Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

DDOS Ethics

(1/9) > >>

Renegade:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/09/3089114.htm?section=world

Agree? Disagree? Comments?

Deozaan:
Agree or disagree with what? There doesn't seem to be an opinion put forth in the article that I could see. It seemed rather matter-of-fact and neutral to me.

In my opinion WikiLeaks should not be censored, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I'd make the same argument for a website belonging to the KKK. However, I believe that these DDOS attacks are not helping the cause. They're just going to cause governments to seize more control of the internet to "protect" us from "cyber terror" attacks.

Renegade:
That was super lazy of me. I was posting from my phone, and I hate typing without a real keyboard.

I meant agreeing with DDOSing those that try to censor Wikileaks.

It's funny that you mention the KKK. Apparently they accept donations and their payment processor is happy to oblige.

I'm with you about the KKK there though. While they're abhorrent, I'm certainly glad that they're free to spout their venom.

However, I believe that these DDOS attacks are not helping the cause. They're just going to cause governments to seize more control of the internet to "protect" us from "cyber terror" attacks.
--- End quote ---

Yes and no. The attacks apparently weren't serious attacks and didn't actually do any real damage like some of the ones we saw around 10 years ago. They basically just popped the sites briefly and that was that. They did little more than attract some media attention.

On the yes side, I think you're right about those kinds of things being twisted to seize more control.

On the ironic side, I doubt that the DDOS attacks on the Wikileaks site would prompt any kind of reaction...

As far as it goes, I think I'm siding with the hacktivists. A low level, brief DDOS is roughly the same as egging some corporate headquarters. While civil disobedience and non-violent protest are always preferable, I don't think that non-violence is always the answer. (I take it that digital attacks are still a form of violence.)

As far as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal... WOW! What a bunch of pussies! It's just stunning that they'd chicken out like that. The guy hasn't been charged with anything and what was that old adage... Ummm... Innocent until proven guilty? Ahem...

Since when is digital publishing illegal?

I think this is really an acid test for freedom of speech. For the DDOS attacks, I'm not 100% sure that they're fully justified, though I certainly sympathize. Twitter doesn't sympathize though...

Hold up!

Sorry, the profile you are trying to view has been suspended.
--- End quote ---

There's overwhelming pressure to censor Wikileaks and throw Justin in jail, so I don't see how I can condemn any attempt to try to raise the profile of their plight, especially when their source of income is attacked by the same people that want to censor them. It's the equivalent of muzzling someone, then suffocating them. It just seems like a form of resistance that is justified.

Anyways, I'm rooting for Justin, Wikileaks, and freedom of speech.

Stoic Joker:
As of late I've been on a bit of a slow boil with the big-brother-is-watching direction the government has been taking. Sure a little corruption is necessary (and good) for any system to truly run smoothly. But the good-Ol'Boy-network got way out of hand a long time ago. Now they want to cry the blues because somebody snitched on their too-cool-to-get-busted asses (Whaaa) too bad ... They wouldn't have had anything to hide if they were actually doing their jobs in the first place.

I'm rooting for Justin, Wikileaks, and freedom of speech.-Renegade (December 09, 2010, 05:59 AM)
--- End quote ---

Me too. Because Spin Doctoring don't work worth a damn when everybody has actual facts. The Gov needs a Time-Out, so they can sit in the corner and think (real hard) about who they work for.

wraith808:
But is that for wikileaks to decide?  There are legitimate reasons why some of those ideas were classified, and legitimate concerns about a) the effects that the leaks themselves will have, b) about the effects on relations between said countries, and c) the effect on the ability to effectively gain intelligence in the wake of said leaks.  In the case of exposing corruption and/or crimes, I see use, though I still think that legal channels should be the first recourse.  But in these cases, the information is of questionable use, while causing real concern about diplomatic ties and future effectiveness.  I think it's pretty dangerous, personally.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page