4 ms·

I disagree with the author. A DDOS is not necessarily a crime, same a blocking a road to hold a protest is not a crime, while "just blocking a road" is. The mo

by yaix 15y ago

I disagree with the author. A DDOS is not necessarily a crime, same a blocking a road to hold a protest is not a crime, while "just blocking a road" is. The motives for doing so are much more important than the author recognizes. And the harsh way gov'ts worldwide are responding to these protests are worrying. "Let's just smash 'em" is probably not a politically wise response.

petercooper 15y ago
A DDOS is not necessarily a crime Under what circumstances or alternative definition? (Without referring to a physical analogy.)
- Joeboy 15y ago
  Slashdotting
- mikle 15y ago
  Well for it to be a crime there must be a law against it. Some countries don't have laws about it, meaning some places on earth don't consider DDOS a crime.
  - petercooper 15y ago
    This is why I asked the question, as the grandparent poster seemed to be making some sort of legal or moral point conflating a DDOS with the right of assembly. Nonetheless, strictly speaking there are clearly many forms of DDOS that are not illegal (DDOSing your own equipment, for example, and those situations you explain) but they don't seem to fit well into the point he/she was trying to make.
kiiski 15y ago
> "The motives for doing so are much more important than the author recognizes." And who judges the motives? Law enforcement cannot start making such decisions, so they will have to consider DDOS a crime and let the courts sort them out.
shapoopy 15y ago
To clarify, as one who has now and again been involved in "IRL" activism: blocking a road to hold a protest is a crime, legally-speaking.* In fact, police SOP for a protest that's beginning to get a bit rowdy is to cite them for just such a crime. "Disperse from the road, or be incarcerated," as it were. Some protests will take this as a sign to move back into sanctioned areas (if it seems strategically appropriate to keep the action going); others will choose to stay and go to prison for the night. In some sense, it doesn't qualify as "civil disobedience," in the Dr. King sense, unless the latter happens: "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." — Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," 1963[1] [1]: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... *Edit: At least in the U.S.

by yaix 15y ago

petercooper 15y ago

A DDOS is not necessarily a crime Under what circumstances or alternative definition? (Without referring to a physical analogy.)

Joeboy 15y ago
Slashdotting
mikle 15y ago
Well for it to be a crime there must be a law against it. Some countries don't have laws about it, meaning some places on earth don't consider DDOS a crime.
- petercooper 15y ago
  This is why I asked the question, as the grandparent poster seemed to be making some sort of legal or moral point conflating a DDOS with the right of assembly. Nonetheless, strictly speaking there are clearly many forms of DDOS that are not illegal (DDOSing your own equipment, for example, and those situations you explain) but they don't seem to fit well into the point he/she was trying to make.

kiiski 15y ago

> "The motives for doing so are much more important than the author recognizes." And who judges the motives? Law enforcement cannot start making such decisions, so they will have to consider DDOS a crime and let the courts sort them out.

shapoopy 15y ago

To clarify, as one who has now and again been involved in "IRL" activism: blocking a road to hold a protest is a crime, legally-speaking.* In fact, police SOP for a protest that's beginning to get a bit rowdy is to cite them for just such a crime. "Disperse from the road, or be incarcerated," as it were. Some protests will take this as a sign to move back into sanctioned areas (if it seems strategically appropriate to keep the action going); others will choose to stay and go to prison for the night. In some sense, it doesn't qualify as "civil disobedience," in the Dr. King sense, unless the latter happens: "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." — Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," 1963[1] [1]: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... *Edit: At least in the U.S.