Anonymous Seeks to Legalize DDoS Attacks

[zehydra]

Performing a DDoS attack is a way to cause damage to private property and just as the First Amendment does not give protestors the right to intrude on or destroy private property it also wouldn't allow an electronic form of destruction. If they want to protest they are more than welcome to build their own websites to spread their message as well as using forums, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.

Except DDOS attacks are harmless. There is no destruction of anything going on. This is no different than getting a crowd to prevent people from entering a store.

Now granted, it's much easier to ddos than to block people from entering a store.

 

[Strazdas]

No. It is one thing to "peaceably assemble" but when you actively disrupt someone's place of business it becomes illegal.

This is not the same as an organised protest, this is like covering the entrance and exit to a car park of a business in such a manner that it prevents even the owner from accessing his store.

and that is a perfectly reasonable form of protest. besides, german courts have ruled on this in 2009, DDOS is a form of protest.

If it's worth protesting over, it's worth protesting in person.

DDoS attacks can cause real damage. It won't be legalized for the same reasons (albeit smaller scale) that setting cars on fire won't be recognized as a form of legal protest.

no. Protesting real life things in rela life is reasonable. protesting internet things in inthernet is reasonable. protesting real lfie thingsi n internet is not.
DDos attacks distrupt service. like, say, a strike. lets ban strikes. oh wait....

 

[The Wonder of the net]

Anonymous, protecting the freedom of the internet by blocking one web site at a time

Thinking about it, anonymous should just do the whole protest like the student ones done in the past. But just have their computers with multiple browsers randomly clicking on parts of government websites. Public parks, walkways, courthouses, and even government buildings are legal places to protest so it could hold water for DDOS attacks, If there was at least 10 people in congress that uses a computer other then to get prostitutes and to have someone else make speeches for them. On a funny note if it does pass the next one will legitimize griefing on video games and then they could even make the call for cursing to be allowed by FCC. On second thought I would support cursing being allowed on tv and radio.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Anonymous are a load of self-centred children. They don't understand that attacking people you disagree with is entirely the wrong way to get what you want, and also utterly hypocritical.

So much this.

Anonymous has not once outweighed their bullshit with proper victories. You don't protest censorship by censoring even more, that's like burning half the Amazon jungle to protest chainsawing.

 

[Knight Templar]

That almost makes sense, except its rather common for a DDoS to involved a botnet or what-have-you and they tend to cause damage to whatever place they are targeted against. But those things are not inherent to the act are they? Maybe they actually do have a point.

Still, that's charmingly clever.

You don't protest censorship by censoring even more, that's like burning half the Amazon jungle to protest chainsawing.

Its hardly censorship to force a website down temporarily.

 

[Akimoto]

So Anon, what if it goes through and one fine day say a hospital steps on your collective toes? Do you DDOS their web site? I know you guys have done good, but this one is ridiculous.

 

[Abomination]

No. It is one thing to "peaceably assemble" but when you actively disrupt someone's place of business it becomes illegal.

This is not the same as an organised protest, this is like covering the entrance and exit to a car park of a business in such a manner that it prevents even the owner from accessing his store.

and that is a perfectly reasonable form of protest. besides, german courts have ruled on this in 2009, DDOS is a form of protest.

If it's worth protesting over, it's worth protesting in person.

DDoS attacks can cause real damage. It won't be legalized for the same reasons (albeit smaller scale) that setting cars on fire won't be recognized as a form of legal protest.

no. Protesting real life things in rela life is reasonable. protesting internet things in inthernet is reasonable. protesting real lfie thingsi n internet is not.
DDos attacks distrupt service. like, say, a strike. lets ban strikes. oh wait....

No, DDOS is a form of protest in GERMANY. It is not a perfectly reasonable form of protest as it is someone from OUTSIDE a company preventing a company from conducting its business. It is NOTHING like a strike which are workers who are refusing to work, and thus are not being paid. Certainly the company is losing out on productivity in this case but it is via workers INACTION and is a civil case, not a criminal one.

It is called a DDOS ATTACK for a reason. A strike is a protest. A DDOS attack does cause damage. A day a company can not conduct its business with the public can cost large amounts in potential lost revenue AND the costs of attempting to counter the DDOS attacks via IT services. Not to mention the sudden increased workload on the company's other avenues of communication such as phone based customer service.

 

[lacktheknack]

If it's worth protesting over, it's worth protesting in person.

