Re: Re: Protest DDoSes are *normally* fine, but the main harm here ISN'T done to the targets
Last chance payment? No such thing, dear. If you mean that they missed their payment deadline, they can still pay up even after the foreclosure paperwork is filed. If you mean they had the opportunity to pay the day that the foreclosure went to court (If it went to court, depending on what state this hypothetical homeowner is in.) then they can still pay up and get a forbearance. If you mean the sheriff will be knocking on the door tomorrow, they can file bankruptcy. Actually, you can file bankruptcy and retain ownership (Residency?) even after the place has been auctioned off, although it's harder.
When legal and diplomatic options disappear or are exhausted, civil disobedience occurs. This isn't the fault of the protesters, but rather the fault of the administrations that allowed the situation to dissolve into protests.
Please pardon me if the fight for my civil rights are interfering with your commerce.
Re: Protest DDoSes are *normally* fine, but the main harm here ISN'T done to the targets
When legal and diplomatic options disappear or are exhausted, civil disobedience occurs. This isn't the fault of the protesters, but rather the fault of the administrations that allowed the situation to dissolve into protests.
Please pardon me if the fight for my civil rights are interfering with your commerce.
Thousands were affected in Birmingham as well. It sucked for them, as well.
When legal and diplomatic options disappear or are exhausted, civil disobedience occurs. This isn't the fault of the protesters, rather the administrations that allowed the situation to dissolve into protests.
Please pardon me if the fight for my civil rights are interfering with your commerce.
Sit-ins were peaceful protests, conducted by people willing to stand (or rather sit) for their convictions.
Yes, because the riots in Birmingham were peaceful. Yeah. Right.
Yes, they inconvenienced businesses. They didn't shut the business down. They simply made their voice heard.
Lolwhut? Martin Luther King, Jr. disagrees with you.
They did not try to offend onlookers; their goal was to obtain sympathy... and action. They served a purpose.
To quote another wonderful Wiki: By attracting media attention to the adverse treatment of black Americans, it brought national force to bear on the issue of segregation. Although desegregation occurred slowly in Birmingham, the campaign was a major factor in the national push towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in hiring practices and public services in the United States.
To be clear, I'm comparing these attacks to the protests in Birmingham, which were not peaceful, not fast, but were both purposeful and successful.
Internet attacks are done anonymously. They hide behind their keyboards, showing neither courage nor conviction for their beliefs. They take malicious and premeditated action against a chosen target. As such, they become vigilantes. Rather than assuming the role of peaceful protesters, they take the role of vandals.
The Birmingham protesters were pretty darn faceless, but that's a moot point, anyway. I don't recall the names of any members of group protesters in history, and I certainly don't remember a lack of anonymity being part of the civil disobedience laid out by King.
As for 'malice', I don't think that word means what you think it means.
DDOS attacks are neither peaceful nor legal. It is an act of vandalism, intentionally harmful to others. It is a breach of Federal law. That is not the solution to making a legal point.
It certainly has been previously. Can you explain what's changed, between now and Birmingham?
These are malicious attacks... cybercrimes.
Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
No matter how much in the "right" the perpetrators think they are... they become un-right the moment they cross the legal line. They use anarchy and chaos as their tools rather than offering constructive solutions. They choose the easy, fast, forced solution rather than trying to gain sympathy and a permanent, beneficial solution.
Rather than? You mean, because legal options have failed, right? Since that's the actual situation.
Again, the parallels to Birmingham are huge. Do you really not see them?
Some may consider this rebellion. Some may consider this "tea party" activity. And in that they may be correct. Sometimes the only solution to a problem is to pull out the big stick. But make no mistake: this is by no means a "sit in". That analogy is bogus.
So a protest that's almost a textbook version of what the most successful protester in US history did isn't actually a protest? Huh. Good to know that your opinion is so idiotic.
These DDOS hackers are neither peaceful, nor courageous, nor do they make any point other than "We have the power to impose our will on the public." In that... they perhaps become no different-- and no better-- than the companies they attack.
Many of the Birmingham protesters weren't peaceful, either. But they were successful.
