PDA

View Full Version : Is DDOS considered Free Speech?




Razmear
12-09-2010, 08:42 PM
Just expanding upon the arguments in other threads.
Is using your own hardware and bandwidth to protest a company by constantly reloading a page on their server a form of free speech? Does automating this task with software tools make it any less a form of free speech?

I'm not talking about hijacking other users PC's (bot-nets), but only using your own personal resources to protest the actions of a company.

eb

FrankRep
12-09-2010, 08:47 PM
Preventing other people's free speech isn't free speech.

:rolleyes:

cswake
12-09-2010, 08:50 PM
If you're running on the analogy of picket lines, a better way to classify it is Freedom of Assembly.

TonySutton
12-09-2010, 08:50 PM
Preventing other people's free speech isn't free speech.

:rolleyes:

So are you saying no megaphones?

torchbearer
12-09-2010, 08:53 PM
free speech is the short form expression of the 1st amendment.
the 1st amendment was written to restrain the government from clamping down on speech.
says nothing about individuals.

then you get this sticky situation. the government gets corporations, either through bride or threat to do its dirty work. sound familiar?

Sentient Void
12-09-2010, 08:59 PM
No. DDOS isn't free speech. DDOS is an attack on personal private property.

It's safe to say that the owner of the private property does not want you there if you are obstructing his business (and all of these companies have condemned the DDOS attacks), and thus you are in fact trespassing on private property. This would be no different then if a large enough group of people walked into a store and filled up all the floor space with no intention of buying anything. The owner tells them all to leave (the owners condemning the DDOS attacks), and they refuse. Trespassing. Not free speech. Not a right.

People misunderstand what free speech is all to often. Free speech in regards to the constitution is only in/on public property *against the government* not private entities. You do *not* have a 'right to free speech' when you are on *private* property. If I invite you onto my private property, and you say something I don't like - I have every right to kick your ass off of it. Likewise, you do not have a right to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater - but it's the same reason you don't have the right to disrupt the movie in any way in a theater, and the theater owner regardless of the reason has a right to deem you as trespassing and escort you off the premises. So play nice.

This shows that there is no such thing as a right to free speech - only a right to property. This is just yet another example of many examples that *all rights are property rights* - including the right of self-ownership (a property right in oneself).

JoshLowry
12-09-2010, 09:00 PM
Preventing other people's free speech isn't free speech.

:rolleyes:

This. I wouldn't try and get more complex.

Agorism
12-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Is pirate radio free speech? (aka sending out radiowaves that aren't approved?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio

torchbearer
12-09-2010, 09:07 PM
This. I wouldn't try and get more complex.

see post #5 to understand why the post you agreed with is incorrect.

JoshLowry
12-09-2010, 09:10 PM
see post #5 to understand why the post you agreed with is incorrect.

What are we disagreeing on?

I do not think that people should prevent access to someone's private property.

cswake
12-09-2010, 09:15 PM
No. DDOS isn't free speech. DDOS is an attack on personal private property.

So when a couple million people refresh multiple times to get in on a deal, are they attacking? They just did a DDoS.


It's safe to say that the owner of the private property does not want you there if you are obstructing his business (and all of these companies have condemned the DDOS attacks),

Ban picket lines? They have the same criteria.


and thus you are in fact trespassing on private property. This would be no different then if a large enough group of people walked into a store and filled up all the floor space with no intention of buying anything. The owner tells them all to leave (the owners condemning the DDOS attacks), and they refuse. Trespassing. Not free speech. Not a right.But they are using that private property in the way that the owner setup: to receive and respond to data requests. Can you sue for receiving too much junk mail?

ivflight
12-09-2010, 09:18 PM
I'm not talking about hijacking other users PC's (bot-nets), but only using your own personal resources to protest the actions of a company.

eb

This definition isn't so much a ddos, maybe a dos. The first D is "distributed", which generally means you're using other people's resources.

cswake
12-09-2010, 09:21 PM
Distributed doesn't mean that you're using other people's resources - it's that the requests are originating from multiple sources. (Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of IPs)

ivflight
12-09-2010, 09:24 PM
Distributed doesn't mean that you're using other people's resources - it's that the requests are originating from multiple sources. (Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of IPs)

Don't you generally either need a super computer or lots of other computers? If it is just one computer can't it be shut down pretty quick?

cswake
12-09-2010, 09:26 PM
Lots of other computers, yes. (One supercomputer, not so much, since it would only have 1 origination point. This could qualify as an effective DoS, but not a Distributed DoS) This can be done by lots of separate individuals using their own computers, rather than commandeering someone else's property.

ivflight
12-09-2010, 09:29 PM
Lots of other computers, yes. (One supercomputer, not so much, since it would only have 1 origination point. This could qualify as an effective DoS, but not a Distributed DoS) This can be done by lots of separate individuals using their own computers, rather than commandeering someone else's property.

