111–120 of 168 posts
TWO %REAL% GUNS POINTED AT ME I love this part. It's obvious that, for the first time in the lives of these Anons, sh%t actually got real. (I don't mind any downvotes you see fit to give me, I have always found it laughable when Anons expect to break the law and suffer no consequences. Whether or not it is a good law has no bearing, that's not how civil disobedience works.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best way to change the laws about distributed denial of service is to participate in DDoS attacks? We're going off the rails here.
I think you're onto something. The FBI, by raiding everyone involved in this, is taking the risk of setting a precedent whereby protest-DDoS is proved legal. If the ACLU or other organization throws lawyers at this, its likely that it will be determined that the CFAA does not actually make DDoS, in circumstances where the user only activates a DoS tool on their computer with permission, illegal. It really boils down…
How is that a "risk" for the FBI? On the offchance it is proved legal then that's no skin off the FBI's nose -- they have plenty of other crimes to be investigating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting innocent bystanders involved is literally the point. Indeed, and in a civilized society, there are rules against hijacking others' dollars and interfering with others' lawful commerce, no matter how just you believe your cause to be. Thus, what you call 'literally the point' is also the 'mens rea' for a criminal prosecution.
That's what makes it so impactful: its important enough that the consequences are irrelevant. It seems that you place a much higher importance on following the law than I do; I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you seemingly imply that that's a bad thing. Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality.
Also, even if you get the desired headlines and attention, I don't think you score points against bad rules by violating good rules. I believe more people concluded Anonymous/Wikileaks are vandals and bullies from hearing about (or being affected by) the DDoS attacks, than came around to sympathy for Wikileaks.
So orthogonal from any 'letter of the law' analysis, it was an immoral and counterproductive thing to do.
If the 'sit-in' directly blocked the objectionable activity, a different analysis might apply. (And, more bystanders might be sympathetic.) But this, and most other 'sit-ins' I've seen, are just rudeness for attention. Moral and effective activists will choose other tactics.
And regarding: "its important enough that the consequences are irrelevant"
That way lies zealotry, madness, impotence, chaos. The real consequences always matter. The advocate who forgets, in their passion, that consequences matter becomes others' tool, often against their own interests.
TWO %REAL% GUNS POINTED AT ME I love this part. It's obvious that, for the first time in the lives of these Anons, sh%t actually got real. (I don't mind any downvotes you see fit to give me, I have always found it laughable when Anons expect to break the law and suffer no consequences. Whether or not it is a good law has no bearing, that's not how civil disobedience works.)
TWO %REAL% GUNS POINTED AT ME I love this part. It's obvious that, for the first time in the lives of these Anons, sh%t actually got real. (I don't mind any downvotes you see fit to give me, I have always found it laughable when Anons expect to break the law and suffer no consequences. Whether or not it is a good law has no bearing, that's not how civil disobedience works.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's silly to pretend that a DDoS attack is the same as a sit-in, such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. If you choose to attempt to disrupt a place of business and you refuse to leave private property when asked to do so you can be arrested.
> such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Could you expand on this a bit? I actually believe that it's very close to the same thing, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. > Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. You are correct. This is why it's called 'civil disobedience.' Sometimes, the best way to change a law is to break it. And break it publicly. It doesn't mean that you'll be spared a sentence…
The purpose of a sit-in is to stage a non-violent, disruptive protest which forces a response, typically being arrested, from a business owner or government. If there is no response because, for example, the business owner is too shamed to respond then either the disruption continues until the protesters demands are met or the protesters eventually give up. If there is a response, such as use of law enforcement, then there is the opportunity for the protesters and their cohorts to get the message out, raise awareness, and gain sympathy and support from the public at large.
Anonymity changes the equation entirely. Sit-in protesters blatantly flout the law and beg to get arrested, so as to demonstrate their conviction for the rightness of their cause and to gain publicity. Anonymous DDoSers aim only to disrupt, whatever message they have is lost to the public because nobody can know for sure who the people responsible (4chan also apparently DDoS'd minecraft.net for a while, what was the purpose of that? wikileaks itself was DDoS'd for sometime, what was the purpose of that? it's hard to say because these are just anonymous attacks rather than actual, disciplined protests). DDoS participants don't expect to get caught, let alone to be arrested, as witness the reactions of the folks in the main article.
An anonymous, or attempted anonymous, denial of service attack is more akin to throwing bricks through a storefront window or arson. It is disruption completely unmoored from personal sacrifice, civil disobedience, or the context of a cause.
It is thus properly a more violent form of protest than a sit-in and we have all the more reason to despise such things because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely absurd logic. DDoS attacks can and do cause measurable hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage. You had to have known that. You just choose to overlook the potential damage here because you support the cause.
Damage? What are you talking about? The routers don't literally catch fire. It disrupts services while the attack is active. A sit in is the correct metaphor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guarantee the FBI did further surveillance before sending the raids. They didn't just pick a random IP and then send a team. They picked the IP, sniffed their traffic, monitored their internet behaviour, read their forum posts, and then finally selected them to be an example. By performing surveillance like this you can be 99% sure who is a real voluntary participant and who is just a stooge. A voluntary participan…
> A voluntary participant will talk about it on forums for example, brag on IRC, etc etc. So it's like assassination, then: all you have to do to get away clean is to execute only on others' commands, making no plans of your own, and not discussing, bragging, or asking questions. Historically, this leads quickly to a two-level military structure: officers to point, and enlistedmen to shoot. The only question is wheth…