If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   The internet award for "Good luck with That" goes to   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 44
    More: Obvious, DDoS, distributed denial-of-service, Occupy protests, Dredd, formal organization, e-government, We the People  
•       •       •

6519 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-10 12:36:38 PM
So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?
 
2013-01-10 12:40:54 PM

Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?


I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM
 
2013-01-10 12:41:44 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM


Whoops. Me no brain gud while multitasking.
 
2013-01-10 03:08:25 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM


I WANNA SHOUT THE LOUD FUNNY WORDS TOO! rEN IS MY FRIEND!
 
2013-01-10 03:19:01 PM

Fano: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM

I WANNA SHOUT THE LOUD FUNNY WORDS TOO! rEN IS MY FRIEND!


DO YOU KNOW....WHERE THE REMOTE CONTROL IS?!!!
 
2013-01-10 03:19:29 PM

Fano: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU THE BENEFITS OF

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

USING THIS NEW MIRACLE DRUG TO ENLARGE

I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM

YOUR PENIS, FOR ONLY $19.95 PER TREATMENT!

I WANNA SHOUT THE LOUD FUNNY WORDS TOO! rEN IS MY FRIEND!

/The founding fathers wanted you to know that an extra two inches could be yours for three easy payments.
 
2013-01-10 03:21:15 PM
Right, try blocking physical access to someone's home or business and see how long you would last. Occupy was generally careful not to do exactly that.
 
2013-01-10 03:32:01 PM

Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?


Protest is generally considered Free Speech.
 
2013-01-10 03:32:44 PM
As long as they are not using illegal bot-networks to do it, sure why not?
 
2013-01-10 03:36:09 PM

SMB2811: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

Protest is generally considered Free Speech.


Generally. As long as you're not preventing exercise of business...which a DDoS does.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:39 PM

SMB2811: Protest is generally considered Free Speech.


Like BigSlowTarget said, you're not allowed to physically bar someone from entering his own home or business; why doesn't that apply to the internet?

Should you be allowed to put up separate web pages with your own opinions and advertise elsewhere to try to direct traffic towards it and away from others you don't like? Of course. Should you be allowed to shut down other websites you don't like? No, just like how you're not allowed to burn the Westboro Baptist Church people's signs or tape up their mouths against their will.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:22 PM
As long as they are not using illegal bot-networks to do it, sure why not?

This. AFAIK DDoS relies on a large number of trojan infected machines belonging to other people under your control.
 
2013-01-10 03:52:55 PM

Hydra: SMB2811: Protest is generally considered Free Speech.

Like BigSlowTarget said, you're not allowed to physically bar someone from entering his own home or business; why doesn't that apply to the internet?


How do I put up placards on the Internet for users of a service to see?

Hydra: Should you be allowed to put up separate web pages with your own opinions and advertise elsewhere to try to direct traffic towards it and away from others you don't like? Of course.


And lets be honest, you might as well have done nothing here. The the Internet makes it so this course of action is pointless. Protest out front of a business works only if it is seen, so again, how do you put up placards around a website?
 
2013-01-10 03:55:40 PM

xane: As long as they are not using illegal bot-networks to do it, sure why not?

This. AFAIK DDoS relies on a large number of trojan infected machines belonging to other people under your control.


No it does not have to, and actions by Anonymous basically won't. They really will be peoples individual computers hammering away at a site for hours because the users of them chose too.
 
2013-01-10 03:58:06 PM

SMB2811: how do you put up placards around a website


You pay Google to place your ads in above search results for that site.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:09 PM
To be fair A DDOS really isn't different from clicking on a link. The only difference is the amount of times you click on the link. Like making a phone call. making a dos attack illegal is just like making it illegal to make a phone call. If you make sending pings illegal then any form of online communication would become illegal.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:48 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM


Yet this is exactly what corporations do with money and its called free speech then.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:59 PM

SMB2811: How do I put up placards on the Internet for users of a service to see?


Free speech guarantees you can say what you want. It does not guarantee you an audience nor access to a given medium.
 
2013-01-10 04:12:52 PM

Warlordtrooper: To be fair A DDOS really isn't different from clicking on a link. The only difference is the amount of times you click on the link. Like making a phone call. making a dos attack illegal is just like making it illegal to make a phone call. If you make sending pings illegal then any form of online communication would become illegal.