The difference, I think, is that a sit-in promotes the discussion of its topic by offering a way to explain the disruption to people (people wonder what's going on and ask questions).
Because the entire South had access to the relatively small number of people shutting down business in downtown Birmingham? Really?
But will it actually do anything productive? That's not clear.
Yeah, the blacks weren't sure, either, but the situation was bad, and they'd run out of things to try. These attacks meet all of MLK, Jr.'s standards for civil disobedience, which pretty much closes the argument for me.
I don't think that is ground to be considered a crime. A jerk move perhaps but a crime no.
Sex without consent is a crime. It's called rape. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the definition stays the same.
Unless the guy moved on in the middle of the night and had sex, but if both were having it already the consent was given at the beginning of that act...
In many backwards-ass states in America, this is legally true. Once penetration has occurred, anything that occurs afterwards isn't rape. However, any idiot can tell you that if your partner says, 'Stop, that hurts!' or 'Stop, the condom broke!' or even just 'Stop!', that they have withdrawn consent, and to continue is rape.
...she could have gone away if she didn't like it...
Wow. Just... Wow. When are they supposed to just 'go away'? When they're asleep? When they wake up, pinned down by someone else? And even if the person in question did 'just go away', the fact remains that if the sex act started without consent or continued without consent, it was still rape.
...but she didn't, she stayed the course and fall asleep.
They didn't say that she withdrew consent by falling asleep during an act already consented to. The allegation is that he began and possibly completed the act while she was asleep.
Again, not saying that this is what happened but someone who has taken medication, or had a nightcap and gone to bed, cannot give consent.
I woke up with women on my d. should I call the police and have them arrested for raping me?
If you didn't give consent, then yes. That's what it is. Giving consent once, twice, or five thousand times isn't some sort of 'permanent' consent. Even marriage isn't permanent consent.
Your view of this situation shows that you probably haven't thought very much about rape, aside from watching some SVU. Do yourself, and any women in your life, a favor and Google the term 'rape culture'.
Yes, because Mike and the other Techdirt writers should be equally calm and cool about a patent fight between cell phone companies and child rape. Right.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Re: Protest DDoSes are *normally* fine, but the main harm here ISN'T done to the targets
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Re: Protest DDoSes are *normally* fine, but the main harm here ISN'T done to the targets
So, yeah, try again.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasoning by analogy
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
To be clear...
Please pardon me if the fight for my civil rights are interfering with your commerce.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Protest DDoSes are *normally* fine, but the main harm here ISN'T done to the targets
Please pardon me if the fight for my civil rights are interfering with your commerce.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re:
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Ignorance Must Be Nice, Guys
When legal and diplomatic options disappear or are exhausted, civil disobedience occurs. This isn't the fault of the protesters, rather the administrations that allowed the situation to dissolve into protests.
Please pardon me if the fight for my civil rights are interfering with your commerce.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Not a sit-in... Vigilante tactics
Yes, because the riots in Birmingham were peaceful. Yeah. Right.
Yes, they inconvenienced businesses. They didn't shut the business down. They simply made their voice heard.
Lolwhut? Martin Luther King, Jr. disagrees with you.
They did not try to offend onlookers; their goal was to obtain sympathy... and action. They served a purpose.
To quote another wonderful Wiki: By attracting media attention to the adverse treatment of black Americans, it brought national force to bear on the issue of segregation. Although desegregation occurred slowly in Birmingham, the campaign was a major factor in the national push towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in hiring practices and public services in the United States.
To be clear, I'm comparing these attacks to the protests in Birmingham, which were not peaceful, not fast, but were both purposeful and successful.
Internet attacks are done anonymously. They hide behind their keyboards, showing neither courage nor conviction for their beliefs. They take malicious and premeditated action against a chosen target. As such, they become vigilantes. Rather than assuming the role of peaceful protesters, they take the role of vandals.
The Birmingham protesters were pretty darn faceless, but that's a moot point, anyway. I don't recall the names of any members of group protesters in history, and I certainly don't remember a lack of anonymity being part of the civil disobedience laid out by King.
