes, it is that, but it is also a private place and often specific and restricted access, like that of your house or home. The internet is a bit of a mirror to the real world, on it there are public places, mega malls, private houses, private practices, 1 to 1 communications, people conducting business, people reading news, people playing games, people going to school, people doing PRIVATE THINGS.
It is not 'just a public place' it is all things a society has in reality, it has good and bad, honest people and criminal's, nice people and bullies, liars and fools and everything in between.
I might agree or not agree with your protest but I certainly don't want it in my house !!!. and that is where it is if it is a DDoS, I am quite surprised at your concept of what the internet is, is it really that narrow ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
(and you know he has those pictures in his possession ?)
generally in these types of cases the victim is the person depicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
Did he coerced or used a position of authority to produce those said photos?
The people who did are the people who produce victims, not the curious idiots that go look for those, there is a very important distinction here to be made.
One act on impulses and harm others the others may fantasize but didn't actually do anything or have other reasons to be looking for said content.
Risking appear to be insensitive in my opinion only the people who actually do the deed should face the more severe consequences that we reserve for criminals the others should be put under observation until a time that they actually do something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution to bad speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution to bad speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution to bad speech
Just because it's not in person does not mean that they are not exercising their right to freedom of speech.
It's just that, how, in our government's right mind, will they stand with protesters and go against corporate America? We all know that there's no money in protecting freedom, even if they want us to believe that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution to bad speech
it's FREE SPEECH, it's your right to say thing's that other people see as bad, but good or bad, is not the point. The point is your ability to say it, and to allow others to say what they want, even if you don't agree with what they are saying, you are agreeing they have the right to say it.
It's not free speech if you want to restrict speech you see as bad, if you don't like what they are saying, you HAVE to like their RIGHT TO SAY IT.
Guys, learn your own rules, if you cant get that right, what right do you have to say anything, although I support your right to say these things, you need to support my right so say you are a stupid moron, and no one likes you, and you smell really bad, and have big feet.
you might not agree with me, but you need to understand it is my right to say that, good or bad, just as it is your right to say the crap you said.
now how is this exchange similar to a DDoS attack, where you stop me from saying what I want to say, and exercising my free speech rights by denying me the forum to do so ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
Also who is the moron who only has one server?
Further if your rights are suspended for a very short time in the course of others trying to say something to you, you should heed the first warning.
A DDoS will not forever curtail your ability to say whatever you want, a DDoS won't last long when it is derived from a form of protest.
Botox(Botulinum toxin) is a toxin that can kill, but if administered in the right dosages is actually useful in some cases(e.g.: hyperhidrosis treatment, blepharospasm, Migraines, etc).
The same is the DDoS dosage, if applied in medicinal doses is not a problem and it may even be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
"We hold your server hostage until we get our way with you without mediating our differences". Yup that sounds like a DDoS attack is definitely a form of speech.
You're a moron for comparing a DDoS attack to a form of request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
Really?
This is rather funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution to bad speech
How is this different from any type of enforcement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust me I hate the shit that's going on just as much if not more than they do. However a ddos attack if done correctly is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive than a sit-in. Will the ddos attacks stop? Well it's obvious they will not.
They use people who want to be script kiddies as their worker ants lol. I mean these kids download just about anything and have no clue they may be attacking a government website or whoever.
If you're tricking people into doing you're dirty work lol you should not be doing it in the first place.
Even if it was legal I can safely assume the methods they use to gain workers is still very illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 11th, 2013 @ 10:28pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress was pushing DDOS as triggering an act of cyberwar, that needed swift and violent response.
People have been chased around the globe for DDOS against banks, who publicly claimed it wasn't hurting them... but in court docs claim losses of millions, mostly in what looks to be an attempt to make sure the skiddie they caught gets life in jail.
I think the better conversation would be how protesting has changed over time, and yet society and laws remain stuck in the past. Old men scared of the magic thinking machines still make the laws, and they seem to only listen to those who want to sell them something to make it all stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd say you already lost if you have to frame it as a conflict of people versus their elected government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it is a false conflict if any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Poe's law at work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
let me guess, you don't vote either..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The ultimate response is always the voice of the many, it doesn't mater what the minority thinks about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question that should be asked is simple. Has this killed or harmed people physically? If so terrorist attack, other wise protest. It really is as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The question that should be asked is simple
I can see both sides but don't know enough technically about DDoS to make an informed decision but your argument is terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The question that should be asked is simple
Insurance fraud is the same as stealing off everyone. Including the person who is insured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The question that should be asked is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The question that should be asked is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hitting a fire alarm when there is a fire, and saving many people's lives for doing so makes you are hero.
