4 ms·

The answer to both is "Yes". When their service is down, companies can't send their email, when companies can't send their email using SendGrid they look for a

The answer to both is "Yes". When their service is down, companies can't send their email, when companies can't send their email using SendGrid they look for alternatives...

redthrowaway 14y ago
Given how haphazard DDoS attacks (especially those in the 'hacktivism' category) tend to be, I'd be surprised if they targeted anything beyond SendMail's public-facing website. I would hope that their application servers wouldn't be on the same network as their web server.
- shedd 14y ago
  The email gateway (smtp.sendgrid.com) and HTTP API endpoints were also down during the same outage period. Seems like it went beyond the public facing site.
_delirium 14y ago
It would be weird to fire someone over other people's criminal activity. That reason would be akin to what Eugene Volokh has referred to as the "heckler's veto": when you e.g. cancel a controversial speech because thuggish opponents have threatened to cause trouble (call in fake bomb threats, etc.), and you blame the speaker for having drawn the thuggish behavior, rather than the people actually engaged in criminal activity. That said, they may have had legitimate reasons to fire her, but "people are illegally attacking us in order to get at her" is not one.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  Except that she caused the criminal activity to happen because of the way she acted, and it is now costing the business money hand over fist. It gets expensive fast.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    No, the criminals caused the criminal activity. If I publish a book, and you engage in criminal retaliation against my publisher for having published it, I am not the person causing crime. Not even if your excuse was that you really hated the book. And it is no credit to the publisher if they give in to the thugs.
    - 14113 14y ago
      I think you're confusing cause and execution. Socio-economic problems are often the cause of violent crime, but muggers execute it. To use your metaphor of an author and publisher, if I (as an author) published a reasoned, well argued novella arguing a religion was hateful and bigoted, and my publisher received death threats, would I not be causing the death threats? Regardless of the legitimacy or accuracy of my publication it would still be my actions that caused the effect - in this case death threats.
      - _delirium 14y ago
        An interesting question. I think in an ethical sense, there would be no blame to someone like Richard Dawkins for publishing an anti-religious book. I do agree there could be a causal link: Dawkins's university or publisher might receive threats as a result of his atheist advocacy. But who is really to blame for these threats? I would argue it is the people who would make threats in response to atheist advocacy who are to blame, and all effort should be put towards shutting such people down. And does it mean I would support, as an ethical matter, Dawkins's publisher or university choosing to drop him, on the grounds that he has caused them difficulties, and they are therefore right in firing him to solve them? Obviously not: I would blame those making threats, and would consider his publisher and university spineless cowards if they dropped him as an author or fired him as an employee in response to the threats. I would expect them, rather, to expend their efforts tracking down the people who made the threats.
        14113 14y ago
        I agree that those offering the threats would be to blame but what we were discussing was the cause, who in this case is Adria. Ethics are tricky, and I don't think there are blanket wrong or right answers here. I agree that simply placating a baying mob by tossing someone (metaphorically) to the wolves is not necessarily ethically right from all perspectives, but therein lies the problem: it's about perspective. Were it about a university defending an author from religious nutjobs then it's ethically right for them to support him. However, when it comes to companies, there are certain other perspectives on ethics that need to be taken into account. For example, ethically a company has to do everything it can for it's shareholders. It's legally required to do this, and has an ethical responsibility to. This might be in contrast to yours or my ethics, but for the company the ethical thing to do would be to fire someone who's losing them money. Anyway, like I said, it's tricky. Personally I think SendGrid is justified in firing Adria: as a PR employee her job is to promote the company, which is difficult when the community she's trying to promote the product to has taken umbrage with her. If their sole reason was because of the DDoS attack I think that wouldn't be justified, but given the fiasco it's damaging to their reputation to continue to have her on their staff. As an aside (and to hopefully help explain my viewpoint) in the Dawkins matter: I don't think it would be ethically irresponsible for a publisher to drop him. Publisher's are there to make money, and having that and the lives of employees threatened is a reasonable reason to drop him. I don't think they should drop him, but in my opinion it's ethically reasonable for them to do it. Were it a university, I think they under no circumstance should drop him. The purpose of a university (at least in the UK) is to teach and generate research. By censoring someone at a university you're essentially censoring science and scientific enquiry which holds much greater ethical ramifications than at a publisher.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Here's a better analogy: you work at a clothing store; you're standing at the door and shout "hey niggers, what you looking at? dirty motherf*ers. come get me" at some passers-by. They proceed to tear down the store with the help of an angry mob. Should the store not hold you accountable and only "blame the people actually engaged in criminal activity"?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
wintorez 14y ago
Zerg swarm 1 - Self-righteous condescending queens 0

The answer to both is "Yes". When their service is down, companies can't send their email, when companies can't send their email using SendGrid they look for alternatives...

redthrowaway 14y ago

Given how haphazard DDoS attacks (especially those in the 'hacktivism' category) tend to be, I'd be surprised if they targeted anything beyond SendMail's public-facing website. I would hope that their application servers wouldn't be on the same network as their web server.

shedd 14y ago
The email gateway (smtp.sendgrid.com) and HTTP API endpoints were also down during the same outage period. Seems like it went beyond the public facing site.