As for 'malice', I don't think that word means what you think it means.
DDOS attacks are neither peaceful nor legal. It is an act of vandalism, intentionally harmful to others. It is a breach of Federal law. That is not the solution to making a legal point.
It certainly has been previously. Can you explain what's changed, between now and Birmingham?
These are malicious attacks... cybercrimes.
Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
No matter how much in the "right" the perpetrators think they are... they become un-right the moment they cross the legal line. They use anarchy and chaos as their tools rather than offering constructive solutions. They choose the easy, fast, forced solution rather than trying to gain sympathy and a permanent, beneficial solution.
Rather than? You mean, because legal options have failed, right? Since that's the actual situation.
Again, the parallels to Birmingham are huge. Do you really not see them?
Some may consider this rebellion. Some may consider this "tea party" activity. And in that they may be correct. Sometimes the only solution to a problem is to pull out the big stick. But make no mistake: this is by no means a "sit in". That analogy is bogus.
So a protest that's almost a textbook version of what the most successful protester in US history did isn't actually a protest? Huh. Good to know that your opinion is so idiotic.
These DDOS hackers are neither peaceful, nor courageous, nor do they make any point other than "We have the power to impose our will on the public." In that... they perhaps become no different-- and no better-- than the companies they attack.
Many of the Birmingham protesters weren't peaceful, either. But they were successful.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: The Difference
Because the entire South had access to the relatively small number of people shutting down business in downtown Birmingham? Really?
Not so much.
On the post: Movie Exec Says Studios Should Stop Sending Out DVD Screeners For The Oscars
Re: Re: Studios Should Stop Sending Out DVD Screeners
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasoning by analogy
Yes, that's the point. Birmingham couldn't tolerate all of those black people, either.
On the post: Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?
Yeah, the blacks weren't sure, either, but the situation was bad, and they'd run out of things to try. These attacks meet all of MLK, Jr.'s standards for civil disobedience, which pretty much closes the argument for me.
On the post: So WikiLeaks Is Evil For Releasing Documents... But DynCorp Gets A Pass For Pimping Young Boys To Afghan Cops?
Re: Re:
On the post: On The Arrest Of Julian Assange
Re: Re: Re: What's to get here?
Sex without consent is a crime. It's called rape. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the definition stays the same.
Unless the guy moved on in the middle of the night and had sex, but if both were having it already the consent was given at the beginning of that act...
In many backwards-ass states in America, this is legally true. Once penetration has occurred, anything that occurs afterwards isn't rape. However, any idiot can tell you that if your partner says, 'Stop, that hurts!' or 'Stop, the condom broke!' or even just 'Stop!', that they have withdrawn consent, and to continue is rape.
...she could have gone away if she didn't like it...
Wow. Just... Wow. When are they supposed to just 'go away'? When they're asleep? When they wake up, pinned down by someone else? And even if the person in question did 'just go away', the fact remains that if the sex act started without consent or continued without consent, it was still rape.
...but she didn't, she stayed the course and fall asleep.
They didn't say that she withdrew consent by falling asleep during an act already consented to. The allegation is that he began and possibly completed the act while she was asleep.
Again, not saying that this is what happened but someone who has taken medication, or had a nightcap and gone to bed, cannot give consent.
I woke up with women on my d. should I call the police and have them arrested for raping me?
If you didn't give consent, then yes. That's what it is. Giving consent once, twice, or five thousand times isn't some sort of 'permanent' consent. Even marriage isn't permanent consent.
Your view of this situation shows that you probably haven't thought very much about rape, aside from watching some SVU. Do yourself, and any women in your life, a favor and Google the term 'rape culture'.
Or just start here.
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Vuvuzelas
Re: Re:
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Vuvuzelas
On the post: On The Arrest Of Julian Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: So WikiLeaks Is Evil For Releasing Documents... But DynCorp Gets A Pass For Pimping Young Boys To Afghan Cops?
Re:
On the post: Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
Re:
On the post: On The Arrest Of Julian Assange
Re: Re:
Next >>