That's a nonsense argument but I bet you know that. Placing a phone call isn't illegal, placing so many calls that you fill the switch board of the company so they cannot conduct business is illegal in a number of ways. Same thing here, pinging in the normal course of business isn't illegal, sending so many pings that the business cannot conduct business is rightfully illegal. Both courses of action are fully and rightfully actionable in the criminal and civil arenas.
 
2013-01-10 04:13:38 PM

Warlordtrooper: To be fair A DDOS really isn't different from clicking on a link. The only difference is the amount of times you click on the link. Like making a phone call. making a dos attack illegal is just like making it illegal to make a phone call. If you make sending pings illegal then any form of online communication would become illegal.


It is very different from clicking a link. DDOS stands for Distributed Denial of Service. Making it illegal would be like making thousands of coordinated phone calls made with the intent of shutting down a service illegal. Which it is.

Now, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Ghandi's Civil Disobedience was precisely about breaking the law to say what needed to be said. All protest is not legal, even when it's the right thing to do.
 
2013-01-10 04:21:54 PM
can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.
 
2013-01-10 04:29:45 PM

grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.


It would be horrible. It's like protesting a business by welding the doors shut so they can't do any work. You have no right to deny someone the ability to run their business like that.
 
2013-01-10 04:34:00 PM

LindenFark: It is very different from clicking a link. DDOS stands for Distributed Denial of Service. Making it illegal would be like making thousands of coordinated phone calls made with the intent of shutting down a service illegal. Which it is.

Now, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Ghandi's Civil Disobedience was precisely about breaking the law to say what needed to be said. All protest is not legal, even when it's the right thing to do.


It's still hypocritical and morally bankrupt for Anonymous to launch these attacks against websites they disagree with since it's basically an admission of defeat in whatever debate they claim to be having. It's immoral for A to prevent B and C to have an audience with each other simply because A doesn't like what B has to say to C regardless of what that medium is. A should be free to convince C not to listen to B and perhaps change his mind about B, but the moment he tries to censor B forcefully, he violates B's rights.
 
2013-01-10 04:36:50 PM

grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.


So free speech should be your speech silencing entirely the speech of another? Doesn't seem that free....
 
2013-01-10 04:41:44 PM

Antimatter: grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.

It would be horrible. It's like protesting a business by welding the doors shut so they can't do any work. You have no right to deny someone the ability to run their business like that.


I don't see it as being all that much different than a sit-in or other occupation protest.

It's nothing like welding the doors shut as there is no permanent damage being done.
 
2013-01-10 04:42:45 PM

kalor: grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.

So free speech should be your speech silencing entirely the speech of another? Doesn't seem that free....


Er... he didn't say it would be fantastic, he just said it would be "interesting".
 
2013-01-10 04:49:40 PM

Hydra: LindenFark: It is very different from clicking a link. DDOS stands for Distributed Denial of Service. Making it illegal would be like making thousands of coordinated phone calls made with the intent of shutting down a service illegal. Which it is.

Now, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Ghandi's Civil Disobedience was precisely about breaking the law to say what needed to be said. All protest is not legal, even when it's the right thing to do.

It's still hypocritical and morally bankrupt for Anonymous to launch these attacks against websites they disagree with since it's basically an admission of defeat in whatever debate they claim to be having. It's immoral for A to prevent B and C to have an audience with each other simply because A doesn't like what B has to say to C regardless of what that medium is. A should be free to convince C not to listen to B and perhaps change his mind about B, but the moment he tries to censor B forcefully, he violates B's rights.


Oh, hey, I was speaking in hypothetical possibility. Clearly illegal and immoral in this specific case.
 
2013-01-10 05:03:02 PM

SMB2811: I don't see it as being all that much different than a sit-in or other occupation protest.


Except that you're still preventing two willing parties from communicating.

The sit-ins during the civil rights were protesting laws that forced segregation upon businesses - B (a business) might've wanted to serve C (a customer), but G (the government) prevented the two from coming together to complete the transaction. In effect, the laws were executing the very action that you're protecting - just with the force of government instead of private actors. Look at the laws governing restaurants in Alabama, for example, where NO person was allowed to operate ANY restaurant WITHOUT segretated seating.

It was moral during the civil rights movement when the protesters were promoting freedom of choice. It's immoral when the protesters are restricting freedom of choice.
 
2013-01-10 05:05:24 PM
It's just like the Occupy protests!

Those protests that were broken up because what they were doing wasn't actually legal?

