Anonymous wants DDoS attacks to be a legal form of protest

[osan]

From what I understand, you would need to offend more then 1 person to get that to happen. If a hundred people stand outside a store that sells fur or protests in the streets which causes traffic to stop, around here we call that civil disobedience. Of course the owners of the store and the people caught in traffic on the streets will feel like they have been screwed. In essence, they are breaking the law. Hence the term "disobedience."

CD to me applies only to acts against so-called "government". If you do not like what a legitimate business does, talk all you like, march, wave signs, but do NOT interfere with their right to conduct business. That is NOT civil disobedience; it is trespass and I take a dim view of it. Don't agree with marijuana use? Don't use it, but keep your cotton picking mitts off those who do because you have no authority to interfere with them on that issue. Here I speak of "you" in the abstract general and not of you personally.

Don't think prostitution is moral? Fine. Do not become one and do not solicit their services. Don't like gay? Don't bend over for it. And so on down the list. If you feel strongly enough about any of it, march, sing songs, wave your "God hates queers" signs or what have you. Put a finger on these people or trespass against them and if they beat you into a coma I will give them the keys to the city. Trespass is perhaps the ONLY legitimate zero-tolerance issue of which I can think.

Live. Let live. It is as close to perfect as anything will ever be. Put unwelcome hands on me and you will be shitting your teeth out or pushing up daisies. Respect is important - not just talking it, but walking it. It is important not just for moral reasons but for those practical as well.

We are either free or we are something else. It is an all or nothing deal with no half measure states. If we are free, then all trespass must be met with grim consequences. It is the violation of principle that is the primary issue, the nature of the violation holding an important yet secondary station. In other words, in questions of violation of the rights of another there should be a minimal price to pay regardless of how seemingly insignificant the transgression. Were this the case, the world as we know it would become a transformed place where people took some better and more reasonable care in their decision-making. Let us be clear that here I speak of intentional trespass that, when discovered, is not met with apologies and volunteered restitution. I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that every time someone bumps elbows with another that a prison term should ensue. But when one man intentionally or negligently trespasses against another, refuses to acknowledge his act, has caused loss and refuses to make good, then he should be called upon to account for it and the minimum cost should be something he would much rather not have to incur. This keeps people polite in much the same way as does the ubiquitous presence of firearms. It is called "consequence" and should be part of every decision we make every day of our lives.

 

[twomp]

CD to me applies only to acts against so-called "government". If you do not like what a legitimate business does, talk all you like, march, wave signs, but do NOT interfere with their right to conduct business. That is NOT civil disobedience; it is trespass and I take a dim view of it. Don't agree with marijuana use? Don't use it, but keep your cotton picking mitts off those who do because you have no authority to interfere with them on that issue. Here I speak of "you" in the abstract general and not of you personally.

Don't think prostitution is moral? Fine. Do not become one and do not solicit their services. Don't like gay? Don't bend over for it. And so on down the list. If you feel strongly enough about any of it, march, sing songs, wave your "God hates queers" signs or what have you. Put a finger on these people or trespass against them and if they beat you into a coma I will give them the keys to the city. Trespass is perhaps the ONLY legitimate zero-tolerance issue of which I can think.

Live. Let live. It is as close to perfect as anything will ever be. Put unwelcome hands on me and you will be shitting your teeth out or pushing up daisies. Respect is important - not just talking it, but walking it. It is important not just for moral reasons but for those practical as well.

We are either free or we are something else. It is an all or nothing deal with no half measure states. If we are free, then all trespass must be met with grim consequences. It is the violation of principle that is the primary issue, the nature of the violation holding an important yet secondary station. In other words, in questions of violation of the rights of another there should be a minimal price to pay regardless of how seemingly insignificant the transgression. Were this the case, the world as we know it would become a transformed place where people took some better and more reasonable care in their decision-making. Let us be clear that here I speak of intentional trespass that, when discovered, is not met with apologies and volunteered restitution. I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that every time someone bumps elbows with another that a prison term should ensue. But when one man intentionally or negligently trespasses against another, refuses to acknowledge his act, has caused loss and refuses to make good, then he should be called upon to account for it and the minimum cost should be something he would much rather not have to incur. This keeps people polite in much the same way as does the ubiquitous presence of firearms. It is called "consequence" and should be part of every decision we make every day of our lives.