I didn't say it had to be involuntary, but you do have to use other people's resources.

ivflight
12-09-2010, 09:30 PM
How would you guys feel if someone decided to ddos attack this site because they don't like what we're saying here? Would you defend their right to "free speech"?

osan
12-09-2010, 09:31 PM
Just expanding upon the arguments in other threads.
Is using your own hardware and bandwidth to protest a company by constantly reloading a page on their server a form of free speech? Does automating this task with software tools make it any less a form of free speech?

This presupposes that doing it manually constitutes free speech, which I do not think is the case. It seems to me you are violating the site owner's property rights. You have a right to express your opinion about Company X. You can start a blog, write letters to your representatives, or get up on a soap box in Times Square and legitimately express yourself to whatever effect makes you happy. Interfering with X's site integrity and operation strikes me as vandalism pure and simple. If you think the site should be prevented from operating, gather your evidence and present it to the appropriate authorities. Remember the maxim "innocent until proven guilty"? It applies even to Eville Korporations. If your evidence presents a valid case, you may get your wish. If it doesn't, you leave that alone and stay on the straight and narrow WRT your means of protest.


I'm not talking about hijacking other users PC's (bot-nets), but only using your own personal resources to protest the actions of a company.

eb

A DDOS attack is not a protest, it is as the name suggests, an ATTACK - a trespass against the rights of another. We either respect the rights of others including that of due process, or we have chaos and mayhem. There is nothing in between.

Sentient Void
12-09-2010, 09:33 PM
So when a couple million people refresh multiple times to get in on a deal, are they attacking? They just did a DDoS.

Intent is the difference. The ones you are describing are there for business. Anonymous is there to deny business, and is there for the sole purpose of disrupting business.




Ban picket lines? They have the same criteria.

Picket lines are on public property. If you try to walk into a store and picket in the middle of the store - you will rightly be escorted off the premises. When you visit or engage in a DDOS against a website, you are 100% on private property and are not welcome.


But they are using that private property in the way that the owner setup: to receive and respond to data requests. Can you sue for receiving too much junk mail?

No they are not. The owner set up the website for data requests for the purposes of business transactions or potential business transactions, not for the purpose of malicious intent and business disruption. These people have been condemned by the business owners and are trespassing.

I can't sue for receiving too much junk mail, but if my mailbox were private property (it's not, it's actually considered federal property for the USPS, fucked up I know) like the websites are, I would have every right to refuse access to certain persons or companies from accessing it and filling it up. It might be difficult, but it would be my right. Since we are talking about rights here, right?

Sentient Void
12-09-2010, 09:36 PM
How would you guys feel if someone decided to ddos attack this site because they don't like what we're saying here? Would you defend their right to "free speech"?

Seriously. But I think unfortunately people are seeing this as free speech when it is nowhere near free speech. Free speech is what you can do on your own private property and on public property.

*Not on someone else's private property*.

osan
12-09-2010, 09:41 PM
So when a couple million people refresh multiple times to get in on a deal, are they attacking? They just did a DDoS.

Um, no. The differentiating factor here is intent, as well as operation. A million people hitting site X to get 50% off implies people seeking to do legitimate busines with the site. They are not sitting there loading the same pages over and over again until X crashes.

There is absolutely no comparison between the two examples, save for the result which in one case is the product of either poor capacity planning or a freak event, whereas the other is that of actions intended to cause harm.


But they are using that private property in the way that the owner setup: to receive and respond to data requests. Can you sue for receiving too much junk mail?

You can't be serious.

cswake
12-09-2010, 09:42 PM
Intent is the difference. The ones you are describing are there for business. Anonymous is there to deny business, and is there for the sole purpose of disrupting business.

What do you think picket lines are for - by their nature they intend on slowing or denying business. As for intent, what if it is politically motivated?

Even better, here is an absolutely extreme example to see where you are:

Small business with no office space and it is all conducted on the internet. The employees get a massive pay cut, but they have nowhere to picket. So instead they start doing a DDoS from their machines demanding higher wages. Is this okay?


Picket lines are on public property. If you try to walk into a store and picket in the middle of the store - you will rightly be escorted off the premises. When you visit or engage in a DDOS against a website, you are 100% on private property and are not welcome.

