Anonymous wants DDoS attacks to be a legal form of protest

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-wants-ddos-attacks-to-be-a-legal-form-of-protest-09264722/

A petition was posted on the White House’s website by Anonymous, which is seeking to have DDoS attacks become a legal form of protest. Distributed denial-of-service attacks are not hacking, the group says, but are instead the equivalent of “hitting the refresh button on a webpage.” In doing so, the protesters are occupying a digital space much like a protester outside of a physical business.

The petition can be found over at the White House’s We the People page, where it currently has 775 signatures. Per the website’s FAQ, the petition has to reach 25,000 signatures within 30 days in order to be reviewed by the White House. To meet this requirement, it currently needs a little over 24,000 signatures by February 6.

Says the petition: “With the advance in internet techonology [sic], comes new grounds for protesting. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), is not any form of hacking in any way. It is the equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a webpage. It is, in that way, no different than any “occupy” protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.”

The petition then goes on to state that those who have been jailed for performing DDoS attacks should be released, and that any criminal record resulting from such legal situations should be cleared. Anonymous has performed its fair share of denial of service attacks over the years, often as a form of protest. Recently, McAfee Lab published a report in which it states that we’ll see a decline in Anonymous attacks in 2013.

-t

[V3n]

Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), is not any form of hacking in any way.

I think they've got a point there.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The tools used to do it are used legitimately to stress test machines and see how they will behave under a given load. Hard to ban something like that, but people are in jail because of it.

-t

[Ranger29860]

The tools used to do it are used legitimately to stress test machines and see how they will behave under a given load. Hard to ban something like that, but people are in jail because of it.

-t

It would be the equivalent (IN MY MIND) of a person standing on a public street but blocking the entrance to someone's store in order to cost him money since no customers can get through.

As for "there's no hacking involved", sure I can buy that when it comes to the final effect of just spamming a server but what usually ends up happening is the DDOS initiator has a long list of ghosted computers that they have "hacked" in order to facilitate the DDOS. Now there are legitimate programs that can stress test a server to an extent but nothing on the scale that some of these DDOS attacks are happening at.

[Steve-in-NY]

It would be the equivalent (IN MY MIND) of a person standing on a public street but blocking the entrance to someone's store in order to cost him money since no customers can get through.

As for "there's no hacking involved", sure I can buy that when it comes to the final effect of just spamming a server but what usually ends up happening is the DDOS initiator has a long list of ghosted computers that they have "hacked" in order to facilitate the DDOS. Now there are legitimate programs that can stress test a server to an extent but nothing on the scale that some of these DDOS attacks are happening at.

Theoretically, all you need are enough people with internet browsers.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Not sure taking down a business website, as "they" did with MasterCard, is a legitimate form of protest.

[brandon]

I think it most likely should be legal to run a DoS attack from your own computer. But it should also be legal for your ISP to shut you down as soon as it's detected.


I think most successful distributed DoS attacks are done from bot nets which obviously is already illegal.

[tangent4ronpaul]

When they attacked Amazon, PayPal, Visa and Mastercard, they were having trouble generating enough traffic with a bunch of volunteers. Things got better later in the attack when they got a couple of botnets to join in.

-t

[jbauer]

So...they are asking the government who gets elected by big coorperations to let the little guy "attack" them? Pretty much like asking the white house to declare itself a gun free zone.

[VIDEODROME]

It's not like a protester outside a business because a customer trying to access a site under attack probably doesn't know what the hell is going on.

It's almost like imposing a boycott between the business and customers. Rather then being like a protester outside a business I think it would be closer to a person climbing the poll outside the business and cutting their power, phone, and cable line so their business can't function. I think it's vandalism.

[compromise]

So...they are asking the government who gets elected by big coorperations to let the little guy "attack" them? Pretty much like asking the white house to declare itself a gun free zone.

So you think it's good these guys are DDoSing?

A lot of people here seem to have been fooled into thinking Anonymous is a libertarian group. They are not. They are anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-syndicalists who are openly anti-capitalist.

[BarryDonegan]

If it interferes with other people's use of the site knowingly, then it is a damaging thing that should at least lead to a civil suit. Standing outside a building is not the same as standing inside someone's server space that they paid for.

[twomp]

So you think it's good these guys are DDoSing?

A lot of people here seem to have been fooled into thinking Anonymous is a libertarian group. They are not. They are anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-syndicalists who are openly anti-capitalist.

I don't think most people are "fooled" that they are a libertarian group. Hell, I don't see them claiming to be libertarians either. They are a bunch of people who are on the internet who have found a way to disrupt "business as usual". I guarantee you that there are Anonymous members on this very forum.

