Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DDOS Ethics
CWuestefeld:
Aside from whether the WikiLeaks release was itself moral...
For a private entity to decide they don't want to do business with someone is entirely within their rights. It is not a censorship question. Quite the opposite: the 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to decide with whom we want to associate. So forcing, e.g., PayPal or Amazon, to do business with WikiLeaks is morally wrong.
On the other hand, using the fear of government "displeasure", as Lieberman did, is still a form of censorship. Were it not for the implied threat that something would be done to them, or at least that their future dealings with the government would be viewed unfavorably, Lieberman is acting as a censor even without official Congressional action.
The DDoS attacks are wrong both morally, practically, and strategically.
They are wrong as a matter of morals because (a) they ignore the right of these entities to decide who to do business with, and (b) they ignore the "collateral damage" they're doing to other people (e.g., merchants who can't make sales). This latter is particularly ironic because these are the same people criticizing (by way of wikileaks releases) the collateral damage that the USA has created in Iraq.
They are wrong as a practical matter because they may have the opposite of the intended effect. That is, rather than making companies think "I'd better keep WikiLeaks on my client list so I can avoid retribution", they are likely to think "I don't want to ever get anywhere near WikiLeaks (or anything else controversial) or else I may run into trouble", thus making life harder on WikiLeaks and many other organizations.
They are wrong as a larger strategic matter because they're pushing the US government's hand over network security. We just may see demands that traffic be monitored by Cyber Command (NSA) so that attacks can be traced if not prevented.
EDIT: filled in a couple of missing words in "Lieberman" sentence.
Deozaan:
I think I agree with everything you just said, CWuestefeld. Very well said. :Thmbsup:
f0dder:
Well said, CWuestefeld.
Part of me can't help but feel a bit of satisfaction at the DDoS attacks, though, even if I believe they're wrong and definitely not aiding the cause :-\
40hz:
Back in the "Viet Nam Era," there was an acid test to determine the level of commitment to a politically revolutionary cause. It was pretty simple two-part question.
------------------------------------------------------------
If push comes to shove:
1. Are you willing to go to jail?
2. Are you willing to get beaten up?
------------------------------------------------------------
If you answered "yes" to 1 & 2, you were a revolutionary, and the type that sometimes makes a difference.
If you answered "yes" to #1 only, you were a dedicated supporter with revolutionary leanings, and the type most likely to make a difference.
If you answered "yes" to #2 only, you were just a troublemaker, and the type most likely to harm the cause - and get other people hurt.
And if you answered "no" to both questions, you were a dilettante and a potential security threat since you were the type most likely to cut a deal with the authorities and perjure yourself once the hammer came down.
Ethics aside, I'm wondering where in this spectrum the Wikileaks people fall.
Stoic Joker:
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.-wraith808 (December 09, 2010, 11:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
Really? Why? Because some self important blow hard got caught popping off in an internal memo about a foreign dignitary? How about in the interest of professionalism (which isn't too much to expect given what they're paid...) they just kept the snide comments to themselves instead of documenting them on government servers where they're supposed to be archived forever?
It is absolutely no different then two IT pros leaving a location and (after accidentally butt-dialing said client) running the client into the ground. End result? somebody looses a client, and/or gets fired. Quite simple really, don't say anything that you're not willing to stand behind.
...This is the core premise behind why drunken ramblings are bad.
Aside from whether the WikiLeaks release was itself moral...
For a private entity to decide they don't want to do business with someone is entirely within their rights. It is not a censorship question. Quite the opposite: the 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to decide with whom we want to associate. So forcing, e.g., PayPal or Amazon, to do business with WikiLeaks is morally wrong.-CWuestefeld (December 09, 2010, 11:42 AM)
--- End quote ---
Seriously? You are going to play the morality/ethics card for credit card companies and banks? Huge fortunes built on corpses and cocaine that haven't paid a dime in taxes because they pride themselves on tax (evasion) "loop-holes" that typically involve storing (hiding) money in other countries. Swell bunch of real down-to-earth folk they are...
The DDoS attacks are wrong both morally, practically, and strategically.-CWuestefeld (December 09, 2010, 11:42 AM)
--- End quote ---
...And by that measure so was the Boston tea party back in the 1700s ... But some folk still do thing that was a pretty good idea.
They are wrong as a larger strategic matter because they're pushing the US government's hand over network security. We just may see demands that traffic be monitored by Cyber Command (NSA) so that attacks can be traced if not prevented.-CWuestefeld (December 09, 2010, 11:42 AM)
--- End quote ---
Do you really think the government needs an incentive to strip away additional rights and freedoms? The DoH (and friends) have been doing a fine job (waving the "terrorist" boogieman) of turning the US into a police state on their own. They have no need of this silly putz and his website to crack down on anything. Especially when there is zero resistance to the crack down because sheeple really are dumb enough to believe the RIAA's (gov approved) claims that illegal music downloads support terrorism.
The guy is Innocent until proven guilty ... and until that happens, nobody is supposed to be persecuting/prosecuting him - That's vigilantism - Which I've heard is bad.
@40Hz - I love the elegantly simple street rules test ... Now that's how to cut to the chase.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version