Anonymous wants DDoS attacks to be a legal form of protest

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HighMountainSkier, Jan 11, 2013.

  1. Anonymous wants DDoS attacks to be a legal form of protest - SlashGear

    Here is a link to the petition if anyone wants to read it. It currently has a little over 1600 signatures. While I applaud their logic, it's wasted effort.
  2. #2 Rotties4Ever, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2013
    Call me a conspiracy nut, but I think signing any of these petitions that are bound to, shall we say "inconvenience" the powers that be is just down right retarded.
    I believe they call the whole concept honey bee trap or some shit like that. There is a saying "if voting changed anything, they would make it illegal", same concept applies here, we dont live in this imaginary world where they actually give two fucks about what you say. Why waste your breath on deaf ears is beyond me...

  3. I never sign petitions. I've signed a petition against SOPA (millions of others did the same so I figured I was safe) and a petition nominating Ron Paul for the Nobel Peace Prize (that didn't go to the US government so I think its safe). Other than that I only sign local petitions over trivial matters or something trivial for school.

    But a petition for Texas to secede or something like this is a no go for me.

    So in conclusion I'm very particular and a agree with your sentiment rottie.
  4. The internet white house petitions are stupid now anyways. A complete waste of time.
  5. I'd call you that name if it wasn't frowned upon in this establishment. jk I couldn't agree more.
  6. #6 chiefton8, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    I'm a little confused as I'm not computer buff...but if the DDoS attacks "slow or deny service to a particular website" (as stated in the OP), how is that similar to a group of people standing outside a business and protesting?

    In the former situation, it would seem the company can do no business with any consumer regardless of whether the consumer wants to, whereas in the latter consumers are free to ignore the protests and do business with the company simply by walking around the protesters. In other words, in one scenario business is effectively shut down, whereas in the other, business can continue.
  7. it would be the equivalent of protesters crowding in or around a business and not allowing anyone else access to the business. Basically it is just overloading the server so it can't handle any more requests.

    The Internet is a grey area in several respects. I've never really thought about this. A website is someone's private property being ran on a private server, and so could dos'ing be a violation of property rights?

    It's weird because, for instance, when Michael Jackson died, googles servers crashed because everyone did basically the same thing a ddos attack does and they aren't doing anything with ill intent.

    Wow cognitive dissonance.
  8. #8 ProvidencePlant, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    I honestly don't know where I stand on this, on one hand I can see where Anonymous is coming from. But on the other hand, unlike actually protesters which customers can choose to ignore and still purchase from said business, DDoS attacks prevent businesses from operating normally. Therefore, they could see a loss in sales ect ect...
  9. Is it not illegal for protesters to completely block access to a business?
  10. It is..

    It would be trespassing i'd imagine.. and also be considered unlawful protest, just like a DDoS attack imo.

    If you wanna start an online campaign and boycott someone's website or business that's one thing.. but you're basically damaging their property doing it this way.

    edit: when i say "you" i don't mean you chiefton..
  11. yep it is.

    you can't impede others basically.
  12. This.
  13. im high and even i know they aint gonna win this one :smoke:
  14. #14 Stormy Sea, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
    Damn. I'm not even from Texas and I'd sign that shit in a heartbeat!

    ...or maybe because I'm not from Texas, lul. :p Kidding, kidding. There are some lovely Texans out there. Just seems like the further south you go in the US, the more ignorance abounds.

    As for this petition, doesn't sound very well thought out at all. The fact that they even think that this might have a minuscule chance of passing is laughable. Waste of time and effort.

    This would mean that if any customer with sufficient tech skills got upset for any reason at a small online business he could legally completely shut them down for as long as he wanted, considering that in all likelihood they wouldn't know how to deal with it. That isn't beneficial to anybody, makes little to no sense at all, and is nothing like a simple protest.

    I lose a little more faith in anon every time I see wasted effort on things like this...

    INB4 I get hax0red for saying so o_o;; eek.
  15. Agreed, they know it too, they're just looking for another publicity stunt.
  16. #16 jay-bird, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    You know, guys, sometimes Anonymous really scares me. Like to a point that I think they will cause a "Y2K"-like situation where they bring anybody they don't like's computer systems and data crashing down, and then do w/e they want with those people's data/personal property.

