6 ms·

At what point is it OK to use a DDOS attack as a form of protest? I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked. Until they take web

by gasull 16y ago

At what point is it OK to use a DDOS attack as a form of protest? I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked. Until they take websites down without trial? Checked. Until they start accusing journalist of espionage? Checked. Until they illegally tape the Internet? Checked. Is there a limit or DDOS is wrong no matter what?

CWuestefeld 16y ago
do we have to wait until they... Who is the "they" that you refer to? I don't think that it's MasterCard nor Visa that did those things.
- gasull 16y ago
  They is obviously the Government, but with the help of unethical companies: AT&T for taping the Internet, Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard for suppressing free press, etc.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    I have a hard time linking "getting out of the crossfire" with "unethical". Spineless? Perhaps. Failing to stand up for some principle? Probably. But unethical?
    - gasull 16y ago
      Failing to stand up for some principle? Probably. But unethical? Do you doublethink so?
      - potatolicious 16y ago
        This is the internal inconsistency that troubles me about this whole WikiLeaks thing. We've railed on companies constantly in the past for being political, and now we're railing on them for not being sufficiently political in our favor. So which will it be? This is Amazon, PayPal, VISA, MC, etc, saying "woah hey a dangerously hot potato, not touching that", which strikes me as a more or less neutral stance. To expect more than that would be expecting a company to make a political stand on one side or another - something we've consistently fought against in the past. So which is it? Do we want companies to remain politically neutral and leave the democratic process up to real people (as opposed to corporate persons)? Or do we want them to fight for our cause, and make open political stands? If so, we also have to accept that often they will not be fighting on our side, and each punch they throw will be worth a lot of real people's punches.
        gasull 16y ago
        When confronted with the situation, neutrality isn't possible: you either stand up for your users or you help the Government to censor. There's only so much you can avoid taking sides on.
        nhangen 16y ago
        Not all users are created equal. We know this, just as we know that the customer is not always right. None of this is black and white, there is gray across the board. These are complex decisions being made by complex businesses...why does no single company deserve the benefit of the doubt?
        intended 16y ago
        They all do. Everyone deserves it, and it has been given many times. But many companies have broken that trust, repeatedly and gotten away with murder. I don't think its about the benefit of doubt anymore. I think we have to recognize that the groups on the other side of the power equation are implacable and do not have constraints stopping them from harming you. They have the power to take over your life and do not have any oversight. Heck I would say that they have evolved to game the system and learnt how to be the best at it. The original system was not about "the constitution" or freedom, liberty, fraternity or whatever ideal we can point to. It was about distributing power evenly and having checks and balances in the most enlightened way possible. That power equation IS out of whack, and it needs to be brought back into balance. At what point do you stop staring at the minute details and say - Crap things are messed up. When was the last time you heard a company take the long view about society? If corporations don't care because they have a need to make money, if the rule makers have been corrupted and the average user is irrelevant, if the impartiality of the referees/judges is being removed, then who is there to ensure the system works? As someone pointed out - "I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked. Until they take websites down without trial? Checked. Until they start accusing journalist of espionage? Checked. Until they illegally tape the Internet? Checked." Heck you have to get pissed off at some point before you do something about it. Its likely that the point has been passed.
    - wtallis 16y ago
      The government shouldn't interfere with private transactions without proper cause and due process. When a big business complies with a "polite request" from the government, and that request is the sort that would be illegal and justification for armed rebellion if it were phrased as an order, that business is unethical and colluding with corrupt government.
    - donaq 16y ago
      "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Not doing commerce with someone is not suppression. It's a peaceful activity. They were never responsible for helping wikileaks or anyone else do anything, so they are not violating an obligation by failing to help. (OK they do have obligations to their customers, but those are governed by contracts which let them cancel service and which they no doubt followed). Whether you agree with Amazon/Visa/etc or not, it's important to keep clear the difference between their actions (no force involved) and the Government's actions (force involved). It's not all the same thing even if they help accomplish some similar ends.
    - gasull 16y ago
      Good point. The problem with this is that this is exactly the reason why the Government is using companies as proxies for suppressing freedom, because it leaves nobody to blame: (1) the Government didn't really forbid donations to WikiLeaks and (2) the companies can always blame the Government or the law for what they were forced to do. I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.
      - xenophanes 16y ago
        It's tricky b/c Amazon (for example) denies that they acted b/c the Govt wanted them to. Are they lying? I don't know. It's really hard to tell. They said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true; but I don't know if they would have been happy to overlook it without any Govt pressure. So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
        gasull 16y ago
        [Amazon] said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.
rbanffy 16y ago
> At what point is it OK to use a DDOS attack as a form of protest? The DDoS may be the net analog to a street protest that provokes a traffic-jam.