As with OWS, when it is the government + the media vs. the people. I will generally side with the people even though I may not agree with everything they do.

[paulbot24]

So you think it's good these guys are DDoSing?

A lot of people here seem to have been fooled into thinking Anonymous is a libertarian group. They are not. They are anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-syndicalists who are openly anti-capitalist.

You can't fit Anonymous into any box since different groups work on different things. To say they are only anti-capitalist is showing your naivety of the scope of their work. Take a look at this (http://www.examiner.com/article/anonymous-targets-high-school-football-rape-crew-ohio) and tell me if they just sounds like a bunch of anarcho-script hacks. Don't get them confused with OWS, although they were involved with that, they are involved with many things.

[osan]

http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-wants-ddos-attacks-to-be-a-legal-form-of-protest-09264722/

A petition was posted on the White House’s website by Anonymous, which is seeking to have DDoS attacks become a legal form of protest. Distributed denial-of-service attacks are not hacking, the group says, but are instead the equivalent of “hitting the refresh button on a webpage.” In doing so, the protesters are occupying a digital space much like a protester outside of a physical business.

The petition can be found over at the White House’s We the People page, where it currently has 775 signatures. Per the website’s FAQ, the petition has to reach 25,000 signatures within 30 days in order to be reviewed by the White House. To meet this requirement, it currently needs a little over 24,000 signatures by February 6.

Says the petition: “With the advance in internet techonology [sic], comes new grounds for protesting. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), is not any form of hacking in any way. It is the equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a webpage. It is, in that way, no different than any “occupy” protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.”

The petition then goes on to state that those who have been jailed for performing DDoS attacks should be released, and that any criminal record resulting from such legal situations should be cleared. Anonymous has performed its fair share of denial of service attacks over the years, often as a form of protest. Recently, McAfee Lab published a report in which it states that we’ll see a decline in Anonymous attacks in 2013.

-t

What idiots. By petitioning, they are asking permission. Asking permission is de-facto recognition of government authority.

Just how stupid are these people?

[rideurlightning]

What idiots. By petitioning, they are asking permission. Asking permission is de-facto recognition of government authority.

Just how stupid are these people?

That is a great point.

[idiom]

There are hacktivists who have successfully DDOS'd site simply by using thousands of people refreshing their browsers.

[twomp]

What idiots. By petitioning, they are asking permission. Asking permission is de-facto recognition of government authority.

Just how stupid are these people?

You act as if they would stop doing what they were doing if the government said no. They are trolling with this petition. If you never heard of Anonymous before, trolling is a specialty of theirs.

[osan]

The tools used to do it are used legitimately to stress test machines and see how they will behave under a given load. Hard to ban something like that, but people are in jail because of it.

The only way to eliminate such things would be to pull the plug on the net.

Going on thirty years ago now, my group at Bell Labs pretty well invented stress testing and the means of conducting such activities are numerous. We would use packages such as ProComm and Telix to run scripts from PCs. We wrote C programs to run from terminals that would open a script and execute it line by line. A buddy of mine and I wrote a language called Chorthand that would do this. We would write a master script that would read from a master list of scripts and fork off background processes that would run either until they finished or until we broke the system badly enough to take it down.

In order to eliminate the potential, you have to eliminate the tools such as UNIX/LINUX and all other multi-tasking/multi-user capable software. Good luck with that. The moment you get it all, someone writes a new one. Besides, computer life would be literally impossible without these capabilities.

In short, there is NO WAY to effectively prevent this sort of thing if one wants to have an operational network across which to transact business.

For the record, I think DDOS attacks are kind of fucked because they prevent people from doing legal business. You may not agree with the business in question, but what gives you the authority to stop others? If you can stop a furrier from doing business online because you are against fur coats, then why can't someone stomp your business because they disagree with what you do? There is no bright line in the sand to be drawn there because everybody on the planet does something that someone, somewhere will find offensive.

[twomp]

The only way to eliminate such things would be to pull the plug on the net.

Going on thirty years ago now, my group at Bell Labs pretty well invented stress testing and the means of conducting such activities are numerous. We would use packages such as ProComm and Telix to run scripts from PCs. We wrote C programs to run from terminals that would open a script and execute it line by line. A buddy of mine and I wrote a language called Chorthand that would do this. We would write a master script that would read from a master list of scripts and fork off background processes that would run either until they finished or until we broke the system badly enough to take it down.

In order to eliminate the potential, you have to eliminate the tools such as UNIX/LINUX and all other multi-tasking/multi-user capable software. Good luck with that. The moment you get it all, someone writes a new one. Besides, computer life would be literally impossible without these capabilities.