You make a very good point because we tend to believe in the live and let live philosophy. But in reality, there very few "public" places where civil disobedience can take place and there is a good chance that if you find enough people outraged in whatever you are outraged in, that the protest will take place on someone's property.

An example would be the Boston Tea Party. Looking back on history, we all cheer that event on but it was SOMEONES'S Tea was it not? Wasn't the tea meant to go to some store to sell? Would you be against the Boston Tea Party as an act of civil disobedience? That is a loaded question though but my intent is that there is rarely a spot to practice civil disobedience where you aren't stopping stepping on the rights of someone else.

In one of the cases of Anonymous, they DDOS the websites of Visa, Master Card and Paypal because the government told them to stop taking donations for Wikileaks which the government declared was a threat. I consider that civil disobedience because how else was Wikileaks supposed to fight back? Fly everyone to Washington DC to carry signs?

 

[Cabal]

Doesn't DDoS qualify as aggression against property?

 

[idiom]

Doesn't DDoS qualify as aggression against property?

Its being offered for service, and you are just utilising the entire capacity. It doesn't break anything.

 

[paulbot24]

There are hacktivists who have successfully DDOS'd site simply by using thousands of people refreshing their browsers.

It is a bit more complicated than that. They have also done a few things like restore the internet to the public in places like Palestine, Egypt, and Syria during times of unrest and crisis. I suppose they could be using their time more productively like us here in America and clogging the intrawebz on Facebook.

 

[osan]

You make a very good point because we tend to believe in the live and let live philosophy. But in reality, there very few "public" places where civil disobedience can take place and there is a good chance that if you find enough people outraged in whatever you are outraged in, that the protest will take place on someone's property.

Perhaps you mistook my meaning... I was speaking about disruption of a private business that is operating legitimately.

That aside, there are plenty of public spaces - we call them "the commons" - another good reason to maintain common spaces such that all people have rights of way. The 100% private society advocated by some is terribly flawed. Commons are a good thing.

An example would be the Boston Tea Party. Looking back on history, we all cheer that event on but it was SOMEONES'S Tea was it not?

And strictly speaking, they were wrong in taking that action. Taking your frustrations out on innocent third parties is senseless and unjust.

Would you be against the Boston Tea Party as an act of civil disobedience?

If it trespasses against the innocent, then yes. There can be no exceptions to this.

That is a loaded question though but my intent is that there is rarely a spot to practice civil disobedience where you aren't stopping stepping on the rights of someone else.

I am not sure I can agree with this... perhaps I misunderstand your meaning?

In one of the cases of Anonymous, they DDOS the websites of Visa, Master Card and Paypal because the government told them to stop taking donations for Wikileaks which the government declared was a threat. I consider that civil disobedience because how else was Wikileaks supposed to fight back? Fly everyone to Washington DC to carry signs?

Different scenario.

Am I correct in stating that the CC companies in question were not REQUIRED to stop taking payments? If so, they have become complicit and thereby become fair game as they are voluntarily aiding and abetting tyrants. That, IMO, puts the stink of guilt upon them - they chose sides; the wrong side in this case. Caveat evil spirits.

 

[twomp]

Perhaps you mistook my meaning... I was speaking about disruption of a private business that is operating legitimately.

That aside, there are plenty of public spaces - we call them "the commons" - another good reason to maintain common spaces such that all people have rights of way. The 100% private society advocated by some is terribly flawed. Commons are a good thing.



And strictly speaking, they were wrong in taking that action. Taking your frustrations out on innocent third parties is senseless and unjust.



If it trespasses against the innocent, then yes. There can be no exceptions to this.



I am not sure I can agree with this... perhaps I misunderstand your meaning?



Different scenario.

Am I correct in stating that the CC companies in question were not REQUIRED to stop taking payments? If so, they have become complicit and thereby become fair game as they are voluntarily aiding and abetting tyrants. That, IMO, puts the stink of guilt upon them - they chose sides; the wrong side in this case. Caveat evil spirits.

All very good points. Can't say that I disagree with anything you said here.