Anonymous Takes Out Go Daddy

[Dafttechno]

It could have been worse. A lot of big name sites left GoDaddy in the aftermath of SOPA, so they weren't affected by this.

 

[Antari]

Interested to see what the reason was for taking it down.

The main purpose behind the attack can be found here.

Shazam! [http://www.thedomains.com/2010/03/10/godaddy-com-passes-40-million-domain-mark-has-50-market-share-of-all-new-domain-registrations/]

When a company holds 50% or more market share it can be considered a monopoly [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly]. A controlling interest in domain registration basically allows them to manipulate market prices. Even without collusion. SOPA is just a sideline bonus. As well if there is only a single person responsible it tends to cut down on large scale police raids.

Sorry, wrong answer. 50% has never been a monopoly in any society. The word for that is "majority" or even "most" or "largest" would work as well. Your own link only refers to the actual monopoly of controlling a market with no mention of percentage.

In legal terms monopoly has to be in excess of 80% and tending toward 90%+. The grey area between 80+ to 90+ is whether another competitor has any chance of existing. The state sponsored monopolies of the past, AT&T, were 100% for the sanctioned market but came with significant regulation and requirements. Specifically in the Ma Bell case the price of long distance and low monthly pricing to enable almost every house to have a phone.

And see my previous post. Anon had nothing to do with this except for just claiming they did something when it was a fat fingered exercise in "Oops! My bad" by some GoDaddy employee.

Thats interesting considering Microsoft got sued by the government for holding a monopoly with Windows 95, when they held a 56% market share. If you control over half your market you have a monopoly over your competitors. Its that simple no matter how much you want it to mean something else. And if you think that link had no mention of percentage I guess that big 50% market share in the article's title slipped your mind, or perhaps its mention in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks for trying!

 

[Nimzabaat]

What are you talking about then?

But it is the definition of hypocrisy for Anonymous to oppose a bill that might create a system that might be used to censor the internet, when they themselves are censoring the internet to show their displeasure.

Which is not hypocritical. They are not permanently erasing anything on GoDaddy. Plus, anything present on GoDaddy can be hosted somewhere else. I'm pretty sure that is not what censorship is about.

Attention everyone: Wikipedia is a bunch of hypocrites because they temporarily censored themselves to oppose a bill.

So ElPatron, you've clearly displayed that your reading comprehension is really poor. You don't know the meaning of hypocrisy, terrorism, and censorship. You shouldn't be posting in a forum where all of these words are being used in proper context. I get that you're laughing out of ignorance, and we're laughing at your ignorance, and both sides are therefore amused. Win? The fact that you're not going to check your facts (okay there aren't any facts, I checked), does you no credit. All in all, it's like watching a midget in the NBA, it was funny for a bit but now it's just embarrasing for everybody.

 

[ElPatron]

terrorism

>taking down websites temporarily
>terrorism

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.

Studies have found over 100 definitions of ?terrorism?.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

You do understand that arguing about the meaning of "terrorism" will make us sit here for years, right?

 

[ElPatron]

SOPA wouldn't have erased anything, so anything it denied access to could still be accessed from other sources before said source would be added to the banned list. Blocking out access to information is exactly censorship, what anonymous does.

Point being? Anything hosted on GoDaddy could be mirrored and there is no proof that the attackers were trying to hide information about themselves.

There is a difference between the Government proofreading and taking down newspapers and having a bunch of people locking up a editor building and making a protest.

Also, no proof that Anon did it.

Anonymous is censoring the sites of organizations/individuals it is opposed to, violating the rights of their targets.

Holy crap, if I temporarily shut down part of Kim Jong Un's propaganda-filled media of course I would overlook their basic rights to free speech. Yeah, a ton of harmless stuff would not be aired.

If I chained myself to the fence on one of the Fox transmitters to stop people from entering the place I'd get a lot of claps from people who don't like Fox News, even if my actions prevented maintenance and made lots of Fox owned channels that aren't even political.

Saying they are the same thing is like saying prisoners making the choice to hunger strike is the same as prisoners being forcibly denied food.

