Oddly, while giving a tutorial on how to be a part of the DDoS, the article misses out the minor detail that it is in fact illegal.
4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites
51–55 of 55 posts
Re: 4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Participating in a distributed denial of service attack is not necessarily illegal. There has to be some intent on the part of the visitor to cause damage. You could get involved in one just by innocently visiting a malicious web page which makes your browser download large files from the victim. Or suppose I set up an under-sized server with a very popular web application, the server might collapse under the load, b…
My comment was in the context of the article. I'd say firing up LOIC is plenty enough intent for it to be illegal.
Re: 4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites
#53I might be missing something here but surely a web presence is not vital to either of these organizations, and while it might be satisfying to DDOS them it doesn't accomplish much. Also www.aiplex.com appears to be back up.
Reminds me of the whole "refusing to be interrogated for entering my own country" incident. You're not sticking it to the man , you're sticking it to the low-level employee who is punching the clock for the man but doesn't actually have any say in steering procedure. And I guess that's fine if you want the publicity. But that's all you're going to get out of it.
This is silly, though, because there is little point in bringing down a website that nobody visits. If a tree falls in the forest...
Re: 4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you live in the US?
What's the relevance?
When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
Re: 4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia. Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones. If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person.…
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia An impossibly broad definition -- it encompasses all crime.
Just because you're civilly disobeying doesn't make it right.