DDoS attacks can cause real damage. It won't be legalized for the same reasons (albeit smaller scale) that setting cars on fire won't be recognized as a form of legal protest.

no. Protesting real life things in rela life is reasonable. protesting internet things in inthernet is reasonable. protesting real lfie thingsi n internet is not.
DDos attacks distrupt service. like, say, a strike. lets ban strikes. oh wait....

I was thinking more along the lines of "stressing the server until it breaks" (which can happen, make no mistake, as you're overloading the server until it causes errors). Which scales up to, as I said, setting a car on fire IRL.

Also, what the heck is with your first two lines? I can't make heads or tails of them.

 

[Darks63]

Not that im a supporter in any way but as others have stated above what they do is block people from accessing a business by barring the entrances which is illegal. If you look at their activity its closer in nature to a strike rather than a protest.

Edit: you know what never mind i just remembered that even strikers cant legally bar people from entering either so ANON is kinda screwed in this case, but the US gov could always invite them to discuss this issue in person with ANON .

 

[Ken Sapp]

Performing a DDoS attack is a way to cause damage to private property and just as the First Amendment does not give protestors the right to intrude on or destroy private property it also wouldn't allow an electronic form of destruction. If they want to protest they are more than welcome to build their own websites to spread their message as well as using forums, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.

Except DDOS attacks are harmless. There is no destruction of anything going on. This is no different than getting a crowd to prevent people from entering a store.

Now granted, it's much easier to ddos than to block people from entering a store.

DDoS attacks are not harmless. Is it legal for protestors to chain and padlock the doors of a store as part of their protest? To spray paint slogans on the building? No. Protestors are limited to speech, displaying signs, and other forms of peacefully conveying their message on public property. If they intrude into private property or cause damage they can be held liable and removed and/or arrested by law enforcement. If a group were protesting Wal-Mart and carried their presence into the parking lot (private property), Wal-Mart would be completely within their rights to have the trespassers removed if they refused to leave.

 

[Hagi]

Considering botnets are frequently involved, which are most of the time if not all the time hacked computers I'd say there definitely is hacking going on.

If it was purely for DDoS attacks in which only computers personally owned by the 'protesters' are used then it might be worth talking about, not sure if it should actually become legal though but I do think it warrants a discussion by experts.

As for DDoS attacks causing damage, sure they do. But let's stop with the idiotic comparisons to cars catching fire and spraying slogans on the sides of buildings. Those comparisons only become relevant the moment my car or wall receives a reset button which instantly restores all damage done to it without cost save the service lost whilst it was damaged.

 

[SadisticFire]

If even to say, that I agree with the protesting part, which I don't. It seems like it would make it legal to just DDoS some person cause say, they got my headshots then you in a game of Counter Strike source, cause that happened to me. Or say, you were banned from a server cause you excessively swore and broke the words, cause that's again, happened to me. It just seems silly. Protesting is saying no, without disrupting, this is just essentially barricading a person's house from the outside.

 

[RicoADF]

An important point here is that even if the US government has a seizure and somehow decides its valid and passes the request, that would only protect them attacking US sites. No other country would do that and as soon as they attack a non US server they'd be in just as much trouble, sometimes far more. US law doesn't mean anything outside the US.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

here's where protest becomes legal: When it doesn't interfere with the daily goings of lives. So, DDoS attacks are NOT and will NEVER be legal.

While I agree with everyone that this will never happen and is likely meant more to start a dialogue (much like this one), I do feel I have to point out that the whole idea of a protest is to interfere with daily goings-on. If an it didn't cause some time of a problem for those being protested, it wouldn't accomplish a thing. Boycotts hurt businesses & cost them money; that's the point. They are supposed to be disruptive.

Again, not saying I entirely agree with DDoS on an ethical level, but there is a definite logical point to be made here.


Sidebar: Many people on The Escapist forums & elsewhere seem to enjoy hating on Anonymous when it's convenient. I didn't see anyone here complaining when they outed those rapists in Stuebenville, when they avidly protested SOPA, or the laundry list of other public services they've performed. Just throwing that out there

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I bet they came up with this idea while in the school playground.

 

[Dense_Electric]

No, this does NOT have any legal grounds. PERIOD. The First Amendment grants the People the right to "peaceably assemble." Impeding someone's progress, which a DDoS attack does, does not qualify as assembling peaceably. It's just like how an environmentalist group can protest CO2 emissions by holding signs on the side of the road, but they can't stand in the middle of the road and block traffic.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Given that I can't think of anyway to protest something online that's less damaging then a DDoS, I'd be alright with this. It's annoying when a site I want to use has been DDoS'd, but it's annoying when anything I want to do is disrupted by protesters.