2 edits | Anonymous Wants DDoS Attacks Recognized As Speech From The Register - 10th January 2013 02:14 GMT:
The loosely organized hackers of Anonymous don't just launch distributed denial-of-service attacks for the lulz. They do it to send a message, which is why they've petitioned the Obama administration to recognize DDoS as a legal form of protest.
The petition, which was filed on the White House's We the People website, argues that DDoS "is not a form of hacking in any way" and that it's really not much different than repeatedly hitting the refresh button in your web browser, albeit on a much larger scale:
It is, in that way, no different than any "occupy" protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time. |
|
|
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Their right to free speech stops at the point where it infringes on others' rights of access. That is the balance that must always exist for a society to remain free in any meaningful sense of that word. DDOS, by definition, is Distributed Denial of Service. One may have a right to picket and chant on a public street, but that right ends at the point where it blockades and denies others' right of access to a facility. Normally, the authorities (and wise protest leaders) will make sure that both picketers and folks crossing the line get a reasonable opportunity to act in each one's own interests. But with DDOS (and much of the "occupy" mindset), there is no such mediation or moderation... the DDOS attackers simply seek to block everybody else, period. That has nothing to do with "free speech", but has everything to do with bullying and coercion. As such, it is way out of line in any responsible and free society.
As far as the White House website petitions, they are simply an exercise in garnering publicity for all involved. They carry no legal meaning whatsoever.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville |
|
 DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | reply to FF4m3
We've been down this road before. 'Operation Rescue' protested outside abortion clinics, attempting to block the doors, and claimed free speech. The »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of···nces_Act guarantees access to clinics and could be used as precedent here.
I generally support Anonymous, but they need to live with the consequences of their civil disobedience if they run afoul of the authorities. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to FF4m3
The problem is the Occupy Wall Street people did not prevent access to the exchange. a DDoS attack does prevent access. It also breaks laws because it depends on infecting the computers you need as a botnet to run the DDoS attack.
I imagine that building the botnet itself breaks the law due to unauthorized access to computer systems.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :From The Register - 10th January 2013 02:14 GMT:
The loosely organized hackers of Anonymous don't just launch distributed denial-of-service attacks for the lulz. They do it to send a message, which is why they've petitioned the Obama administration to recognize DDoS as a legal form of protest. Anonymous wants to be annoying twits and then they expect everyone to agree that what they are doing isn't against the law and has no consequences. White House petition or not, even if they get enough signatures this never happens. If found, Anonymous hackers will will continue to be arrested and prosecuted, as they should be.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. |
|
| reply to FF4m3
Free speech moderated by the public safety and common good.
You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc... |
|
| said by Secyurityet:Free speech moderated by the public safety and common good.
You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc...
You can if there's a fire. |
|
| said by truthynicity :said by Secyurityet:Free speech moderated by the public safety and common good.
You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc...
You can if there's a fire. Well... yeah.
But what emergency would a DDoS attack signify? |
|
| reply to FF4m3
Forget rearguing Roe v Wade, any hotshot up and coming lawyers looking to make a name for themselves
wanna take THIS to the Supreme Court?
Regards |
|
 ashrc4Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia | reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:Their right to free speech stops at the point where it infringes on others' rights of access.
Not exactly, you still have the right to free speech when violating access laws. It's the access blocked that is to be dealt with. I/m presuming that they really want it acknowledge that a DISRUPTION caused by DDOS is an equivalent form of protest (for a building) or disruption(picketing of a building).
said by Blackbird: One may have a right to picket and chant on a public street, but that right ends at the point where it blockades and denies others' right of access to a facility.
No, that opinion is at the discretion of the relevant authorities to either charge, move on or even allow to continue and even change their minds repeatedly.
said by Blackbird: Normally, the authorities (and wise protest leaders) will make sure that both picketers and folks crossing the line get a reasonable opportunity to act in each one's own interests. But with DDOS (and much of the "occupy" mindset), there is no such mediation or moderation... the DDOS attackers simply seek to block everybody else, period. That has nothing to do with "free speech", but has everything to do with bullying and coercion. As such, it is way out of line in any responsible and free society.
The DDOS attack's will effect time/cost factors to the target. All those that propose a DDOS as free speech, must then way up was it the only action that could be taken, until it's better understood through the courts as to the nature of the action.
I feel community standards will say that an internet outfit (national or global) has as much right to Picketing as bricks and mortar but costs to the target will still be an issue.
Knowing that, the media is still probably the best avenue to bring to light their plights.
Sending letters to people for contributing to digital protest to appear in court is a lot better than wasting resources on the chance that some will clash with people/authorities.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Dying to defend one's small piece of suburb...Give me something global...STAT! |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to Secyurityet
said by Secyurityet:said by truthynicity :said by Secyurityet:Free speech moderated by the public safety and common good.
You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc...
You can if there's a fire. Well... yeah. But what emergency would a DDoS attack signify? Playing Devil's advocate only: Why panic and threat of life does a DDoS cause?
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
| said by AVD:Playing Devil's advocate only: Why panic and threat of life does a DDoS cause?
I get your point and agree -- generally none (unless they hit a site upon which people have come to rely on).
But it DOES cause economic damage and/or inconvenience to the victim and/or people trying to access that asset. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by Secyurityet:But it DOES cause economic damage and/or inconvenience to the victim and/or people trying to access that asset.
So can a protest march protected under free speech. Economic damage and inconvenience alone do not inhibit the exercise of free speech.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
 DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
 ·Suddenlink
| said by AVD:So can a protest march protected under free speech. Economic damage and inconvenience alone do not inhibit the exercise of free speech.
It's not protected "speech," it's vandalism.
To me, it's the same as PETA breaking into labs or splashing paint on fur-wearers.
--
“al-Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current.”
Al Gore and Al Jezeera: like two peas in a pod. |
|