It is intent that makes you either a hero or a terrorist.
DDoS attack is exactly the same, if your intension is to cause terror it does not matter when method you use.
therefore a DDoS attack can be easily see as a method for creating terror and panic, and you don't have to think very hard were you would direct such an attack to cause terror, fear and panic. which is after all the very definition of a terror attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like half the US, I think you've forgotten the definition of the word terror. Hint, it's not what the USG seems to think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
there are many possible reasons why an attack on the internet can cause real panic, fear and terror.
you just don't have too much imagination to think of any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you have friends?
Don't you have other bank accounts?
Can't you walk to the bank?
Can't you use an ATM?
Don't you have a credit card?
You do understand that one interface of the bank could go down but they have redundancies in place and use other banks as proxies don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
to cause "great fear", so if you own a company called "mulitbet" and a DDoS attack shuts down your business causing you to lose several million dollars, do you think you would experience "GREAT FEAR" of that happening ?? (I would).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you go seek help where others died because of bad service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your argument is idiotic. Comparing blocking access and entry in to a building, and block access to the exits, are two different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question that should be asked is simple. Has this killed or harmed people physically? If so terrorist attack, other wise protest. It really is as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a sit-in, you must rally people who then must be motivated and expend effort and energy to converge on a single location.
In a DDoS you just rally up a botnet to perform an automated DDoS with little to no effort on anyone's part.
I think it's more or less the equivalent to parking your car in the doorway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's taken on the meaning of anything in which the demand exceeds the bandwidth. This applies to automated botnet attacks, a large volume of people protesting, the slashdot effect, trying to buy tickets for a popular concert or event...
You're right that in such a case as a large volumes of people it is more like a sit-in, but other definitions it does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A DDOS is NOT anything that demands excess bandwidth, it is a specific and directed attack, with INTENT to deny service.
it is a suppression of free speech, not an exercising of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even poisons don't do harm when taken at low dosages, see why there is no problem here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is used as a FORM of attack, but DDOS itself does not constitute an attack.
An analogy if you will;
I want to buy an item in a store, but the queue is so ridiculously long that the staff say "sorry, but I'm afraid we are going to close before you can make your purchase"
I have just been denied service, there was no attack involved, I didn't get my item, the store lost out on a few bucks from my wallet.
It becomes an attack when I go into the store, and there is a queue of people, who have no interest in buying items, just in inconveniencing and wasting the store's time, by taking so very long to pay etc...
I have been denied service, I didn't get my item, the store lost out on a few bucks from my wallet.
Same outcome, different context.
Your syntax is incorrect, please learn about things before you insist on making sweeping statements.
A DDOS attack is an expression of free speech, not suppression, that is like saying if I talk in the street protesting my cause and exercising my right to free speech that I'm suppressing free speech as someone can't stand next to me and make his point heard as I'm too loud. It's complete stupidity, if we all lived by that rule, no-one would ever utter a word.
However, your view is noted, acknowledged and respected as is your right, now that you are slightly more educated in the matter I hope you will make better judgments in the future.
ANON
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While technically correct, the distinction is not very useful because (in my experience) nobody ever refers to a website being taken offline or slowed down by innocent heavy traffic as a distributed denial of service. I've literally never heard it called that. Every single time I've ever seen the term DDOS used, it's referred to an attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In sit-ins, protesters usually seat themselves at some strategic location (inside a restaurant, in a street to block it, in a government or corporate office, and so on). They remain until they are evicted, usually by force, or arrested, or until their requests have been met. Sit-ins have historically been a highly successful form of protest because they cause disruption that draws attention to the protest and by proxy the protesters' cause. They are a non-violent way to effectually shut down an area or business. The forced removal of protesters, and sometimes the use of violence against them, often arouses sympathy from the public, increasing the chances of the demonstrators reaching their audience." - Source
It's almost like they're synonyms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
so I am a shop next to the one with the sit in, and I get no business because of the people blocking the shop next to me, I have suffered no damage ?