Look to my question about suing for junk mail. It goes into your mailbox, yet I don't think you can sue for too much junk mail.

cswake
12-09-2010, 09:52 PM
Um, no. The differentiating factor here is intent, as well as operation. A million people hitting site X to get 50% off implies people seeking to do legitimate busines with the site. They are not sitting there loading the same pages over and over again until X crashes.

So if I setup a program that refreshes 1 million times per second so that I can watch for a price to change on Amazon and beat everyone to the punch, am I okay since the intent falls under your classification?


You can't be serious.I know it's unrealistic, but extremes always help me find boundaries to the acceptable. So say I mail you 20,000 pieces of mail and you don't even want to sort for your own mail, have I done something illegal by overusing your mailbox, which was setup for the purpose of receiving mail?

Mini-Me
12-09-2010, 10:04 PM
Technically speaking, I agree that it's a lot like a physical assembly/march on private property. Therefore, I would agree that it is not protected by the First Amendment. Rather, it is a defiant act of civil disobedience.

As far as the moral issue goes though, I tend to agree with torchbearer: When a corporation colludes with government, contracts with government, acts in order to secure favor or special privileges from government, or even acts at the behest of government, they can no longer be considered a wholly private entity. To the extent that they have become entangled with government, they forfeit libertarian claims to full property rights. This is especially true if they're part of an oligopoly that exists largely because government regulation grossly inhibits competition. At the extreme end, you could argue that this applies to a lesser extent to every limited liability corporation as a consequence of being a government-created construct with special privileges. However, there's a large difference in degree between small companies who do the bare minimum that they must do, and large companies who have significant backrubbing relationships with government. To the extent that a company has a significant relationship with government, I would argue that civil disobedience in violation of their "property rights" is morally justified.

Fox McCloud
12-09-2010, 10:11 PM
Is pirate radio free speech? (aka sending out radiowaves that aren't approved?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio

horrendously muddled, thanks to the state; the airwaves are as much private property as the land is and the ocean's should be....it was moving in this direction in the 20's through court cases, but Hoover didn't like that, since the government had no say its uses and no say on what could be said over those airwaves, thus he pushed for a government agency to handle it, instead. Not surprisingly, Congress passed a bill that created the FCC...and well...the rest is history.

JoshLowry
12-09-2010, 10:16 PM
So if I setup a program that refreshes 1 million times per second so that I can watch for a price to change on Amazon and beat everyone to the punch, am I okay since the intent falls under your classification?

Amazon would set rules if this were a problem.


I know it's unrealistic, but extremes always help me find boundaries to the acceptable. So say I mail you 20,000 pieces of mail and you don't even want to sort for your own mail, have I done something illegal by overusing your mailbox, which was setup for the purpose of receiving mail?

Sending spam mail is different from actively preventing legit mail from reaching it's destination.

Mini-Me
12-09-2010, 10:26 PM
horrendously muddled, thanks to the state; the airwaves are as much private property as the land is and the ocean's should be....it was moving in this direction in the 20's through court cases, but Hoover didn't like that, since the government had no say its uses and no say on what could be said over those airwaves, thus he pushed for a government agency to handle it, instead. Not surprisingly, Congress passed a bill that created the FCC...and well...the rest is history.

The biggest difference between airwaves and physical property is probably that spectrum space is a lot scarcer than land (with fuzzier boundaries), and abandonment principles would need to be applied much more heavily to airwaves. After all, it's fairly easy for a small number of people/organizations to "claim" a large part of the spectrum for themselves and either blast white noise or leave it unused/underused/poorly used, whereas it's physically more difficult to fence in, claim, and hoard ridiculous amounts of land in a quick blitzkrieg. That, and land cannot be used in the owner's absence without altering its condition, whereas airwaves can.

Sentient Void
12-09-2010, 10:29 PM
What do you think picket lines are for - by their nature they intend on slowing or denying business. As for intent, what if it is politically motivated?

Even better, here is an absolutely extreme example to see where you are:

Small business with no office space and it is all conducted on the internet. The employees get a massive pay cut, but they have nowhere to picket. So instead they start doing a DDoS from their machines demanding higher wages. Is this okay?

If it is on private property, physical or virtual, and is unwanted and condemned, it is not okay and they have no right to do so.

I am a libertarian (and libertarians believe in negative rights - not positive rights). No one has a right to private properties except the owners. This is the foundation of a just and capitalistic society.

People do not have a natural right to DDOS, nor do they have a natural right to trespass on others' property. If it is unwanted activity on someone else's property, it is trespassing and a violation of private property, pure and simple.

