3 ms·

Shutting down Iranian government websites is cyberwarfare

5 points by sweetdreams 17y ago

madair 17y ago
I urge readers to consider the importance of civil disobedience in the face of overwhelming abuses of power by the Iranian government. I'm not advocating any one particular method, but his arguments are weak. Abusers of freedom may cry foul, but that doesn't make it so.
- zcrar70 17y ago
  What makes it right for you to take down an Iranian government website, but wrong for someone in Iran to take down a US government website, or for someone in China to take down the Dalai Lama's website?
  - sweetdreams 17y ago
    I agree, and I also think that for something to be legitimate civil disobedience, you have to at least be a member of the civil society that you're disobeying. While there might be some westerners of Iranian descent involved in the denial of service attacks, most of the people involved probably are not directly connected to Iranian society.
    - madair 17y ago
      It's called Solidarity.
      - zcrar70 17y ago
        Actually, it could equally be called 'Misguided'.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Because when you attack something, you are attacking the people that hold it? In the United States, every citizen owns part of every government website, so to attack one is to attack us all. In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. I have no obligation to view the legitimate property of a democracy in the same way as a bunch of thugs ruling a country by force of arms. They are not equivalent. I'm not advocating one way or another -- in fact, I'm opposed in this instance. But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one.
    - zcrar70 17y ago
      > But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one. Actually, my question was rhetorical, and your answer was arrogant. > In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate, all you know is what you've read on a couple of western websites. To take the higher moral ground based yon your own sense of morality (which may be different to that of those people your purport to defend), and enforce your beliefs by force (by attacking a government website) makes you no better than the 'assholes' you claim to be defending against.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. Not everything is the same. To just throw out some nonsensical relative moralism and expect it to float in a room full of critical thinkers seems a little far-fetched. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate It's not for me to decide. It's up to the Iranians. It's only up to me to decide how to deal with their public policies that effect me. The Iranians are perfectly content going door-to-door, gathering up satellite dishes and televisions, imprisoning their opposition, shooting demonstrators -- all of those things that dictatorships do. And guess what? I am perfectly happy letting them. As are you, it seems. But some folks have higher moral standards than you or I, and to them, injustice of this nature requires action. There's no higher moral ground that I'm taking, nor you, for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a higher moral ground than "everybody does it, and who are we to judge?" You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

5 points by sweetdreams 17y ago

I urge readers to consider the importance of civil disobedience in the face of overwhelming abuses of power by the Iranian government. I'm not advocating any one particular method, but his arguments are weak. Abusers of freedom may cry foul, but that doesn't make it so.

zcrar70 17y ago
What makes it right for you to take down an Iranian government website, but wrong for someone in Iran to take down a US government website, or for someone in China to take down the Dalai Lama's website?
- sweetdreams 17y ago
  I agree, and I also think that for something to be legitimate civil disobedience, you have to at least be a member of the civil society that you're disobeying. While there might be some westerners of Iranian descent involved in the denial of service attacks, most of the people involved probably are not directly connected to Iranian society.
  - madair 17y ago
    It's called Solidarity.
    - zcrar70 17y ago
      Actually, it could equally be called 'Misguided'.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Because when you attack something, you are attacking the people that hold it? In the United States, every citizen owns part of every government website, so to attack one is to attack us all. In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. I have no obligation to view the legitimate property of a democracy in the same way as a bunch of thugs ruling a country by force of arms. They are not equivalent. I'm not advocating one way or another -- in fact, I'm opposed in this instance. But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one.
  - zcrar70 17y ago
    > But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one. Actually, my question was rhetorical, and your answer was arrogant. > In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate, all you know is what you've read on a couple of western websites. To take the higher moral ground based yon your own sense of morality (which may be different to that of those people your purport to defend), and enforce your beliefs by force (by attacking a government website) makes you no better than the 'assholes' you claim to be defending against.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. Not everything is the same. To just throw out some nonsensical relative moralism and expect it to float in a room full of critical thinkers seems a little far-fetched. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate It's not for me to decide. It's up to the Iranians. It's only up to me to decide how to deal with their public policies that effect me. The Iranians are perfectly content going door-to-door, gathering up satellite dishes and televisions, imprisoning their opposition, shooting demonstrators -- all of those things that dictatorships do. And guess what? I am perfectly happy letting them. As are you, it seems. But some folks have higher moral standards than you or I, and to them, injustice of this nature requires action. There's no higher moral ground that I'm taking, nor you, for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a higher moral ground than "everybody does it, and who are we to judge?" You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]