you don't think things out too far do you !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind the mechanics of a DDOS attack, there are many, many more victims than just the target of the attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think your counting is off by several orders of magnitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
so you are saying you can get thousands and thousands of people manually hitting their refresh keys hour after hour after hour for 24 hours straight ???
these are kids, they simply do not have the concentration span, they will wonder off and back to playing WoW are 10 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitch please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
explain how you can launch an effective DDoS without thousands of bots.. you think these 15 year old script kiddies are going to spend 24 hours spamming the refresh button ?? do you think that would make a different on a large, high bandwidth web site ?
you cannot do a DDoS with a bot-net, that is many peoples computers who have no idea it is function as a bot. These computers have to be hacked into before you can even consider a DDoS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DDos = DISTRIBUTED Denial of Service
Another way is to rent computer power to DDoS someone which if you are Chinese you can do it, just rent computer time in any datacenter and they will gladdy give you the machines to accomplish that task.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
Clearly, there are many ways to produce the same outcome - in this case a ddos. To claim that there is only one way to accomplish this is displaying your ignorance on the topic. Or perhaps you are grinding an axe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LIST THEM !!!!! ?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Automated - Using equipment under you control to do it, either acquired through legal or illegal means(e.g.: renting computer time in datacenters or building up botnets)
Hacking the server and denying access to it LoL
- Group.
Use social networks to spread the work like Tweeter and give everybody a tool to do it like the LOIC.
When Michael Jackson died the web stopped(literally).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can take a horse to water, blah blah blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, no. No No No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Atrocities...
Indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm believe abortion is immoral, evil and goes against god's law. As such I decide to protest abortion clinics and begin to DDoS sites containing information about abortion, this includes sites such as Wikipedia.
I'm a staunch believer of evolution and believe religion has no place in modern society. I protest this by launching DDoS attacks on Christian websites and those containing information on creationism.
I'm a disgruntled gamer who's been banned from WoW. I disagree with the ban and decide to protest it by DDoSing Blizzard Entertainment.
By legitimising DDoS attacks you're effectively giving anyone the ability to legally destroy your online service.
Talk about slippery slopes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is just so much bullshit. You can make the argument that by legitimazing ANY form of protest you give people the right to impede a service. Seriously, stop with the drama or go google it, a DDoS wont actualy literally "destroy" anything.
If by destroying you mean making it unuable, then well surprise, I thought that was the whole point of protesting. to grab attention so that people are forced to pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
de·stroy
[dih-stroi] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.
to put an end to; extinguish.
3.
to kill; slay.
4.
to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5.
to defeat completely.
My usage is correct.
Also, by your logic if I want to protest your opinion on this site I should now be allowed to legally DDoS Techdirt.
See how stupid your argument becomes? Probably not, but keep up with idiotic double speak where denying free speech is actually allowing free speech in your 1980 style world.
Thanks, but no thanks I'll take my actual free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except if you business relies on the internet for it's existence, if your internet is compromised by a DDoS, and you go out of business because of that. It's a CRIME..
MULTIBET (google it, with DDoS)..
"ANDREW FOWLER: It's a criminal eBay, where everything is for sale, including DDOS attacks, the cyber nastie which destroyed Multibet"
"The Herald Sun newspaper in Australia reports that widespread Distributed Denial of Services attacks have crippled a number of leading Aussie sportsbetting websites, possibly costing operators millions in lost bets over a busy weekend that features the final Ashes Test, the World Athletics Championships, Tri Nations rugby and crucial AFL and NFL games.
DDoS attacks are mounted when criminals seek to extort ransoms from websites, using tens of thousands of zombie computers under their control to overwhelm the website with data, thus inducing shutdowns. The criminals behind the attacks obtain control of ordinary computers without the owners even being aware of it by planting malignant viruses."
"Terry Lillis, owner of corporate bookmaker Multibet, was a victim of a similar online sabotage in 2004. Multibet was put offline for 24 hours before Lillis received an email demanding payment of $US25 000.