Sentient Void
12-09-2010, 10:33 PM
As far as the moral issue goes though, I tend to agree with torchbearer: When a corporation colludes with government, contracts with government, acts in order to secure favor or special privileges from government, or even acts at the behest of government, they can no longer be considered a wholly private entity. To the extent that they have become entangled with government, they forfeit libertarian claims to full property rights. This is especially true if they're part of an oligopoly that exists largely because government regulation grossly inhibits competition. At the extreme end, you could argue that this applies to a lesser extent to every limited liability corporation as a consequence of being a government-created construct with special privileges. However, there's a large difference in degree between small companies who do the bare minimum that they must do, and large companies who have significant backrubbing relationships with government. To the extent that a company has a significant relationship with government, I would argue that civil disobedience in violation of their "property rights" is morally justified.

This makes sense for the Federal reserve, Goldman Sachs, BoA, GM, and Citi... but how is this at all relevant to VISA, MasterCard, PayPal and Amazon?

There are quite a few competitors to all of these entities (PayPal not so much, but only because they are at the forefront of innovation not because they collude with government, and they offer a valuable service at a great rate within a relatively free market).

Mini-Me
12-09-2010, 10:55 PM
This makes sense for the Federal reserve, Goldman Sachs, BoA, GM, and Citi... but how is this at all relevant to VISA, MasterCard, PayPal and Amazon?

There are quite a few competitors to all of these entities (PayPal not so much, but only because they are at the forefront of innovation not because they collude with government, and they offer a valuable service at a great rate within a relatively free market).

To be honest, I'm only erring on the side of civil disobedience here because all of the above are part of an oligopoly that exists largely because government regulation grossly inhibits competition. I tend to be skeptical of VISA/Mastercard/etc.'s "private" status, simply because household names in the financial world don't usually get there without lobbyists and such. That said, I don't know anything specific that any of them have done wrong (not that I've looked hard).

This is especially true for Paypal, a relative newcomer to the oligopoly, who actually did manage to break through by being innovative in the market. In truth, I like Paypal. That said, now that they've broken through and become part of the oligopoly, their position is pretty well-protected by red tape and regulations that undermine the hordes of copycat startups financially and otherwise.

In other words, through no real fault of their own (that I know of), Paypal now greatly benefits from coercive government. By itself, I don't think it's fair to hold that against them. However, when such a protected entity gets a letter from the government about Wikileaks and acts on it - not because they would have at their own volition, but because the government told them to - that's when they start walking a very fine line. By following an order/request from the government, they are doing a favor for the government...specifically, a favor intended to undermine a whistleblowing journalist. In a sense, they are contracting for the government for free, although the reality is that they'll probably get a carrot down the road if they do or a stick if they don't. It's not black and white, but basically, I just can't hold it against anyone for engaging in civil disobedience against Paypal for acting on behalf of the empire.

In short, I guess my stance boils down to this: Paypal acted on behalf of the government, knowing that their customers cannot simply switch to any of a large number of competitors in protest (because the government does a lot to inhibit upstarts, even if Paypal isn't the one who asked them to do so). In a world where startup competition is made obscenely difficult, market-based protests simply don't work, and civil disobedience becomes the next option.

axiomata
12-09-2010, 10:55 PM
The most charitable description of a DDOS attack is a sit-in. A sit-in where you stuff so many people into the restaurant that it is physically impossible for any other potential customer to get in.

Mini-Me
12-09-2010, 11:00 PM
The most charitable description of a DDOS attack is a sit-in. A sit-in where you stuff so many people into the restaurant that it is physically impossible for any other potential customer to get in.

I'd say that's a very close description. To be slightly more accurate, it's probably a bit more like an endless stream of people parading through the building rather than sitting in place though. ;)

EDIT: Hah, it turns out someone else gave pretty much the same analogy in another thread too, a couple hours ago. :)

axiomata
12-09-2010, 11:16 PM
I'd say that's a very close description. To be slightly more accurate, it's probably a bit more like an endless stream of people parading through the building rather than sitting in place though. ;)

Another difference is that an in-person sit-in takes takes some effort and courage. You have to give up your time to take part and you have to put your health and freedom at risk on the chance that things get violent or you are arrested. Though I supposed you could get jailed for a DDOS if you get caught.

I'm not going to be taking part in any DDOS attacks, but I'm not exactly shedding a tear either.

Mini-Me
12-09-2010, 11:24 PM
I'm not going to be taking part in any DDOS attacks, but I'm not exactly shedding a tear either.