I never said they were. I just used an absurd analogy.

Also, what was this in reference to? What nation were these things being done in/by?

Uh, plenty? Pretty much any nation under a dictatorship had secret police, offshore prison facilities, etc. I don't know pinpointing one helps GoDaddy.

 

[Nimzabaat]

terrorism

You do understand that arguing about the meaning of "terrorism" will make us sit here for years, right?

FYI: Cyberterrorism is the use of Internet based attacks in terrorist activities, including acts of deliberate, large-scale disruption of computer networks, especially of personal computers attached to the Internet, by the means of tools such as computer viruses. (I would have chosen a longer definition but I remembered your lack of reading comprehension. So to be nice I chose this one)

By the way... I LOVE that after you said this:

"Attention everyone: Wikipedia is a bunch of hypocrites because they temporarily censored themselves to oppose a bill."

You used Wikipedia when someone (no names) called you out on your own bullshit.
"I hate you Wikipedia"
Uh oh... here comes people with their facts and reality.
"Save me Wikipedia!!!"

That was AWESOME. Now do "hypocrisy". I won't even mock you this time. Promise.

 

[Mr F.]

Please, some country, any country, find these idiots and make them rot in jail. I'm sick of tired of them breaking the laws and shitting all over us under the disguise of "we're doing it for you".

You might not agree with the means of protest, but do you at least agree with the protest itself?

 

[ElPatron]

terrorism

You do understand that arguing about the meaning of "terrorism" will make us sit here for years, right?

FYI: Cyberterrorism is the use of Internet based attacks in terrorist activities, including acts of deliberate, large-scale disruption of computer networks, especially of personal computers attached to the Internet, by the means of tools such as computer viruses. (I would have chosen a longer definition but I remembered your lack of reading comprehension. So to be nice I chose this one)

So cyberterrorism = terrorism

I think not. I specifically argued that Anon are not actual terrorists.

I did dive into the fact that it's pathetic that we compare acts of "vandalism" to civilians being cowardly attacked and killed for the purpose of terror. But that was another argument.

By the way... I LOVE that after you said this:

"Attention everyone: Wikipedia is a bunch of hypocrites because they temporarily censored themselves to oppose a bill."

Reductio ad absurdum - common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial.

You used Wikipedia when someone (no names) called you out on your own bullshit.
"I hate you Wikipedia"
Uh oh... here comes people with their facts and reality.
"Save me Wikipedia!!!"

That was AWESOME. Now do "hypocrisy". I won't even mock you this time. Promise.

It would help your case if I ever said I hated wikipedia and you stopped using Ad Hominem fallacies as legitimate arguments.

If you want to "quote mine" me, at least do it properly.

EDIT: If you want to take the bike, or just have the last word you're welcome. I have nothing to prove to anyone, specially to random people on the internet.

 

[Ravinoff]

I 100% support Anonymous on this one. And to those talking about "innocent" websites being taken down, I find it hard to sympathize with anyone who would use such a blatantly evil company for their web hosting. Yeah, it's hurting your buisness, but guess what: you're the ones who supported GoDaddy to the point that this action was necessary.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I 100% support Anonymous on this one. And to those talking about "innocent" websites being taken down, I find it hard to sympathize with anyone who would use such a blatantly evil company for their web hosting. Yeah, it's hurting your buisness, but guess what: you're the ones who supported GoDaddy to the point that this action was necessary.

There's nothing "blatantly evil" about GoDaddy. They support SOPA, so what? If you're hosting web domains, telling your customers that you are against people stealing from them is just good business. Would you register your domain from a host that promised to give away your financial information or support those who would?

Or since hyperbole seems to be the only thing people understand. Look at it this way: Internet piracy is like someone (hacker) giving Rohypnol (defeating security) to your sister (file) and letting many people know where she'll be (torrent site). In the piracy definition she doesn't get "stolen" and can still be accessed by registered users (boyfriend) but now a whole bunch of people can access without permission. GoDaddy is against that, but how does that make them "blatantly evil"?