Scotland Yard investigators revealed at the time that 50 other betting agencies across 30 countries had also been made targets. The Russian mafia was linked to the attack."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
guess what, Anon have learned this simple, basic fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations and businesses with low ethical standards would greatly appreciate such a law, as it would legally allow them to silence critics and shut down bad reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much like the current state of IP, patent, copyright law you would see people sniffing around and doing the "hate you, and you are going to fail" thing. It will only get worse as time goes by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I think cell phone users are annoying. Maybe they don't work within a quarter mile of my location until they disable my jammer.
It goes from funny to seriously disruptive awfully fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What nay be a more useful mode of protest is to get enough people to write and send individual emails to their political representative, so that someone has to read most of them. A cut and paste job is less effective, as it can be easily filtered. Causing people to work harder by exercing a legal right is more effective that stopping them from working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difficult one
Sadly when people look at the American Judicial system they look at another arm of the government that uses there powers to move political/business ideals forward and not fair and balanced laws.
Then you have lawmakers that are easily bought to write laws that favor those that have money to bribe them/lobby them. Why should people abide by a corrupt system where laws and judges are mainly interested in themselves and not the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Difficult one
Sure, you can blame the Government, and the Judicial system for all your troubles, but it comes down to what YOU THINK, and the conclusions you draw.
Clearly if you hacked into my computer so you can build a bot-net for your Protest, you have committed a crime against me. (firstly). And If I do not agree with your protest why should I be forced to participate in it ?
When do you think the judicial system has done wrong in this situation ? you are quick to blame them, but slow to explain why you blame them or show what they have done to win that blame.
You say it has it's own objectives, so what are they ?? if you don't know what they are, and cannot put them into words, does that just mean you don't really know, you're just making things up because it makes you feel better.
Do you believe the judicial system has put up laws on computer hacking to protect their own biases ??
Or for them to use that power to more political / business ideals forward.. how does that work ??
So the judicial system makes laws on computer hacking to move political / business ideals.
Or are you just saying words because they sound nice in your head ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really speech?
But a DDOS takes no ongoing effort once it's set up. I assume they set a script to auto-run and aren't actually hitting refresh manually, and probably don't even have to be there until they decide to stop. It's too easy. They can say "It's like hitting refresh" but they aren't actually hitting refresh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never
DDoS attacks also often use illegally attained botnets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never
I assume you are implying this is in fact illegal in some way .... so perhaps you could point me to the written law(s) and or court ruling(s) which support this tenuous proclamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Never
Quote:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/capitalism-love-story
It is illegal so law enforcement can act for when there are not very strong popular support and it is deemed unreasonable by most people, but it is not punished harshly because others would not let that happen even if they had to resource to violence to achieve that understanding.
The weak punishment is more akin to a barrier to entry, you must want it and have to be willing to risk that minimum to do it, but the government wouldn't dare make it really illegal because everybody would come down on them like a tone of bricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Hopes of Final Word
A DDoS attack requires you to redirect traffic of multiple IP addresses to a specific one in general with the specific motive to block or bottle neck traffic on a server making it useless. Users don't have to actively participate and some can't actively participate due to the randomness of the calling of IP addresses required for a DDoS attack to take place. All it takes is one user with a thumb drive, and public-use computers to pull one off. That is significantly illegal and far from a sit-in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I get the free speech theory, but with few exceptions they're used right now as just another tool to stifle a competitor or shut down an avenue of information.
Is the site just down or is an attack happening? How often do those perpetrating the attack take credit for or bother to explain it?
I understand the ideal but I am skeptical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
your analogy is not quite right
ALSO, regarding your comments that having to ask the government to validate protest is wrong ... this is ridiculous. If I say my legitimate for of protest is to kill everyone I disagree with, I should have to ask the government whether that is OK. Asking is not the problem; arbitrary or partisan restriction, when it results, is the problem.
The government is involved because my protest affects other people, and government exists, at least in part, to mediate between people with opposing interests; as soon as more than one party is involved and in public, the government probably won't be too far behind (if only because one side asks for them). The problems, if they arise, do so in the results, not in the asking itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DDoS by a crowd v. DDoS by robots
It would be reasonable to protect hand-implemented crowd-sourced DDoS attacks on First Amendment grounds, while still treating automated DDoS attacks as hacking. (Treating DDoS attacks as terrorism is absurd: If any server is simultaneously running programs so critical to public safety that shutting them down might reasonably be considered a terrorist attack and programs that make it susceptible to DDoS attacks, whoever designed such a system should be sacked for incompetence, the functions split between two servers, and our civil liberties left relatively unmolested.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DDoS by a crowd v. DDoS by robots
Even if you managed to get 1000 people doing it, it would simply not work, you need a bot-net to create a DDoS, and to create a bot-net you need to hack into a lot of innocent users computers and convert them to bots.