Precisely. :)

Fox McCloud
12-09-2010, 11:34 PM
is walking into a store with a bunch of like-minded individuals and yelling at the top of your lungs with megaphones a legitimate tactic? No; you'll be asked to leave immediately--a DDOS attack, by its very definition is meant to cause damage to a website...if that website is a legit business, then you're infringing on their own property and violating the rules there...so no, whether its free speech or not is irrelevant; it's a property rights issue.

Fox McCloud
12-09-2010, 11:39 PM
After all, it's fairly easy for a small number of people/organizations to "claim" a large part of the spectrum for themselves and either blast white noise or leave it unused/underused/poorly used, whereas it's physically more difficult to fence in, claim, and hoard ridiculous amounts of land in a quick blitzkrieg.

the fallacy here is that people won't just lock up radio waves and do nothing with it; they'll homestead it with the intention of making money off of it; either through selling it to someone else or by conducting some type of service on there.

Also, it's a scarce resources like any other, and the more advancement in radio tech there is, the more efficient people will be able to use it, which means more uses for less "airspace".

it's slightly different than land, I'll grant you that, but the same principles and rules could easily apply.

RonPaulwillWin
12-09-2010, 11:39 PM
After thinking about it more...I change my vote to no.

pcosmar
12-10-2010, 12:53 AM
Is It Free speech?
NO. It is not speech at all.
It is asymmetrical warfare. A non-violent response to attacks on Freedom of speech and attacks on people.
It is civil disobedience and it is directed at those entities involved in an injustice.

It is a warning, to those that are violating human rights and to those that side with them.

It IS about the Violation of Free Speech. And in response to that violation.

torchbearer
12-10-2010, 07:11 AM
The U.N.'s top human rights official raised the alarm Thursday over officials' and corporations' moves to cut off WikiLeaks' funding and starve it of server space — something she described as "potentially violating WikiLeaks' right to freedom of expression."



form this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40601162/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security

apparently, taking someone's website down is a violation of speech though the restriction really only applies to the government,it is not a destruction of property.

osan
12-23-2010, 11:13 AM
So if I setup a program that refreshes 1 million times per second so that I can watch for a price to change on Amazon and beat everyone to the punch, am I okay since the intent falls under your classification?

Intent is a component. I did not say intent alone constituted a sufficient basis for justification of action. If I come to believe you are possessed of Satan, kidnap you, tie you to a stake and light you aflame on the sincere and honest belief that I am saving your eternal soul, one cannot argue the good intention. That does not justify burning you at the stake or excuse me from being held materially accountable for what I have done. Intent coupled with result assessed with APPLIED INTELLIGENCE leads to more just evaluations of the results of any given action or set thereof. Simplistic models never suffice in such regards.

So to directly answer your question, no. You intent may have been innocent enough, but you still brought harm to another and should be called to account.


I know it's unrealistic, but extremes always help me find boundaries to the acceptable.

I understand. The reductio ad absurdum is often highly valuable in this regard.


So say I mail you 20,000 pieces of mail and you don't even want to sort for your own mail, have I done something illegal by overusing your mailbox, which was setup for the purpose of receiving mail?

If your intent is malicious, then no question you are "guilty". If otherwise, then more analysis would be required in order to determine the manner and degree of correction is in order. If you're just ignorant, then perhaps a talking to will suffice. If you were, say, and anti-abortion sort and you sent me 20K photos of aborted fetuses with the good intentions of impressing upon me the horror of the practice, I would say you have clearly trespassed upon me with intent to do so, even if you felt the intentions were good or otherwise justified. In that case I would say you are on the hook for whatever damages you may have caused.

There is also the case of malicious intent that is viewed as just. You might send those photos with all the hatred you possess under the belief that God wants you to do so because this is "His" work. Profound psychosis aside, I would tend to view you as accountable for such acts. You may believe anything you want, crazy or otherwise - that does NOT entitle you to trespass upon others. Also, this sort of behavior is not always wrong. Self defense is a perfect example of where mal intent is perfectly justifiable. If someone tries to bring me to physical harm, I will respond with whatever level of mal intent I find necessary and will still be justified because I am defending myself from trespass. Just wanted to mention that in the interest of better completeness.

osan
12-23-2010, 11:15 AM
Just expanding upon the arguments in other threads.
Is using your own hardware and bandwidth to protest a company by constantly reloading a page on their server a form of free speech? Does automating this task with software tools make it any less a form of free speech?

I'm not talking about hijacking other users PC's (bot-nets), but only using your own personal resources to protest the actions of a company.

eb

May I point out that option 3 is poorly constructed. Pairing them suggests some linkage between them. IMO you should have separated them because "don't know" is worlds different from "don't care".