Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

blog.achernya.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 220 posts

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#101

Post by vor_ »

analog wrote: post #89
gee_totes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why protest student blogs and class websites? Why not target the prosecutor's office? Blockading a key port that is shipping war supplies or preforming a DDOS attack against government websites can be legitimate form of protest, but those actions are very hard to plan and pull off. This attack (if it is an attack) just seems like someone is going after the low-hanging fruit of MIT's network.

This is a common argument against activism and it's a classic logical fallacy. You're doing X, but Y would be more effective, therefore X is pointless. In reality what happens is that someone does X and someone else does Y, and it's not uncommon for the same group to do both. Fwiw, I don't have any view on whether this attack (if it is one) is justified. I haven't read enough on what MIT have/haven't done so I can't…

The post you're replying to doesn't say anything about being pointless, but besides that, surely it's not a logical fallacy to point out that one action is more effective than another.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#103

Post by leepowers »

sethist wrote: post #80
wonnage wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not live in the US, as we have freedom of assembly here

There seems to be a common misunderstanding of what protest rights you have in the US. The first amendment does not give you the right to protest anything, at any point, in any manner that you want. In fact, the government has a duty to protect my rights if your protest in infringing on them. The Occupy movement is another group that completely failed to understand that fact. You are legally allowed to protest, but p…

Civil disobedience is illegal by definition. DDoS attacks are illegal. Marching down the middle of the street is illegal. But are these acts immoral?

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#104

Post by jlgreco »

wavesounds wrote: post #73
gojomo wrote: post #45

As I'd mentioned on an earlier submission about W3C's site being inaccessible: A cool thing about Aaron's activism was that it involved building things, circumventing censorship, and spreading information, rather than sabotage and denial-of-service.

Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes MIT to have better Ethics and Leadership as a result then its well worth the discomfort. If theres a bug in your system you sometimes have to replace some lines of code to make it better, this isn't destruction its just change.

> Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model.

Yeah.. but not really. The non-public domain documents would still be copyrighted so nobody without a license to them would be creating a JSTOR competitor anytime soon.

Furthermore, torrent of PDFs would never replace a subscription to JSTOR for any university. Universities that currently subscribe to JSTOR would still be subscribing to JSTOR, the only difference is that unaffiliated individuals would have other options. How much of JSTOR's operating budget is coming from selling individual articles to people not in universities?

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#105

Post by Yver »

gojomo wrote: post #84
wavesounds wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes MIT to have better Ethics and Leadership as a result then its well worth the discomfort. If theres a bug in your system you sometimes have to replace some lines of code to make it better, this isn't destruction its just change.

If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti-censorship views. Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.

And how did that work out for him by the way? I head they've dropped their lawsuit?

Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#106

Post by FireBeyond »

[deleted] wrote: post #96
Permit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it perfectly acceptable to inconvenience people from their studies? Man, this kind of attitude makes me want to encourage harsher penalties on people who pull this bullshit. You do your movement no favours when you inconvenience the same people you want on your side.

[deleted]

You must not have read the part about Aaron not actually being an MIT student at all - hence the trespass charges.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#107

Post by [deleted] »

gojomo wrote: post #84
wavesounds wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes MIT to have better Ethics and Leadership as a result then its well worth the discomfort. If theres a bug in your system you sometimes have to replace some lines of code to make it better, this isn't destruction its just change.

If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti-censorship views. Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.

[deleted]

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#108

Post by FireBeyond »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #31
geofft wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT politics is, and has long been, that the students of today hate the administration of today. This might be correlated to the number of folks in the MIT administration who are not MIT alums, incidentally. Fix that, and everything else follows.

Who do you think should fix it if not the MIT students? Why don't they go and physically remove administration from the MIT and never let it back? It seems impossibly unlawful when I write this but you know, there were times when students had a political agendas and they used to run over campuses, barricade them and battle the police. And now it's like "we're gonna hate them for life and not do a thing". I understand…

By what right to they have to "take over" MIT and "never let administration back"?

It's not their property, and no amount of "cause celebre" or "protest du jour" should make it such.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#109

Post by btilly »

armored_mammal wrote: post #52
gfosco wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really?... It's not their battle. Why does a student at MIT have to have a position on this at all?

What, do you think people have no social responsibility towards the institutions they support? If you belonged to the Westboro Baptist Church or some other group it'd be legit to claim you're responsible for their actions to a certain degree. Why do MIT students get a special exemption from the chain of responsibility that applies to everyone else? If you are a member of a collectivist institution it's also your resp…

Well trolled.

I am not associated with MIT. However I consider Abelson's forthcoming report as being more representative of the organization, than whatever random administrator was dealing with the prosecutor. Abelson was undoubtably there before the administrator in question, will be there after, and is far more widely known than the currently faceless administrator.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson then get back to me on whether that is a reputation that a student should be proud of or rejecting.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#110

Post by BrokenPipe »

vor_ wrote: post #94
BrokenPipe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but Aaron's activism resulted in him being bullied until he took his own life. It's a difficult topic. If you assume that ddos from a collective is similar to blocking a road by a collective during a strike or manifestation then I must say that some people won't be able to get to work that day and in general nobody would get hurt. This sort of pacific interruption raises awareness, which by itself is very import…

This "pacific interruption", as you delicately describe it, hurts innocent teachers and students who had nothing to do with the alleged bullying of Swartz, who was already suicidal prior to his prosecution. Regardless of what one may think of computer laws, there is no proven link between his suicide and the criminal charges he faced, and any claims to the contrary have so far been entirely speculative and coming fro…

He was depressed, and because of the case he was considered by his lawyer at suicide risk but I'm not aware of any reported attempt of suicide by Aaron.

Again, if some people can't go to work because of a strike, even if it seemingly hurting teachers, student or general population it is in fact benefiting them and the right price for democracy. Democracy can only be with awareness and without it is just a different kind of manipulated monarchy.

And the rest of your 'additions' seems very ugly. He was part of a joint-venture or similar between companies where they all called each other cofunder, not co creator. And check at what age he did work on RSS, if that's not an accomplishment I don't know what is. Not an angry mob, nobody is being physically hurt, just slightly interrupted from what they were doing just as it happens when there's a strike or a big manifestation.

Post reply on HN