Then the 'protest' is by the bots that have been illegally hacked, and the bots are owned by people who might not agree with your cause, and might not want to participate in your illegal activity, they are also victims of your crime.
They should get 5 years prison for each innocent computer they hacked to create the bot net.. served consecutively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DDoS by a crowd v. DDoS by robots
There are enough people who fancy themselves "hackers" that could easily be "grouped" together at the same time to perform a manual DDoS, or even a manually-started DDoS that has automated scripts that can be stopped manually as well. Each halfway-decent machine these days can be set up to run 3 or 4 virtual machines; and if they decide to set up voluntary bot-nets on each of those virtual machines, you've got potentially 4000 machines instead of 1000, or somesuch--either way, it's enough to make it happen.
I'm also guessing that you'd rather mow down peaceful protesters with automatic assault rifles, because they're TERRORISTS!! :tard:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous
"bratty/destuctive kids" but a group of intelligent people fighting for a legitimate cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anonymous
so you agree with every cause (legitimate or not) as your free ticket to fight it how you like (even illegally ??).
what if you decide TechDirt is their next 'cause' is it legitimate ?? so you would be ok with Anon taking down Techdirt because of this article and the high number of people on here expressing their free speech rights saying they don't like what Anon are doing ??
would stopping your free speech be considered by you to be a legitimate cause ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: anonymous
All causes must begin with working within the system. If said cause fails because of the will of the majority, then all the minority can do is continue working peacefully to try to change the opinions of the majority (see gay rights), and when it works, awesome.
But when a minority takes control of the system, and locks up any avenue of change, or strips rights from ANY group, then the system has just been corrupted, especially if the clear will of the majority is being violated or ignored (gay rights, cannabis legalization); at which point initial protest must begin within the system, and move outside in the form of peaceful protest. When the minority use the system violently against the peaceful protest, or twist the laws to use the courts to silence the protest, then moving beyond simple peaceful protest and into more destructive or violent responses, especially if said silencing by the system is violent and kills or maims people. Then the people have the right to revolt, preferably peacefully, but violently if required.
if you would rather stomp on people just trying to gain justice, then you best be ready to have your ass knocked down and kicked back. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT IS! "Anonymous" is not some coherent organized group. It's whatever kids happen to be looking at 4chan.org/b/ at a particular moment.
Not that that's a bad thing or that that should affect the argument in any way, that's just what it is. And that's OK!!
Also this notion that "it's free speech" when it's something positive and "it's hacking" when it's something you don't like is retarded. It doesn't matter whether it's Anonymous or an organized group... DDoS is DDoS. The intent, the source, and the purpose don't affect the definition.
On one hand, a DDoS should *never* be considered "hacking" or "terrorism". That's not accurate at all.
On the other hand, physically occupying space can be more destructive than just "protesting", especially if your purpose is to intimidate. If you're infringing my ability to freely move about in the public square and go about my daily business, you're guilty of more than just "speech" and "protesting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now lets take a look at Distributed Denial of Service attacks. They require individuals to use a bot-net as a collective hive of autonomous machines to bottleneck a server to uselessness.
A sit-in is used in protest to a degree to demonstrate passive-aggressive protest. A DDoS attack is an attack...not a protest. That's the legal difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
how many protested have you seen using the defence of free speech as their defence ?? and it actually working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When someone is arrested for "protesting" it is usually because of laws being violated in the process of of the protest. In the US, it's very clear cut as to what a protest is and there are rules on how to legally conduct one.
Forgive me, I just don't know if you're trying to troll, be funny, invoke a negative reaction, or a combination therein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little anarchists that they are.
"please, Mr Government, we are playing nice now and have raised a partition for your perusal. Take your time, and see the overwhelming support for out cause."
why not just take down the .GOV domain with a massive DDoS and tell the Government they will not get it back until they change the laws ?