 

[BoogieManFL]

I'm so very tired of hearing about these clowns. Damn attention craving drama queens.

 

[Darkness665]

Interested to see what the reason was for taking it down.

The main purpose behind the attack can be found here.

Shazam! [http://www.thedomains.com/2010/03/10/godaddy-com-passes-40-million-domain-mark-has-50-market-share-of-all-new-domain-registrations/]

When a company holds 50% or more market share it can be considered a monopoly [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly]. A controlling interest in domain registration basically allows them to manipulate market prices. Even without collusion. SOPA is just a sideline bonus. As well if there is only a single person responsible it tends to cut down on large scale police raids.

Sorry, wrong answer. 50% has never been a monopoly in any society. The word for that is "majority" or even "most" or "largest" would work as well. Your own link only refers to the actual monopoly of controlling a market with no mention of percentage.

In legal terms monopoly has to be in excess of 80% and tending toward 90%+. The grey area between 80+ to 90+ is whether another competitor has any chance of existing. The state sponsored monopolies of the past, AT&T, were 100% for the sanctioned market but came with significant regulation and requirements. Specifically in the Ma Bell case the price of long distance and low monthly pricing to enable almost every house to have a phone.

And see my previous post. Anon had nothing to do with this except for just claiming they did something when it was a fat fingered exercise in "Oops! My bad" by some GoDaddy employee.

Thats interesting considering Microsoft got sued by the government for holding a monopoly with Windows 95, when they held a 56% market share. If you control over half your market you have a monopoly over your competitors. Its that simple no matter how much you want it to mean something else. And if you think that link had no mention of percentage I guess that big 50% market share in the article's title slipped your mind, or perhaps its mention in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks for trying!

Sorry for you not understanding that you are wrong.

Anon did not take it down. Your rambling about non related issues is just between you and your shorts.

Fat fingered admins are not DoS attacks by Anon.

 

[Antari]

Interested to see what the reason was for taking it down.

The main purpose behind the attack can be found here.

Shazam! [http://www.thedomains.com/2010/03/10/godaddy-com-passes-40-million-domain-mark-has-50-market-share-of-all-new-domain-registrations/]

When a company holds 50% or more market share it can be considered a monopoly [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly]. A controlling interest in domain registration basically allows them to manipulate market prices. Even without collusion. SOPA is just a sideline bonus. As well if there is only a single person responsible it tends to cut down on large scale police raids.

Sorry, wrong answer. 50% has never been a monopoly in any society. The word for that is "majority" or even "most" or "largest" would work as well. Your own link only refers to the actual monopoly of controlling a market with no mention of percentage.

In legal terms monopoly has to be in excess of 80% and tending toward 90%+. The grey area between 80+ to 90+ is whether another competitor has any chance of existing. The state sponsored monopolies of the past, AT&T, were 100% for the sanctioned market but came with significant regulation and requirements. Specifically in the Ma Bell case the price of long distance and low monthly pricing to enable almost every house to have a phone.

And see my previous post. Anon had nothing to do with this except for just claiming they did something when it was a fat fingered exercise in "Oops! My bad" by some GoDaddy employee.

Thats interesting considering Microsoft got sued by the government for holding a monopoly with Windows 95, when they held a 56% market share. If you control over half your market you have a monopoly over your competitors. Its that simple no matter how much you want it to mean something else. And if you think that link had no mention of percentage I guess that big 50% market share in the article's title slipped your mind, or perhaps its mention in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks for trying!

Sorry for you not understanding that you are wrong.

Anon did not take it down. Your rambling about non related issues is just between you and your shorts.

Fat fingered admins are not DoS attacks by Anon.

If it was an idiot admin, so be it. If it was Anon there would be the motive. As to what actually happened, I could care less. Neither way affects me even remotely.

 

[CapitalistPig]

I 100% support Anonymous on this one. And to those talking about "innocent" websites being taken down, I find it hard to sympathize with anyone who would use such a blatantly evil company for their web hosting. Yeah, it's hurting your buisness, but guess what: you're the ones who supported GoDaddy to the point that this action was necessary.