    But this... being able to "protest" a website is a genius idea. It's great, at least I think, right now. It just depends on who "Anonymous" decides to do this too. Because if everyone in that group was an anti-american jerk they would misuse their power. It depends who's lives they decide to slow up/ruin/affect by doing this. I hope they are righteous, honest, fair people.

    I would love to meet up with these chaps. They seem alright, but have so much power to misuse. Forget their power, their ability to "connect" is more like it. I looked them up on wikipedia and most of the details don't seem so bad. But its what may not be said that may really be the problem.

    Who knows...

    I bet someone on this forum is prolly a member of that group.
  17. It depends on what you mean by anti-American. Because they are vehemently against abuses by the American government, including their peace and democracy bombs and warfare across the world. As well as domestic civil rights abuses. But they aren't really anti-America, as the people and whatnot.

    ddos'ing websites isn't the worst thing they do by any means, they do a lot of questionable things like violate privacy of people that can be called invasion of privacy.

    That isn't to say they don't do beneficial things. You have to take the bad with the good with these guys.
  18. #18 jay-bird, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    My point that I was getting at was...

    If these guys feel that they sense "injustice" or "unfairness" at any turn from the american government regarding our foreign and domestic policies in terms of defense, that would be a problem. This is classified information here. So when you don't give "Anonymous" a good enough reason or none at all for something that you're doing, they are going to try and bring you down.

    We aren't revealed all of the information here in America, which could be considered a problem. But half the time when the gov does, the public outcries the wrong way, just like on this forum, and just like the riots you see in the street. America's populace is not disciplined, respectful, or trustworthy.

    I cannot cooperate with or respect a group, which whenever my government does what it thinks is best or right, thinks that "that isn't good enough or its unfair" and decides to fuck with the government.

    For example... I am all for our efforts against terror in the middle-east... If "anonymous" isn't, they wont just protest, they will fuck with America's security systems and that is a problem.

    Lenny88, sometimes you amaze me. New avatar, same guy. "You have to take the bad with the good with these guys"

    I agree with you that they do beneficial things as well... but I'm not willing to sit back and just let the anonymous group run amuck, without being able to hold them accountable. Same way I feel about a few other elusive groups.
  19. Do I amaze you in a good or bad way?

    The problem is, they are a ghost, a loose collective from all over America and the rest of the world. They are not the mafia who are a tangible group who do things and meet at secret where you can get an FBI informant inside.

    Efforts to stop their operations will be futile. How does wikileaks get it's stuff? Wikileaks doesn't hack anything, they simply publish information they receive anonymously. Someone is supplying them with information.

    Whether that is good or bad to see the truth about what your tax dollars fund is entirely up to you.
  20. #20 jay-bird, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    You make me laugh, Lenny. You're alright. However, in a bad way. I don't like the idea of sitting back. I think you, too, should crave for some checks and balances with this group.

    Like a few others on this forum... Don't wanna mention names right now...
    I think you are a generally good guy with a more than decent attitude. Despite the few times you have challenged and offended me we are on a similar page. In the politics and philosophy section it is battles of the wit, logic, mind and heart. Like I said, modern version of "forums" and "salons"

    Back on topic...

    I wouldn't be upset if the US government was developing a top notch anti-hacker tech team, and used tax money to fund it. A team so tech savy that they would be able to track what or how "Anonymous" and other groups like them are doing, and why. Once you are a group who fucks with US security systems, it should be officially a point to be able to defend yourself from any threats that group may pose. Having a top notch tech savy team who are better than the people in Anonymous may help us do more than just protect ourselves from them, like expose and track them.

    Safety first, right? Clarity first, right? I agree that maybe "Anonymous" itself would be happy if our government focussed more on its own clarity than clarifying "Anonymous", but w/e.

    Yeah and I forgot to mention that most of those "domestic abuses of rights" are hogwash. Most of em' that I come across, anyway. America is not like fucking North Korea over here.

    And foreign abuses, mainly count towards our efforts regarding terror in the middle east (lately).

Share This Page