How can you be Anon and sign a partition anyway, don't you have to put your name on a partition ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A partition
A simple and often effective form of legal protest and political decent. WTG ANON...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A partition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You as a community and a society have great power and ability to determine laws and policy, far, far more effective than a DDoS by someone who is not even willing to name themselves.
You will all say that is stupid, but you also have the right and ability to participate in politics, law making and change making, and in expressing the will of the people and your society and culture.
But you will never do it by taking measure that amount to a terrorist act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are Americans still under the rule of the Queen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People get angry, they try conflict and remember how resource intensive it is to go that route and they find other ways to do it.
Eventually, people will realize that they can do exactly what corporations are doing and that is writing the laws and putting the people to implement those in the right positions.
The tools are already here, laws are code, there are many ways to write code and manage it in an decentralized form, then there is the spread of that code to others so the more links in the chain adopt it the more some laws become accepted.
Could you imagine if every citizen had a law-git-repository where he made his own change to the OS of the country(laws), you may not even have to have elections, people would elect naturally the guys who write the best laws in their own opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or type "ipconfig /renew"
or any of the other dozen things one can do.
A 12 years old doesn't have millions in a bank account, a 12 years old doesn't have the experience to build a huge botnet alone, so yes if you get owned by a 12 years old the most probably explanation for it is that you are a moron, the rare 12 years old geniuses don't do it so often that it warrants any kind of law for the less than 0.000000001% chance that this happens because someone younger is actually smarter than supposedly experienced hardened people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fixed that for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2- Type in target
3- ?????
4- Profit
Anyone can engage in a DDoS attack voluntarily and easily.
I disagree with you when you say Govt already won. We are not in the Middle Ages where there was no official channels. They exist and should be tried. Whether they will work or not remains to be seen. And it does not matter if the Government does not acknowledge the petition or gives any lame, standard reply. They can't stop it, we - the people - are only trying to go through "legitimate" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the dark ages are upon us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can set my computer up to hit a site and then I can not wait for the response (ignore the wait response)and request the site again. The site will try to respond but I am not longer there. Set up corretly I can do this hundreds to millions of times and because I do not care if the host respsonds I can hit the site faster and required fewer computers to do it. I would define a DDoS attack as one that, in mass, sends request and does not wait for a response. A DDoS should not be a group of humans hitting refresh on there browsers (else Slashdot would have been the biggest DDoS in the past).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a Difference
A sit-in is legal because a group of people gather in a place where it is legal for them to be, and simply stay there - passively.
If 1,000 individuals want to simultaneously visit a web site and click the refresh button, I would have to agree that is somewhat close to a sit-in. It's still not as passive, but at least it is still a group of individuals exercising their right and represents 1,000 people who feel strongly enough to self-represent. It's the numbers of the PEOPLE that matter with a sit-in.
But with a DDoS, just one or two people can launch thousands or even millions of computers against a web site. This is asymmetric. Do you really want one or two people to be able to simulate a sit-in claiming to represent an entire group of people. Do you really want them claiming to represent you in any cause their potentially radical minds might latch onto?
This is why DDoS can never be "legal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a Difference
So how do you propose we do a "sit-in" against a website? Find it's physical location and chain ourselves to the door? Fat lot of good THAT would do.
Give up, 'cuz us "dirty unwashed rabble" should be happy with our lot in life?
I agree with the below poster: as long as the computers used are NOT hacked to make the DoS possible (i.e., volunteered), then it's legit, even if a DoS tool is being used on virtual machines to multiply the effects--as long as the machines in question are under the control of a human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a Difference
So how do you propose we do a "sit-in" against a website? Find it's physical location and chain ourselves to the door? Fat lot of good THAT would do.
Give up, 'cuz us "dirty unwashed rabble" should be happy with our lot in life?
I agree with the below poster: as long as the computers used are NOT hacked to make the DoS possible (i.e., volunteered), then it's legit, even if a DoS tool is being used on virtual machines to multiply the effects--as long as the machines in question are under the control of a human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DDoS as protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great IDEA!!!?!?!
Although i agree that DDoS is not hacking nor is it terrorism, it is definitely not a sit-in.
Perhaps the constitution needs to be adjusted to modern world slightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]