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

201–210 of 220 posts

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#201

Post by Ygg2 »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #193
btilly wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is comments by Aaron's lawyer as quoted in the Boston Globe. See http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... for the article.

The "evidence" is bullshit. Look at exactly what is said. AS, for all of whatever it was good that he brought the world, was mentally ill. For whatever reason, he did not receive the help that is freely available in our society. (There was a lot more available before Reagan cut it to shreds, so he could pass on big bucks to his rich cronies, but I digress...) THAT is the true tragedy here. Depression is a totally, to…

IANAL, but there were two parties that could escalate this to federal court, JSTOR and MIT. JSTOR didn't, so it is probably MIT. Suicide aside, there seems to be a gross injustice in this case (35, hell even 5 years for a crime that had little to no impact on either JSTOR or MIT, seems ludicorous).

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#202

Post by Deestan »

btilly wrote: post #93
wavesounds wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was comparing a DDoS to lunch counter Sit-ins of the 60s. During the civil rights movement blacks and other protestors would overwhelm a restaurant taking up all the space at the counter until the owners agreed to meet their demands. It's a proven non-violent protest that works and is very similar to what DDoS does, except instead of human bodies filling up a restaurant you're using http requests to fill up a…

The significant difference is that when the owner gets unhappy about it, it is trivial to figure out who to talk to to get the problem fixed. The same is not true of DDoS attacks.

> The same is not true of DDoS attacks.

It should be pretty clear in this case, though.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#203

Post by flyinRyan »

Cushman wrote: post #179
MrScruff wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? 'Affiliation with MIT right now, even as a student, looks to me like affiliation with the Nazi youth.' Not unreasonable?

Well, okay, that one has pretty bad grammar. But no, that seems like a sensible analogy to describe a way a person feels right now.

It may sensibly describe how someone feels, but how that person feels may not be sensible....

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#204

Post by flyinRyan »

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.

Well, destroying someone's business model isn't, of itself evil. A business model doesn't have a right to exist for its own sake. For example, I'd love to see someone destroy the business model of patent trolls.

Not saying that JSTOR has an immoral or unnecessary business model. I don't know actually, but I'm just reacting to the idea that sometimes comes up that if there is a business model for something no one has a right to destroy it.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#205

Post by Wintamute »

flyinRyan wrote: post #204
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.

>Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Well, destroying someone's business model isn't, of itself evil. A business model doesn't have a right to exist for its own sake. For example, I'd love to see someone destroy the business model of patent trolls. Not saying that JSTOR has an immoral or unnecessary business model. I don't know actually, but I'm just reacting to the idea…

Great point. Historically the business model of JSTOR, and indeed all academic journals, was to to add value by printing, publishing and distributing academic papers. This was an essential function until recently, but we don't need them any more. They've become sadly quite parasitic and anachronistic. By destroying business models we progress.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#206

Post by BrokenPipe »

Wintamute wrote: post #205
flyinRyan wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Well, destroying someone's business model isn't, of itself evil. A business model doesn't have a right to exist for its own sake. For example, I'd love to see someone destroy the business model of patent trolls. Not saying that JSTOR has an immoral or unnecessary business model. I don't know actually, but I'm just reacting to the idea…

Great point. Historically the business model of JSTOR, and indeed all academic journals, was to to add value by printing, publishing and distributing academic papers. This was an essential function until recently, but we don't need them any more. They've become sadly quite parasitic and anachronistic. By destroying business models we progress.

Yep. They belong in the same group as the MAFIAA and are not needed anymore.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#207

Post by worldsayshi »

Firehed wrote: post #142
gojomo wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did it work out for him? For Aaron's causes, his constructive rather than destructive approach worked fairly well, creating change and earning wide awareness and respect. I wish he'd stuck it out; had there been a trial (and possibly sentencing), the public would have learned many of the same lessons about overzealous prosecution, the JSTOR project, the CFAA, the obsolescence of copyright, and importance of open…

I regretfully disagree with you, in regards to the case playing out actually being helpful to the cause. The public, by and large, doesn't give a damn about this kind of thing. His suicide, tragically, appears to have helped the cause - the media loves the wild speculation and gossip that it brought about. So while his end goal may now stand a chance of coming to fruition, he won't be around to witness it. The number…

I fear that this martyrization of him sends a weird message. His struggle wasn't very appreciated before his death and first now it "seems that people listen to him".

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#208

Post by smosher »

rhizome wrote: post #199
smosher wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distributed denial of service attacks are very difficult to deal with (I have dealt with—read: suffered through—several each year for the past ten years on and off.) Often there is little to nothing you can do within your network to improve the situation. It's an issue of raw volume, once the attacker(s) exceed your capacity you're saturated and dead in the water. At this point, the techniques that will help must be…

I know the mechanics of DDOS. I was around when some of the first distributed attacks were being directed at best.com (et al: http://www.pentics.net/ ), my ISP at the time. I was using understatement to mock both MIT's reputation for innovation and intelligence and their role in the events that appear to have spurred the attack, so maybe they could put their vaunted brainpower to work solving that problem instead of…

Oh sorry. The way you spoke of MIT was probably meant to be the tell but I hope you don't blame me for missing it.

(I do know some disturbingly brilliant people from MIT... I also have had occasion to meet some people who are disturbingly not brilliant, but no worries, they had ample levels of the Dunning-Kruger effect to make up for it.)

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#209

Post by sigzero »

BrokenPipe wrote: post #56
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.

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…

"True but Aaron's activism resulted in him being bullied until he took his own life."

You state that like it is the only reason he did it. It contributed, yes, but it wasn't the sole cause.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#210

Post by j0j0r0 »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #192
j0j0r0 wrote: post #159

fuck you MIT! fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Given that eloquent pair of sentences, I must ask: what do you know about MIT?

well, in this case, enough to know that the organization should suffer shame.

so, i do apologize if i upset you, and didn't intend to speak to _everyone_ associated with the organization.

in other cases, i would admit that beautiful and wonderful things have come from _individuals_ at MIT...but that is not the context within which my eloquent pair of sentences were made.

however, in this case, it seems that academic snobbery and/or greed was a contributing factor to the suicide of a great individual, and that is enough for me to make my comment.

:)

Post reply on HN