Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

DDOS Ethics

<< < (4/9) > >>

40hz:
Perhaps the U.S. Government should put the current Wikileaks 'threat' in perspective?



 8)

wraith808:
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.
-Stoic Joker (December 09, 2010, 05:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.

To take your analysis further, that's like me sending an analysis of a competing software design and the designers and our plans to compete with them to a colleague with my notes about it that we're going to use in the market, and then someone intercepting those and deciding that to level the playing field, they need to distribute the analysis.

At what point is that scenario drunken ramblings that I should have kept to myself?  At what point was my communicating with a co-worker something that I should have expected to be disseminated?

Then you make it worse by disseminating things that were given in confidence from a competitor... do you think that you will be able to get any intelligence about competitors in the future?

mouser:
For an interesting take on the DDOSing:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/10/2600-magazine-condem.html

2600: The Hacker Quarterly, has published a public statement opposing the Anonymous denial-of-service attacks on the services that abetted the censorship of Wikileaks. 2600's position is that the inexcusable moral cowardice of Visa and Mastercard and PayPal, etc, do not justify the use of brute force. Additionally, 2600 says that DDoS attacks are tactically unsound, as they create sympathy for these companies, and are used as a pretense for more attacks on Internet freedom. Finally, 2600 wants to strong disassociate "hackers" from people who merely run a piece of push-button DoS software, and to ensure that the security specialists, experimenters, hobbyists and others who make up its community are not unfairly associated with the DDoS attacks.
--- End quote ---

CWuestefeld:
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.
-Stoic Joker (December 09, 2010, 05:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's such absurd hyperbole that I won't bother to respond.

Aside from the morality argument, you haven't addressed my point about the attacks being bad tactics (because they may give incentives for other companies to stay away).

You attempted to address the point about bad strategy:
Do you really think the government needs an incentive to strip away additional rights and freedoms?
-Stoic Joker (December 09, 2010, 05:54 PM)
--- End quote ---
But this isn't quite right. Of course they don't need any incentive. What they do need is an excuse, some rationalization that they can claim is the reason they need to do this. The fact that millions of dollars in revenue were lost because some of our most important commercial institutions were crippled by terrorists -- and that this happened during the Christmas shopping season, so mommy couldn't buy that doll for little Suzy -- proves that the government is needed to protect the citizens. The DDoS attacks give that fig leaf of rationalization (even though we both know there's nothing they could do about it anyway), and this is the opposite of what (I assume) the Anonymous folks want.

f0dder:
and this is the opposite of what (I assume) the Anonymous folks want.-CWuestefeld (December 10, 2010, 10:05 AM)
--- End quote ---
My impression of anon is that it's (mostly) a drooling mob that likes to feel self-important - kiddos in their mum & dad's basement, using dumb brute-force pre-made click-one-button DDoSing tools while touching themselves and muttering "zomgImSoLeetHaxx0r!11!1!".

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page