Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

[Razmear]

The attacks on MasterCard and Visa I have no problem with as they are stopping the legal flow of funds (commerce) to a legitimate source (a legal defense fund).
The attack on Amazon is not as justified as Amazon made a 'Rock and a Hard Place' decision to stop providing server space. Paypal is a similar case but there are enough other reasons to trash them that I don't have much sympathy for Paypal.

eb

 

[TonySutton]

The attacks on MasterCard and Visa I have no problem with as they are stopping the legal flow of funds (commerce) to a legitimate source (a legal defense fund).
The attack on Amazon is not as justified as Amazon made a 'Rock and a Hard Place' decision to stop providing server space. Paypal is a similar case but there are enough other reasons to trash them that I don't have much sympathy for Paypal.

eb

What was Amazon's rock and hard place?

 

[hazek]

I voted yes because I think that it's important to not let our outrage about their actions go unnoticed.

But having said that I don't like the method of this protest one bit because they're infringing on their property rights. It kind off compares to a real world riot where the rioters are breaking shop windows and preventing businesses from working. I guess a far better way to protest would be to boycott them and use their competitors for the same services, but are there any other companies that offer them?

 

[ChaosControl]

No. I don't believe in causing damage to others just because they do something you disagree with.

 

[cswake]

So does that mean you disagree with protests outside of retail stores that scare people off from going in? It effectively has the same financial damage as a politically motivated DDoS.

 

[Vessol]

So does that mean you disagree with protests outside of retail stores that scare people off from going in? It effectively has the same financial damage as a politically motivated DDoS.

Are you attacking that store's property? DDOS attacks are attacks on physical hardware.

 

[Razmear]

What was Amazon's rock and hard place?

When DHS "asks" you to stop providing a service to someone, you risk your business by refusing. The 'corporate duty to stockholders' probably compelled them to do the less than honorable action of suspending the service.
I will personally not spend any more money thru Amazon, but I don't think their action goes to the level of MasterCard and Visa's by blocking the legitimate flow of commerce.

eb

 

[cswake]

Do they have to throw the hardware out?

 

[Razmear]

Are you attacking that store's property? DDOS attacks are attacks on physical hardware.

No hardware is physically damaged in a DDOS attack.

 

[cswake]

^ There is no private property damage. All the charges in run-of-the-mill DDoS cases that I've read are about lost revenue.

 

[LibForestPaul]

We *all* know that Amazon, PayPal, Visa & Mastercard have been threatened by the US Govt in some way, directly or indirectly, leading to dissolution of service with WikiLeaks.
DISCUSS!!!

So they fear the might of the Us govt? Need to give them something larger to fear?

 

[hazek]

^ There is no private property damage. All the charges in run-of-the-mill DDoS cases that I've read are about lost revenue.

Yep, no physical damage, just loss of revenue.

 

[TonySutton]

Yep, no physical damage, just loss of revenue.

so you are saying it has the same effect as a boycott?

 

[Razmear]

so you are saying it has the same effect as a boycott?

I'd consider it more like an electronic picket line.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'd consider it more like an electronic picket line.

Or an electronic sit-in?

 

[Sentient Void]

I'd consider it more like an electronic picket line.

Some are comparing this to free speech/protesting/etc.

I disagree. DDOS isn't free speech. DDOS is an attack on personal private property.

It's safe to say that the owner of the private property does not want you there if you are obstructing his business (and all of these companies have condemned the DDOS attacks), and thus you are in fact trespassing on private property. This would be no different then if a large enough group of people walked into a store and filled up all the floor space with no intention of buying anything. The owner tells them all to leave (the owners condemning the DDOS attacks), and they refuse. Trespassing. Not free speech. Not a right.

People misunderstand what free speech is all to often. Free speech in regards to the constitution is only in/on public property *against the government* not private entities. You do *not* have a 'right to free speech' when you are on *private* property. If I invite you onto my private property, and you say something I don't like - I have every right to kick your ass off of it. Likewise, you do not have a right to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater - but it's the same reason you don't have the right to disrupt the movie in any way in a theater, and the theater owner regardless of the reason has a right to deem you as trespassing and escort you off the premises. So play nice.

This shows that there is no such thing as a right to free speech - only a right to property. This is just yet another example of many examples that *all rights are property rights* - including the right of self-ownership (a property right in oneself).