*vomits in mouth, swallows it back to retort*

Define an evil website hosting company? Because they supported SOPA? who cares, that was merely a political fad. Anyone who knows a one thing about politics knew that was not going to pass a real vote. The whole point of SOPA and PIPA was to undermine the much more serious socio-economic problems that were much more apparent and preveilent (and still are) during the midterm election season. By focusing your attention on something else to "chew the fat," while the real political problems were undermined. The people who picked sides merely did so by whoever was in there back pocket. Hate the game not the player. This is still a very successful company that provides millions of users all over the world the ability to host their own websites for an affordable price, minimal inconvenience and, (from personal experience) great customer service that many companies (I'm lookin at you verizon) should strive for.

So to finalize, anon is a flea upon society that truly is pitied for their weak campaigns of propaganda and shortsightedness, nevermind the fact that they simply impede the progress of society much in the same way people claim religion does.

 

[Darkness665]

Now that we have violently agreed where did you get the 56% value? All the data I have, and I got quite a bit, say that MS had more then 90% and maintained it with brief exceptions from the 90's through today.

If you are talking browser, or it stunted cousin IE, then that number is about right but I could find no data to support or disprove it although I spent a lot less time on it. The actual monopoly issue was the OS. They had 90%+ and used their own access to the internals to restrict competition from others in browser, see EU browser voting, and applications, Novel vs MS, with email from the very uncooperative Bill Gates to prove that they used their monopoly in anti-competitive ways. That is why they were convicted of being a monopolist. The web browser was just the point of the spear. That very point was effectively dulled with the Bush administration took power. The newly re-aligned DOJ didn't push for effective change, some change but nothing effective. MS stills has a monopoly on desktop operation system world wide when all versions of Windows are considered.

Are we still violently agreeing?

 

[Caverat]

Point being? Anything hosted on GoDaddy could be mirrored and there is no proof that the attackers were trying to hide information about themselves.

I find it amazing that you'd follow that type of reasoning for one situation and not for another. Anything that SOPA would block could be mirrored just as well. To not acknowledge that in one case, then cite it in another is a literal definition of being a hypocrite. At no point did I say the attackers were trying to hide information about themselves, as the person(s?) responsible have taken credit for it.

There is a difference between the Government proofreading and taking down newspapers and having a bunch of people locking up a editor building and making a protest.

A proper comparison would be the government proofreading and editing newspapers versus private citizens burning down newspapers stands selling products they don't agree with the message of.

Also, no proof that Anon did it.

A person claiming to be a high ranking member of Anonymous took credit for the attack, and Anonymous has released official messages praising the action. Their organization as a whole may not be directly responsible for this one incident, but the use of Anonymous' name as a stand-in for the attacker(s'?)'s is far from inappropriate.

Holy crap, if I temporarily shut down part of Kim Jong Un's propaganda-filled media of course I would overlook their basic rights to free speech. Yeah, a ton of harmless stuff would not be aired.

Once again a completely irrelevant comparison. A militaristic totalitarian regime is not a proper comparison for godaddy.com. You started with Nazis, and now bring up the North Korean government. Please stop, it doesn't aid your argument, it is merely sensationalist/alarmist hodgepodge. It's appropriate you later mention Fox News, your argument style mirrors their coverage style.

If I chained myself to the fence on one of the Fox transmitters to stop people from entering the place I'd get a lot of claps from people who don't like Fox News, even if my actions prevented maintenance and made lots of Fox owned channels that aren't even political.

There are people who would definitely cheer, as there are people who are glad about godaddy.com being brought down temporarily. Support among individuals or fringe groups doesn't legitimize an action in anyway. There will be support offered for any action what-so-ever by someone, somewhere. That doesn't alter what an action is.

I never said they were. I just used an absurd analogy.

If you don't want to say that two things are the same, you should avoid speech that means exactly that.

Uh, plenty? Pretty much any nation under a dictatorship had secret police, offshore prison facilities, etc. I don't know pinpointing one helps GoDaddy.

