3 ms·

You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? Do people also not deserve to

You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?

choo-t 7mo ago
> You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable. > Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ? >Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone? Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.
kpcyrd 7mo ago
You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.
- ajam1507 7mo ago
  > You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? I do think it’s a problem. You are the only one excusing bad behavior here.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  If it's information that's medium-difficult to get, and the only people that would use the information to cause harm can easily put in more effort than that, then I don't think it's "violence" to post that information.
psychoslave 7mo ago
Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.
- ajam1507 7mo ago
  > Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Another basic ethological expectation is that the strong dominate the weak, but maybe we shouldn’t base our moral framework around how things are, and rather on how they should be.
staticassertion 7mo ago
I think this is a weak framing. Lots of things are moral or immoral under specific circumstances. We should protect people from being murdered. I think murder is usually wrong. But we also likely agree that there are circumstances in which killing someone can be justified. If we can find context for taking a life, I'm quite sure we can find context for a DoS.
- ajam1507 7mo ago
  And what’s the context for using the internet traffic of your unsuspecting users to accomplish this?
  - choo-t 7mo ago
    Using the internet trafic of the persons using your service to protect your anonymity and thus, protecting the service itself.
    - ajam1507 7mo ago
      So you shouldn’t have to inform your users that their traffic will be used in a cyberattack?
      - RobotToaster 7mo ago
        In most jurisdictions informing them would potentially make them legally liable. The fact they had no knowledge shields them from liability.
        ajam1507 7mo ago
        So their desire to not be used to commit a cyberattack doesn’t factor in? As long as they aren’t legally liable, it doesn’t matter? Also a checkbox that says something like “I would like to help commit a crime using my internet traffic” would keep people from having their traffic used without consent.
RobotToaster 7mo ago
There's an old legal maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis", that is "in a case of mutual fault the position of the defending party is the better one."
- ajam1507 7mo ago
  That works better when there is a defendant.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    There's an archivist, and a journalist who is trying to kill that archivist. Which one is attacking and which one is defending?
mikkupikku 7mo ago
People do not ever have any sort of moral or natural right to not get hit after starting shit.
- ajam1507 7mo ago
  Even if this were true, this does not justify any particular type of action, except maybe an in kind response. For example, would they have been justified to murder the blogger?
gzread 7mo ago
I can't really be mad about someone DDoSing someone who's trying to kill them.

choo-t 7mo ago

> You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable. > Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ? >Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone? Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.

kpcyrd 7mo ago

You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.

ajam1507 7mo ago
> You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? I do think it’s a problem. You are the only one excusing bad behavior here.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
Dylan16807 7mo ago
If it's information that's medium-difficult to get, and the only people that would use the information to cause harm can easily put in more effort than that, then I don't think it's "violence" to post that information.

psychoslave 7mo ago

Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.

ajam1507 7mo ago
> Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Another basic ethological expectation is that the strong dominate the weak, but maybe we shouldn’t base our moral framework around how things are, and rather on how they should be.

staticassertion 7mo ago

I think this is a weak framing. Lots of things are moral or immoral under specific circumstances. We should protect people from being murdered. I think murder is usually wrong. But we also likely agree that there are circumstances in which killing someone can be justified. If we can find context for taking a life, I'm quite sure we can find context for a DoS.

ajam1507 7mo ago
And what’s the context for using the internet traffic of your unsuspecting users to accomplish this?
- choo-t 7mo ago
  Using the internet trafic of the persons using your service to protect your anonymity and thus, protecting the service itself.
  - ajam1507 7mo ago
    So you shouldn’t have to inform your users that their traffic will be used in a cyberattack?
    - RobotToaster 7mo ago
      In most jurisdictions informing them would potentially make them legally liable. The fact they had no knowledge shields them from liability.
      - ajam1507 7mo ago
        So their desire to not be used to commit a cyberattack doesn’t factor in? As long as they aren’t legally liable, it doesn’t matter? Also a checkbox that says something like “I would like to help commit a crime using my internet traffic” would keep people from having their traffic used without consent.

RobotToaster 7mo ago

There's an old legal maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis", that is "in a case of mutual fault the position of the defending party is the better one."

ajam1507 7mo ago
That works better when there is a defendant.
- gzread 7mo ago
  There's an archivist, and a journalist who is trying to kill that archivist. Which one is attacking and which one is defending?

mikkupikku 7mo ago

People do not ever have any sort of moral or natural right to not get hit after starting shit.

ajam1507 7mo ago
Even if this were true, this does not justify any particular type of action, except maybe an in kind response. For example, would they have been justified to murder the blogger?

gzread 7mo ago

I can't really be mad about someone DDoSing someone who's trying to kill them.