Yeah! Them!
 
2013-01-10 05:06:32 PM

Warlordtrooper: To be fair A DDOS really isn't different from clicking on a link. The only difference is the amount of times you click on the link. Like making a phone call. making a dos attack illegal is just like making it illegal to make a phone call. If you make sending pings illegal then any form of online communication would become illegal.


It's perfectly legal for me to throw a brick. It's a crime for me to throw a brick at someone or their property. Intent is kinda important.
 
2013-01-10 05:08:29 PM

LindenFark: Oh, hey, I was speaking in hypothetical possibility. Clearly illegal and immoral in this specific case.


Gotcha; no qualms from me, then.
 
2013-01-10 05:10:11 PM
Hmm... you know, getting a few million people to surround a business and just scream at the top of their lungs... that would be a pretty good RL DDOS.

Though, you'd get in trouble for disturbing the peace. So make internet communications protected speech, throw open a massive can of worms (not even necessarily bad!), and start issuing tickets to machine owners involved in attacks. Tada!
 
2013-01-10 05:22:30 PM

LindenFark: It is very different from clicking a link. DDOS stands for Distributed Denial of Service. Making it illegal would be like making thousands of coordinated phone calls made with the intent of shutting down a service illegal. Which it is.


Well, not necessarily. Call campaign activism is something that is not illegal and is regularly practiced with the goal of voicing displeasure with the recipient. Basically, every time the "American Wild Horse Preservation Society" sets up a fax blitz to a specific legislator's office in order to stop horse slaughter bills or the Parents Television Council have a phone blitz to a TV station exec, they're engaged in protected speech activities. The difference is that their individual members are able to deliver a blitz through their own individual actions - one phone call per person, over 1,000 or more people, every day, is perfectly legal and also an overwhelming blitz that will completely cripple an office. The same action taken by one person with an auto-dialer is completely illegal.

So, what's the difference? Well, you can't cripple a website through the actions of a group of individuals without some sort of multiplier of force. 1,000 people attacking a website by going to it and filling out a comment isn't going to do much. Now, 1,000 people with an LOIC apiece, that's a different story. The only way to achieve the same effect with the same number of people is with a technological multiplier, which is what Anonymous appears to be asking the government to recognize.
 
2013-01-10 05:32:40 PM

Hydra: SMB2811: I don't see it as being all that much different than a sit-in or other occupation protest.

Except that you're still preventing two willing parties from communicating.

The sit-ins during the civil rights were protesting laws that forced segregation upon businesses - B (a business) might've wanted to serve C (a customer), but G (the government) prevented the two from coming together to complete the transaction. In effect, the laws were executing the very action that you're protecting - just with the force of government instead of private actors. Look at the laws governing restaurants in Alabama, for example, where NO person was allowed to operate ANY restaurant WITHOUT segretated seating.

It was moral during the civil rights movement when the protesters were promoting freedom of choice. It's immoral when the protesters are restricting freedom of choice.


Analogies are not necessarily exact analogs. A sit-in or a protest occupation can indeed have the purpose of stopping business from occurring to draw attention to a message, several have. I drew the analogy because they can disrupt service but are not damaging ways of disrupting service.

And I have to laugh at trying to paint Anonymous' actions as immoral. The immorality of a protest is all in whether you agree to the aims or not. No shortage of people viewed desegregation as immoral for the simple reason that they disagreed with it.

I do not see it as immoral to knock a business or entity off the internet for a few hours to draw attention to an issue.

Except that you're still preventing two willing parties from communicating.

Which is sort of the whole point, to bring attention to one of those parties that maybe they should know something that might not make them so willing in the future.
 
2013-01-10 05:58:19 PM

SMB2811: Analogies are not necessarily exact analogs. A sit-in or a protest occupation can indeed have the purpose of stopping business from occurring to draw attention to a message, several have. I drew the analogy because they can disrupt service but are not damaging ways of disrupting service.

And I have to laugh at trying to paint Anonymous' actions as immoral. The immorality of a protest is all in whether you agree to the aims or not.


False. A person can approve of the proposed ends of a protest but not the means. One of the starkest contrasts are violent vs. non-violent protests.

Example: a union strikes to promote higher wages. This can be a perfectly moral protest so long as the workers don't forcefully prevent unemployed people who are not associated with the union from making individual negotations for employment with the employer. The moment the strikers decide to use batons and guns to keep away unemployed people from approaching the employer, they have violated the rights of those unemployed people.