_delirium 14y ago

It would be weird to fire someone over other people's criminal activity. That reason would be akin to what Eugene Volokh has referred to as the "heckler's veto": when you e.g. cancel a controversial speech because thuggish opponents have threatened to cause trouble (call in fake bomb threats, etc.), and you blame the speaker for having drawn the thuggish behavior, rather than the people actually engaged in criminal activity. That said, they may have had legitimate reasons to fire her, but "people are illegally attacking us in order to get at her" is not one.

X-Istence 14y ago
Except that she caused the criminal activity to happen because of the way she acted, and it is now costing the business money hand over fist. It gets expensive fast.
- _delirium 14y ago
  No, the criminals caused the criminal activity. If I publish a book, and you engage in criminal retaliation against my publisher for having published it, I am not the person causing crime. Not even if your excuse was that you really hated the book. And it is no credit to the publisher if they give in to the thugs.
  - 14113 14y ago
    I think you're confusing cause and execution. Socio-economic problems are often the cause of violent crime, but muggers execute it. To use your metaphor of an author and publisher, if I (as an author) published a reasoned, well argued novella arguing a religion was hateful and bigoted, and my publisher received death threats, would I not be causing the death threats? Regardless of the legitimacy or accuracy of my publication it would still be my actions that caused the effect - in this case death threats.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      An interesting question. I think in an ethical sense, there would be no blame to someone like Richard Dawkins for publishing an anti-religious book. I do agree there could be a causal link: Dawkins's university or publisher might receive threats as a result of his atheist advocacy. But who is really to blame for these threats? I would argue it is the people who would make threats in response to atheist advocacy who are to blame, and all effort should be put towards shutting such people down. And does it mean I would support, as an ethical matter, Dawkins's publisher or university choosing to drop him, on the grounds that he has caused them difficulties, and they are therefore right in firing him to solve them? Obviously not: I would blame those making threats, and would consider his publisher and university spineless cowards if they dropped him as an author or fired him as an employee in response to the threats. I would expect them, rather, to expend their efforts tracking down the people who made the threats.
      - 14113 14y ago
        I agree that those offering the threats would be to blame but what we were discussing was the cause, who in this case is Adria. Ethics are tricky, and I don't think there are blanket wrong or right answers here. I agree that simply placating a baying mob by tossing someone (metaphorically) to the wolves is not necessarily ethically right from all perspectives, but therein lies the problem: it's about perspective. Were it about a university defending an author from religious nutjobs then it's ethically right for them to support him. However, when it comes to companies, there are certain other perspectives on ethics that need to be taken into account. For example, ethically a company has to do everything it can for it's shareholders. It's legally required to do this, and has an ethical responsibility to. This might be in contrast to yours or my ethics, but for the company the ethical thing to do would be to fire someone who's losing them money. Anyway, like I said, it's tricky. Personally I think SendGrid is justified in firing Adria: as a PR employee her job is to promote the company, which is difficult when the community she's trying to promote the product to has taken umbrage with her. If their sole reason was because of the DDoS attack I think that wouldn't be justified, but given the fiasco it's damaging to their reputation to continue to have her on their staff. As an aside (and to hopefully help explain my viewpoint) in the Dawkins matter: I don't think it would be ethically irresponsible for a publisher to drop him. Publisher's are there to make money, and having that and the lives of employees threatened is a reasonable reason to drop him. I don't think they should drop him, but in my opinion it's ethically reasonable for them to do it. Were it a university, I think they under no circumstance should drop him. The purpose of a university (at least in the UK) is to teach and generate research. By censoring someone at a university you're essentially censoring science and scientific enquiry which holds much greater ethical ramifications than at a publisher.
ricardobeat 14y ago
Here's a better analogy: you work at a clothing store; you're standing at the door and shout "hey niggers, what you looking at? dirty motherf*ers. come get me" at some passers-by. They proceed to tear down the store with the help of an angry mob. Should the store not hold you accountable and only "blame the people actually engaged in criminal activity"?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

wintorez 14y ago

Zerg swarm 1 - Self-righteous condescending queens 0