 

[RonPaulIsGreat]

My Sympathy for such things is in inverse proportion to the size of the corporation. As in the smaller the company, the greater the chance I will sympathize. Also, if the company is run by a "Human" instead of rotating CEO's which only think in terms solely based on revenue projections.

Visa and Master card, solicit very little sympathy for me. Amazon has me a bit torn, as it is a first generation company started from nothing and still led by it's founder, as in it's not just a machine without a soul yet. The Bezos guy seems to be an okay guy, so I'm guessing it's government threat.

Paypal/Ebay, I don't really care, it's a soulless hunk of machine now, they switch CEO's and key staff more often than one changes cars. It just exists to milk cash. There is nothing wrong with that, but I don't feel sympathy for old tires either.

Fundamentally, are these attacks wrong. Well, I guess that depends on how intertwined the companies are with government. VISA and Mastercard undoubtedly are more entrenched than ebay, and amazon probably less so than ebay.


If the premise is to attack the government through its front facing corporate partners, then they should be attacking GM, AIG, ETC.... it would be more directly applicable.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say it's a 2 on the wrong side.

However, I think these attacks are unhelpful overall, they are entertaining, but they destroy the public sympathy for wikileaks. Everyone hates seeing a little scrawny nothing getting beat up by the big kid. Now, they don't have that sympathy factor anymore. It would have been much better to have the government attack, and attack, and attack, while wikileaks struggled to remain up, that looks desperate, and not like a legit war against "rogue" leaker/hackers/.


Also these are Denial of Service attacks, they do not disrupt any real functions of mastercard or visa. The don't run the card infrastructure on there web facing server. It's like turning the lights off on the Wal-Mart sign, while customers keep going in and out of the store. People notice, but it doesn't weaken, nor change anything. It will stop in a few days, there bandwidth bill might double for the month, and at the end, dozens of people that are participating will be tracked down and given large fines and or jail time. I'm 100% certain the government is actively working with ISP's to try to gather as much info as possible.

 

[JoshLowry]

You can not essentially build a wall and prevent the public from accessing private property.

This is silly.

Do the 30% who voted yes really think that a person with multiple computers can just shut down google because they have enough computer power? Come on.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The DDOS attacks are not so much "just" in libertarian philosophy as they are "predicted" by such thinking. It's the electronic equivalent of a picket line, as above suggested, the expected result of extreme authoritarian excess. If taxation becomes petty to the point of extorting money from tea imports, expect a tea party. The expectation does not necessarily imply approval of the form the protest takes.

Some munchkin, somewhere at Amazon, Paypal, and the card companies manually flicked a switch, as it were, to instantly freeze a person's financial activity, and shut off access to his property. No legal due process, no illegality established by a jury---just a fed's decree, and a vague company policy. If corporate-statist bullies insist on playing "click a mouse, shut you down" games with other people's free enterprise, a reprisal in kind by modern day Sons of Liberty was inevitable.

 

[Sentient Void]

in what way is it a stretch? are they not considered too big to fail?
do these entities enjoy a government protection that none of us do?

Just because some private company may be considered 'too big to fail' doesn't make it a government welfare agency like BoA or CitiGroup or GM, etc - *until* they've officially taken a bailout from the US Government. As far as I know, they have not taken such bailouts. Feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong, but I don't believe that to be the case.

These are not perpetuators of State violence - but as we've seen, victims of it (they've been bullied and threatened by the US Govt to cut off service to WikiLeaks). AFAIK, they have no received any bailout, and they do not operate on taxpayer public funding. Neither are mandated monopolies (they are two entities competing in a market of four major entities, also including American Express and Discover cards).

Whereas the federal Reserve was created by politicians for the benefit of cartelized banking institutions. The Federal Reserve is a government mandated monopoly on the issuance of currency. The Federal Reserve picks the winners and losers in an economy, sets policy, and destroys wealth. The Federal reserve chairman is chosen by the State.

There is little to no comparison between VSA/MCD and the Federal Reserve and to do so is reaching at straws in order to try and justify an attack on them as public institutions. This is a dangerous and slippery slope to believe in, and is vehemently antilibertarian.

They are two businesses fearing repercussions from the government, and Anon is using the same tactics and lowering itself down to the level of the State itself.

WikiLeaks is *not* entitled to their service, and believing so or advocating such would advocate making these companies slaves to WikiLeaks.