It doesn't help godaddy, it is silly to think so. It is as silly to think alluding to such things in any way legitimizes the actions of godaddy's attackers.

Lets, for the sake of argument, pretend that 'plenty' is a suitable example/response for your claims. It is still unrelated to what we are discussing. There are plenty of different things that happen all around the world, I don't bring up results from experiments involving the Large Hadron Collider. For the ease of everyone reading here, please refrain from bringing up things as irrelevant.

If you want to take the bike, or just have the last word you're welcome.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but, really? Do you think that being the first to go "Hey keep talking if all you're after is getting the last word" means such a statement is any less true about you? If you keep responding, and someone else keeps responding, it is extremely childish for you to then say the above.

You say:

I have nothing to prove to anyone, specially to random people on the internet.

... Like the same can't be said of the person towards whom you are directing it. Yet if it was in anyway true about you, why would you even bother saying it.

 

[ElPatron]

I find it amazing that you'd follow that type of reasoning for one situation and not for another. Anything that SOPA would block could be mirrored just as well. To not acknowledge that in one case, then cite it in another is a literal definition of being a hypocrite.

You got me, I'm a hypocrite and I defend a double standard.

I do not defend the government's freedom because I do not believe that they should ever have freedom. The populace should have the government on a leash, not the other way around.

At no point did I say the attackers were trying to hide information about themselves, as the person(s?) responsible have taken credit for it.

I didn't imply you had said it either.

A proper comparison would be the government proofreading and editing newspapers versus private citizens burning down newspapers stands selling products they don't agree with the message of.

DDoS attacks are temporary annoyances. Burning down a building is sort of permanent.

Chaining yourself to entrances is a known way of civil disobedience, even if you have nothing against the building per se.

A person claiming to be a high ranking member of Anonymous took credit for the attack, and Anonymous has released official messages praising the action.

No court would accept that as evidence. Heck, I'd praise the son of a ***** that snapped off and started beating down muggers and rapists on the streets, doesn't mean I helped him.

Once again a completely irrelevant comparison. A militaristic totalitarian regime is not a proper comparison for godaddy.com. You started with Nazis, and now bring up the North Korean government. Please stop, it doesn't aid your argument, it is merely sensationalist/alarmist hodgepodge. It's appropriate you later mention Fox News, your argument style mirrors their coverage style.

>godaddy.com is the harmless stuff that gets aired (if NK actually airs harmless stuff) that got hit in the middle of the "crossfire"
>somehow godaddy.com is Kim Jong Un

I don't get it.

Support among individuals or fringe groups doesn't legitimize an action in anyway.

It is as silly to think alluding to such things in any way legitimizes the actions of godaddy's attackers.

Except I'm not trying to legitimize anything. I am praising civil disobedience and directly arguing against people who think that any internet-based annoyance is the spawn of the devil and the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Last time I checked, actual protests on the streets/strikes affect commerce, transports and the delivery of merchandise. How is causing a toll on web-based businesses any worse than blocking the entrance of trucks in a country because of a strike?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but, really? Do you think that being the first to go "Hey keep talking if all you're after is getting the last word" means such a statement is any less true about you? If you keep responding, and someone else keeps responding, it is extremely childish for you to then say the above.

But I'm not insulting anyone's ability to read. I'm just saying that if anyone wants to consider himself "right" in this argument, he is free to do so.

I keep replying when there's actually something to argue. When Ad Hominems start raining all bets are off and I start avoiding that person.

Yet if it was in anyway true about you, why would you even bother saying it.

>psychology

I suck in that area. You win.

An openly misogynist, white supremacist group is up to no good?

Sky is blue, news at 11.

>9 year olds running a bot
>misogynists
>white supremacists

You mean that a community that spends it's time on an image board lying about their lives should be trusted when they are assholes but discredited when they aren't?

Confirmation bias much?

 

[Jegsimmons]

i use godaddy, thank anon you cock suckers.

also, this probably isnt Anon like we used to know, that anon is dead. these are just pricks.

 

[Matt King]

ok i'm pretty sure i saw 4chan taking credit for this