6 ms·

Also for the young kids: illegal is not always synonymous with immoral, and sometimes to be a productive member of society you have to step across that line.

piguy314 16y ago
It's only illegal if you get caught, which will never happen if DDoS from behind 7 proxies!
aw3c2 16y ago
How is DDOSing some websites productive? I would call appearing like immature bullies rather counter-productive if you fight for improving your rights.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- lewi 16y ago
  He didn't say that, he was just stating a simple truth
chrischen 16y ago
DDoS or human flesh search would be morally acceptable IF there were no other recourse in society for justice. In china the government is authoritarian and the people have human flesh searches as their effective form of justice. But to condone illegal activity for change in places like the united states is to suggest that there is critical flaw in the democratic process. Is there? Because if there is then we should acknowledge that and fix that too instead of relying on mob rule all the time. The only person I can see who morally justifies this (for him/herself) would be some teenager who has never been allowed to vote (thus not having any other recourse for change). But I think its irresponsible to encourage these who must be kids to take the illegal route to get what they want if there is a viable legal route. Write your senator or something, don't cheer the mob on. Make sure you're not operating on impulse.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  The MPAA has powerful lobbyists. I can see people being disenfranchised pretty easily, at which point, what's your recourse? Vote in the next guy who'll be just as easily swayed? I don't agree with DDOS'ing people, but I can understand how some people might think it's one of the few options which might bring about change.
  - chrischen 16y ago
    So you're saying the system is broken? It very well could be but you honestly think any of these kids checked to see? And if they have tried doing it legally and fail then I would like to see more fight towards that issue, as in my opinion it's a bigger issue if corporations are controlling our gov't than them attacking a few pirates. If a law is unjust you IGNORE it. You don't take enforcement into your own hands, much less anonymous enforcement. If you truly believe what you fight for you'd come out and be proud of it because you know you're right. But nothing says uncertain motives more than cowering behind anonymity for a cause.
  - kiba 16y ago
    Sometime it is better to employ a taoist strategy of doing nothing and let them create their own demise. If they are targeting P2P users, than it let them know not to pirate that content and consume somebody's else. If that somebody else is smart, than he could enter into a mutually beneficial relationship rather than wasting money to try to fight piracy.
- jrwoodruff 16y ago
  Civil disobedience has a long and recognized history and plays an important role in democratic societies as much as any other kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks It very well could indicate a flaw in democracy, nothing is perfect.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Civil disobedience is a very well-defined term in its proper usage, and does not extend to all forms of "breaking the law because you're angry about something". Civil disobedience goes like this: 1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt) 2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly. 3. You get arrested and punished. 4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law. DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

piguy314 16y ago

It's only illegal if you get caught, which will never happen if DDoS from behind 7 proxies!

aw3c2 16y ago

How is DDOSing some websites productive? I would call appearing like immature bullies rather counter-productive if you fight for improving your rights.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
lewi 16y ago
He didn't say that, he was just stating a simple truth

chrischen 16y ago

DDoS or human flesh search would be morally acceptable IF there were no other recourse in society for justice. In china the government is authoritarian and the people have human flesh searches as their effective form of justice. But to condone illegal activity for change in places like the united states is to suggest that there is critical flaw in the democratic process. Is there? Because if there is then we should acknowledge that and fix that too instead of relying on mob rule all the time. The only person I can see who morally justifies this (for him/herself) would be some teenager who has never been allowed to vote (thus not having any other recourse for change). But I think its irresponsible to encourage these who must be kids to take the illegal route to get what they want if there is a viable legal route. Write your senator or something, don't cheer the mob on. Make sure you're not operating on impulse.

anthonyb 16y ago
The MPAA has powerful lobbyists. I can see people being disenfranchised pretty easily, at which point, what's your recourse? Vote in the next guy who'll be just as easily swayed? I don't agree with DDOS'ing people, but I can understand how some people might think it's one of the few options which might bring about change.
- chrischen 16y ago
  So you're saying the system is broken? It very well could be but you honestly think any of these kids checked to see? And if they have tried doing it legally and fail then I would like to see more fight towards that issue, as in my opinion it's a bigger issue if corporations are controlling our gov't than them attacking a few pirates. If a law is unjust you IGNORE it. You don't take enforcement into your own hands, much less anonymous enforcement. If you truly believe what you fight for you'd come out and be proud of it because you know you're right. But nothing says uncertain motives more than cowering behind anonymity for a cause.
- kiba 16y ago
  Sometime it is better to employ a taoist strategy of doing nothing and let them create their own demise. If they are targeting P2P users, than it let them know not to pirate that content and consume somebody's else. If that somebody else is smart, than he could enter into a mutually beneficial relationship rather than wasting money to try to fight piracy.
jrwoodruff 16y ago
Civil disobedience has a long and recognized history and plays an important role in democratic societies as much as any other kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks It very well could indicate a flaw in democracy, nothing is perfect.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Civil disobedience is a very well-defined term in its proper usage, and does not extend to all forms of "breaking the law because you're angry about something". Civil disobedience goes like this: 1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt) 2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly. 3. You get arrested and punished. 4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law. DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]