No shortage of people viewed desegregation as immoral for the simple reason that they disagreed with it.

And no shortage of people wanted to use violence as a means of achieving desegregation. Would that have made it moral?

I do not see it as immoral to knock a business or entity off the internet for a few hours to draw attention to an issue.

Following this logic, it would be moral for me to cut the telephone line of the connection you have with someone with whom you're having a conversation that I don't want you to have. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would be moral for me to remove you physically from the room when you're having a conversation with someone I don't like, and you would not be able to stop me.

Which is sort of the whole point, to bring attention to one of those parties that maybe they should know something that might not make them so willing in the future.

The way you do this is by approaching those parties directly and attempting to persuade them yourself rather than by violating their rights of association and speech.
 
2013-01-10 06:19:07 PM

China White Tea: kalor: grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.

So free speech should be your speech silencing entirely the speech of another? Doesn't seem that free....

Er... he didn't say it would be fantastic, he just said it would be "interesting".


Exactly, it would be interesting to see how far people would take it. Not saying its good or bad.
 
2013-01-10 06:23:52 PM

grimlock1972: China White Tea: kalor: grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.

So free speech should be your speech silencing entirely the speech of another? Doesn't seem that free....

Er... he didn't say it would be fantastic, he just said it would be "interesting".

Exactly, it would be interesting to see how far people would take it. Not saying its good or bad.


No it wouldn't, we know how far people would take it just look at history China, USSR, or any totalitarian regime uses their speech to stop all other speech. It ends in bloodshed and destruction which doesn't fall into my book as "interesting"
 
2013-01-10 07:16:43 PM

mauricecano: grimlock1972: China White Tea: kalor: grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.

So free speech should be your speech silencing entirely the speech of another? Doesn't seem that free....

Er... he didn't say it would be fantastic, he just said it would be "interesting".

Exactly, it would be interesting to see how far people would take it. Not saying its good or bad.

No it wouldn't, we know how far people would take it just look at history China, USSR, or any totalitarian regime uses their speech to stop all other speech. It ends in bloodshed and destruction which doesn't fall into my book as "interesting"


Agreed.
The whole point of respecting individual rights is to put people on a more equal footing with each other as well as their leadership and employers.
If you set things so that any one section of society has too much power, it creates a growing imbalance.
People (like the weather) are provoked to storms where there is too much of a difference between them. Governments and companies are tempted to abuse the reach of their power.

If anonymous can command the avenues of communication then he could cause as much harm as any government or corporation.
Its too much influence in one groups hands, no matter how Nobel they claim the cause is.
 
2013-01-10 07:54:03 PM

Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?


Done in one
 
2013-01-10 11:33:41 PM
Makes more sense than money = speech.
 
2013-01-11 12:54:42 AM

mauricecano: grimlock1972: China White Tea: kalor: grimlock1972: can't see it happening but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was so recognized.

So free speech should be your speech silencing entirely the speech of another? Doesn't seem that free....

Er... he didn't say it would be fantastic, he just said it would be "interesting".

Exactly, it would be interesting to see how far people would take it. Not saying its good or bad.

No it wouldn't, we know how far people would take it just look at history China, USSR, or any totalitarian regime uses their speech to stop all other speech. It ends in bloodshed and destruction which doesn't fall into my book as "interesting"


I meant in interesting how far people woul;d take it if DDos attacks were recognized as free speech. I do however agree our right to free speech must be protected .
 
2013-01-11 02:07:40 AM

Warlordtrooper: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Hydra: So restricting someone's freedom of speech is a form of freedom of speech?

Do they understand how hypocritical they're being?

I SHOUT WILL SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU TALK TO SHOW HOW PATRIOTIC I AM

Yet this is exactly what corporations do with money and its called free speech then.


Well then why don't you go makesome money by providing something of value to the world rather than your trolling comments and bong-riddled philosophy so that you can have your own speech. farking entitled prick.
 
2013-01-11 12:53:35 PM
This reminds me of people who are angry with a column in a college newspaper and respond by stealing all copies of the newspaper so no one can read it (link to one of many such incidents). I consider a DDoS attack to be "stealing" the targeted site from the audience that would otherwise be able to view it.
 
2013-01-13 09:01:47 PM
It's only fair. If the Koch brothers filling the air waves with only one point of view is free speech, then why not this?
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report