14 ms·

I watched a documentary on Scientology ages ago about how they were suing the crap out of people for DDoSing their site. The problem was these people were basic

by Jedi72 8y ago

I watched a documentary on Scientology ages ago about how they were suing the crap out of people for DDoSing their site. The problem was these people were basically just kids, most were ~14 years old, who saw something on 4chan and followed instructions. I believe this was ~2001 [correction: 2008]. One of their lawyers was going with the defence that DDoS was equivalent to a sit-in protest, not unlike those used during the segregation protests in the US in the 1960s, specifically of diners who refused black customers. Sending 200 people into a diner and refusing to move is basically IRL denial of service. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact name of the documentary but this wiki page covers the events https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology. I always wondered how successful that defence was, I havent been able to find a follow-up.

muthdra 8y ago
Sounds like a good doc. Perhaps it was this one? http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/ http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/
lcw 8y ago
I saw this documentary also, but personally I thought the defense was seriously flawed. A sit in costs the business money by preventing them from making money, but ddos'ing not only cost money because people can't use the site but also costs the company money to deal with the excess traffic. So to me the adequate metaphor is throwing bricks through the window of an establishment you don't like. Would love to here others thoughts?
- matuszeg 8y ago
  Having to pay for the extra traffic is similar to having to pay for rent and staffing for that day of the sit in. Its built in costs of operating that have to be paid because their time of running the business was temporarily suspended.
  - lcw 8y ago
    If you have to hire 10x more staff then usual and have them sit around.
    - BeeOnRope 8y ago
      Sure, there's a quantitative difference but not necessarily a qualitative one.
      - lcw 8y ago
        Right I get that in both cases the business can't operate, but if you take an example of a modern web application and a ddos with an ounce of sophistication it can be hard to quickly understand what is happening. So your autoscaling ramped up then you realize something extraordinary is happening. By that time you start trying to stop things at the edge, but some costly damage could have already been done as far as hardware resources or engineering time. Now your spending more money than you would have had to in a normal day of business, and you aren't making money is my point.
        salawat 8y ago
        Then the sit in was a resounding success. The fact you've used computers to magnify the effect of the protest to your detriment is besides the point. You set up the business, and arranged for automatic scaling ahead of time. This doesn't entitle you to some special protection because you never took into account something like that could happen. That's the risk inherent to technology. It lets you.scale. Even when you'd rather you didn't.
      - ben-schaaf 8y ago
        I mostly agree, if the DDoS is just more real visitors. But it's a whole other problem when the attacker is using amplification or a botnet. Then it's more the equivalent of stealing a bunch of people's trucks and then driving them into the store to stop business.
  - cft 8y ago
marcoperaza 8y ago
The major problem with that defense is that sit-ins aren’t legal. There is no general right to occupy private property to make a political point. You may think that’s what was going in the 60s lunch counter sit-ins, but the question there was the legality of racial discrimination in privately owned restaurants. The court never ruled on the exact issue, made moot by the Civil Rights Act. But there was never any suggestion that sitting-in somewhere where you had no right to be was legal.
- blitmap 8y ago
  Speaking as someone who wasn't alive during the 60s: I thought the objective of a sit-in was to gain service (not obstruct it)? My understanding is that people of color were not served when they were very willing to pay for and make use of it.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    More or less. Remember though that if the business is unwilling to have you on premises you are trespassing and that is illegal. You can be arrested for sitting in a chair after you are told to leave.
  - chrissam 8y ago
    The objective of sit-ins was to protest, not to buy lunch. If you wanted lunch, you'd go to a place that would serve you and the status quo would be maintained. It's immaterial whether people participating in sit-ins had money or planned to eat. You might say that the long term objective of sit-ins was to gain service, but only inasmuch as "gaining service" fell under the umbrella of "equal rights". Finally, as a possibly unwelcome aside, I find it somewhat irritating to see civil rights protestors referred to as "people of color". The Civil Rights Movement was about acknowleging shared humanity, not dividing people into groups based on privilege. Also, Americans, dark-skinned and otherwise, participated in these movements. Many sit-ins involved large groups of white people sitting down with at least one black person, so all of them would be refused service. The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s sought allies regardless of race, which is perhaps why it was so successful.

by Jedi72 8y ago

muthdra 8y ago

Sounds like a good doc. Perhaps it was this one? http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/ http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/

lcw 8y ago

I saw this documentary also, but personally I thought the defense was seriously flawed. A sit in costs the business money by preventing them from making money, but ddos'ing not only cost money because people can't use the site but also costs the company money to deal with the excess traffic. So to me the adequate metaphor is throwing bricks through the window of an establishment you don't like. Would love to here others thoughts?

matuszeg 8y ago
Having to pay for the extra traffic is similar to having to pay for rent and staffing for that day of the sit in. Its built in costs of operating that have to be paid because their time of running the business was temporarily suspended.
- lcw 8y ago
  If you have to hire 10x more staff then usual and have them sit around.
  - BeeOnRope 8y ago
    Sure, there's a quantitative difference but not necessarily a qualitative one.
    - lcw 8y ago
      Right I get that in both cases the business can't operate, but if you take an example of a modern web application and a ddos with an ounce of sophistication it can be hard to quickly understand what is happening. So your autoscaling ramped up then you realize something extraordinary is happening. By that time you start trying to stop things at the edge, but some costly damage could have already been done as far as hardware resources or engineering time. Now your spending more money than you would have had to in a normal day of business, and you aren't making money is my point.
      - salawat 8y ago
        Then the sit in was a resounding success. The fact you've used computers to magnify the effect of the protest to your detriment is besides the point. You set up the business, and arranged for automatic scaling ahead of time. This doesn't entitle you to some special protection because you never took into account something like that could happen. That's the risk inherent to technology. It lets you.scale. Even when you'd rather you didn't.
    - ben-schaaf 8y ago
      I mostly agree, if the DDoS is just more real visitors. But it's a whole other problem when the attacker is using amplification or a botnet. Then it's more the equivalent of stealing a bunch of people's trucks and then driving them into the store to stop business.
- cft 8y ago

marcoperaza 8y ago

The major problem with that defense is that sit-ins aren’t legal. There is no general right to occupy private property to make a political point. You may think that’s what was going in the 60s lunch counter sit-ins, but the question there was the legality of racial discrimination in privately owned restaurants. The court never ruled on the exact issue, made moot by the Civil Rights Act. But there was never any suggestion that sitting-in somewhere where you had no right to be was legal.

blitmap 8y ago
Speaking as someone who wasn't alive during the 60s: I thought the objective of a sit-in was to gain service (not obstruct it)? My understanding is that people of color were not served when they were very willing to pay for and make use of it.
- bluGill 8y ago
  More or less. Remember though that if the business is unwilling to have you on premises you are trespassing and that is illegal. You can be arrested for sitting in a chair after you are told to leave.
- chrissam 8y ago
  The objective of sit-ins was to protest, not to buy lunch. If you wanted lunch, you'd go to a place that would serve you and the status quo would be maintained. It's immaterial whether people participating in sit-ins had money or planned to eat. You might say that the long term objective of sit-ins was to gain service, but only inasmuch as "gaining service" fell under the umbrella of "equal rights". Finally, as a possibly unwelcome aside, I find it somewhat irritating to see civil rights protestors referred to as "people of color". The Civil Rights Movement was about acknowleging shared humanity, not dividing people into groups based on privilege. Also, Americans, dark-skinned and otherwise, participated in these movements. Many sit-ins involved large groups of white people sitting down with at least one black person, so all of them would be refused service. The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s sought allies regardless of race, which is perhaps why it was so successful.