In short, there is NO WAY to effectively prevent this sort of thing if one wants to have an operational network across which to transact business.

For the record, I think DDOS attacks are kind of fucked because they prevent people from doing legal business. You may not agree with the business in question, but what gives you the authority to stop others? If you can stop a furrier from doing business online because you are against fur coats, then why can't someone stomp your business because they disagree with what you do? There is no bright line in the sand to be drawn there because everybody on the planet does something that someone, somewhere will find offensive.

From what I understand, you would need to offend more then 1 person to get that to happen. If a hundred people stand outside a store that sells fur or protests in the streets which causes traffic to stop, around here we call that civil disobedience. Of course the owners of the store and the people caught in traffic on the streets will feel like they have been screwed. In essence, they are breaking the law. Hence the term "disobedience."

[osan]

From what I understand, you would need to offend more then 1 person to get that to happen. If a hundred people stand outside a store that sells fur or protests in the streets which causes traffic to stop, around here we call that civil disobedience. Of course the owners of the store and the people caught in traffic on the streets will feel like they have been screwed. In essence, they are breaking the law. Hence the term "disobedience."

CD to me applies only to acts against so-called "government". If you do not like what a legitimate business does, talk all you like, march, wave signs, but do NOT interfere with their right to conduct business. That is NOT civil disobedience; it is trespass and I take a dim view of it. Don't agree with marijuana use? Don't use it, but keep your cotton picking mitts off those who do because you have no authority to interfere with them on that issue. Here I speak of "you" in the abstract general and not of you personally. :)

Don't think prostitution is moral? Fine. Do not become one and do not solicit their services. Don't like gay? Don't bend over for it. And so on down the list. If you feel strongly enough about any of it, march, sing songs, wave your "God hates *****s" signs or what have you. Put a finger on these people or trespass against them and if they beat you into a coma I will give them the keys to the city. Trespass is perhaps the ONLY legitimate zero-tolerance issue of which I can think.

Live. Let live. It is as close to perfect as anything will ever be. Put unwelcome hands on me and you will be shitting your teeth out or pushing up daisies. Respect is important - not just talking it, but walking it. It is important not just for moral reasons but for those practical as well.

We are either free or we are something else. It is an all or nothing deal with no half measure states. If we are free, then all trespass must be met with grim consequences. It is the violation of principle that is the primary issue, the nature of the violation holding an important yet secondary station. In other words, in questions of violation of the rights of another there should be a minimal price to pay regardless of how seemingly insignificant the transgression. Were this the case, the world as we know it would become a transformed place where people took some better and more reasonable care in their decision-making. Let us be clear that here I speak of intentional trespass that, when discovered, is not met with apologies and volunteered restitution. I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that every time someone bumps elbows with another that a prison term should ensue. But when one man intentionally or negligently trespasses against another, refuses to acknowledge his act, has caused loss and refuses to make good, then he should be called upon to account for it and the minimum cost should be something he would much rather not have to incur. This keeps people polite in much the same way as does the ubiquitous presence of firearms. It is called "consequence" and should be part of every decision we make every day of our lives.

[twomp]

CD to me applies only to acts against so-called "government". If you do not like what a legitimate business does, talk all you like, march, wave signs, but do NOT interfere with their right to conduct business. That is NOT civil disobedience; it is trespass and I take a dim view of it. Don't agree with marijuana use? Don't use it, but keep your cotton picking mitts off those who do because you have no authority to interfere with them on that issue. Here I speak of "you" in the abstract general and not of you personally. :)

Don't think prostitution is moral? Fine. Do not become one and do not solicit their services. Don't like gay? Don't bend over for it. And so on down the list. If you feel strongly enough about any of it, march, sing songs, wave your "God hates *****s" signs or what have you. Put a finger on these people or trespass against them and if they beat you into a coma I will give them the keys to the city. Trespass is perhaps the ONLY legitimate zero-tolerance issue of which I can think.

Live. Let live. It is as close to perfect as anything will ever be. Put unwelcome hands on me and you will be shitting your teeth out or pushing up daisies. Respect is important - not just talking it, but walking it. It is important not just for moral reasons but for those practical as well.