by gasull 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago

do we have to wait until they... Who is the "they" that you refer to? I don't think that it's MasterCard nor Visa that did those things.

gasull 16y ago
They is obviously the Government, but with the help of unethical companies: AT&T for taping the Internet, Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard for suppressing free press, etc.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I have a hard time linking "getting out of the crossfire" with "unethical". Spineless? Perhaps. Failing to stand up for some principle? Probably. But unethical?
  - gasull 16y ago
    Failing to stand up for some principle? Probably. But unethical? Do you doublethink so?
    - potatolicious 16y ago
      This is the internal inconsistency that troubles me about this whole WikiLeaks thing. We've railed on companies constantly in the past for being political, and now we're railing on them for not being sufficiently political in our favor. So which will it be? This is Amazon, PayPal, VISA, MC, etc, saying "woah hey a dangerously hot potato, not touching that", which strikes me as a more or less neutral stance. To expect more than that would be expecting a company to make a political stand on one side or another - something we've consistently fought against in the past. So which is it? Do we want companies to remain politically neutral and leave the democratic process up to real people (as opposed to corporate persons)? Or do we want them to fight for our cause, and make open political stands? If so, we also have to accept that often they will not be fighting on our side, and each punch they throw will be worth a lot of real people's punches.
      - gasull 16y ago
        When confronted with the situation, neutrality isn't possible: you either stand up for your users or you help the Government to censor. There's only so much you can avoid taking sides on.
        nhangen 16y ago
        Not all users are created equal. We know this, just as we know that the customer is not always right. None of this is black and white, there is gray across the board. These are complex decisions being made by complex businesses...why does no single company deserve the benefit of the doubt?
        intended 16y ago
        They all do. Everyone deserves it, and it has been given many times. But many companies have broken that trust, repeatedly and gotten away with murder. I don't think its about the benefit of doubt anymore. I think we have to recognize that the groups on the other side of the power equation are implacable and do not have constraints stopping them from harming you. They have the power to take over your life and do not have any oversight. Heck I would say that they have evolved to game the system and learnt how to be the best at it. The original system was not about "the constitution" or freedom, liberty, fraternity or whatever ideal we can point to. It was about distributing power evenly and having checks and balances in the most enlightened way possible. That power equation IS out of whack, and it needs to be brought back into balance. At what point do you stop staring at the minute details and say - Crap things are messed up. When was the last time you heard a company take the long view about society? If corporations don't care because they have a need to make money, if the rule makers have been corrupted and the average user is irrelevant, if the impartiality of the referees/judges is being removed, then who is there to ensure the system works? As someone pointed out - "I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked. Until they take websites down without trial? Checked. Until they start accusing journalist of espionage? Checked. Until they illegally tape the Internet? Checked." Heck you have to get pissed off at some point before you do something about it. Its likely that the point has been passed.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    The government shouldn't interfere with private transactions without proper cause and due process. When a big business complies with a "polite request" from the government, and that request is the sort that would be illegal and justification for armed rebellion if it were phrased as an order, that business is unethical and colluding with corrupt government.
  - donaq 16y ago
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Not doing commerce with someone is not suppression. It's a peaceful activity. They were never responsible for helping wikileaks or anyone else do anything, so they are not violating an obligation by failing to help. (OK they do have obligations to their customers, but those are governed by contracts which let them cancel service and which they no doubt followed). Whether you agree with Amazon/Visa/etc or not, it's important to keep clear the difference between their actions (no force involved) and the Government's actions (force involved). It's not all the same thing even if they help accomplish some similar ends.
  - gasull 16y ago
    Good point. The problem with this is that this is exactly the reason why the Government is using companies as proxies for suppressing freedom, because it leaves nobody to blame: (1) the Government didn't really forbid donations to WikiLeaks and (2) the companies can always blame the Government or the law for what they were forced to do. I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      It's tricky b/c Amazon (for example) denies that they acted b/c the Govt wanted them to. Are they lying? I don't know. It's really hard to tell. They said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true; but I don't know if they would have been happy to overlook it without any Govt pressure. So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
      - gasull 16y ago
        [Amazon] said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.

rbanffy 16y ago

> At what point is it OK to use a DDOS attack as a form of protest? The DDoS may be the net analog to a street protest that provokes a traffic-jam.