We are either free or we are something else. It is an all or nothing deal with no half measure states. If we are free, then all trespass must be met with grim consequences. It is the violation of principle that is the primary issue, the nature of the violation holding an important yet secondary station. In other words, in questions of violation of the rights of another there should be a minimal price to pay regardless of how seemingly insignificant the transgression. Were this the case, the world as we know it would become a transformed place where people took some better and more reasonable care in their decision-making. Let us be clear that here I speak of intentional trespass that, when discovered, is not met with apologies and volunteered restitution. I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that every time someone bumps elbows with another that a prison term should ensue. But when one man intentionally or negligently trespasses against another, refuses to acknowledge his act, has caused loss and refuses to make good, then he should be called upon to account for it and the minimum cost should be something he would much rather not have to incur. This keeps people polite in much the same way as does the ubiquitous presence of firearms. It is called "consequence" and should be part of every decision we make every day of our lives.

You make a very good point because we tend to believe in the live and let live philosophy. But in reality, there very few "public" places where civil disobedience can take place and there is a good chance that if you find enough people outraged in whatever you are outraged in, that the protest will take place on someone's property.

An example would be the Boston Tea Party. Looking back on history, we all cheer that event on but it was SOMEONES'S Tea was it not? Wasn't the tea meant to go to some store to sell? Would you be against the Boston Tea Party as an act of civil disobedience? That is a loaded question though but my intent is that there is rarely a spot to practice civil disobedience where you aren't stopping stepping on the rights of someone else.

In one of the cases of Anonymous, they DDOS the websites of Visa, Master Card and Paypal because the government told them to stop taking donations for Wikileaks which the government declared was a threat. I consider that civil disobedience because how else was Wikileaks supposed to fight back? Fly everyone to Washington DC to carry signs?

[Cabal]

Doesn't DDoS qualify as aggression against property?

[idiom]

Doesn't DDoS qualify as aggression against property?

Its being offered for service, and you are just utilising the entire capacity. It doesn't break anything.

[paulbot24]

There are hacktivists who have successfully DDOS'd site simply by using thousands of people refreshing their browsers.

It is a bit more complicated than that. They have also done a few things like restore the internet to the public in places like Palestine, Egypt, and Syria during times of unrest and crisis. I suppose they could be using their time more productively like us here in America and clogging the intrawebz on Facebook.

[osan]

You make a very good point because we tend to believe in the live and let live philosophy. But in reality, there very few "public" places where civil disobedience can take place and there is a good chance that if you find enough people outraged in whatever you are outraged in, that the protest will take place on someone's property.

Perhaps you mistook my meaning... I was speaking about disruption of a private business that is operating legitimately.

That aside, there are plenty of public spaces - we call them "the commons" - another good reason to maintain common spaces such that all people have rights of way. The 100% private society advocated by some is terribly flawed. Commons are a good thing.


An example would be the Boston Tea Party. Looking back on history, we all cheer that event on but it was SOMEONES'S Tea was it not?

And strictly speaking, they were wrong in taking that action. Taking your frustrations out on innocent third parties is senseless and unjust.


Would you be against the Boston Tea Party as an act of civil disobedience?

If it trespasses against the innocent, then yes. There can be no exceptions to this.


That is a loaded question though but my intent is that there is rarely a spot to practice civil disobedience where you aren't stopping stepping on the rights of someone else.


I am not sure I can agree with this... perhaps I misunderstand your meaning?


In one of the cases of Anonymous, they DDOS the websites of Visa, Master Card and Paypal because the government told them to stop taking donations for Wikileaks which the government declared was a threat. I consider that civil disobedience because how else was Wikileaks supposed to fight back? Fly everyone to Washington DC to carry signs?

Different scenario.

Am I correct in stating that the CC companies in question were not REQUIRED to stop taking payments? If so, they have become complicit and thereby become fair game as they are voluntarily aiding and abetting tyrants. That, IMO, puts the stink of guilt upon them - they chose sides; the wrong side in this case. Caveat evil spirits. :)

[twomp]

Perhaps you mistook my meaning... I was speaking about disruption of a private business that is operating legitimately.

That aside, there are plenty of public spaces - we call them "the commons" - another good reason to maintain common spaces such that all people have rights of way. The 100% private society advocated by some is terribly flawed. Commons are a good thing.



And strictly speaking, they were wrong in taking that action. Taking your frustrations out on innocent third parties is senseless and unjust.



If it trespasses against the innocent, then yes. There can be no exceptions to this.



I am not sure I can agree with this... perhaps I misunderstand your meaning?



Different scenario.

Am I correct in stating that the CC companies in question were not REQUIRED to stop taking payments? If so, they have become complicit and thereby become fair game as they are voluntarily aiding and abetting tyrants. That, IMO, puts the stink of guilt upon them - they chose sides; the wrong side in this case. Caveat evil spirits. :)

All very good points. Can't say that I disagree with anything you said here.