Anonymous Takes Out Go Daddy

[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

 

[Caverat]

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.

Every government in history has been made up of people, all people deserve the same rights, worker's rights or personal.

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.

Yes, you did, when you said:

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

By randomly mentioning such a fact that there is no proof that the attackers were trying to hide info about themselves, especially considering it is unrelated to the first part of the statement, it implies that you are responding/refuting someone who made that claim.

Example: I don't support Anonymous and I am against the continued use of paper.

See? That implies that if you support Anonymous, you also support the use of paper.

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.

That's why I specifically stated newspaper stand, it can be replaced with minimal effort. But you are correct, it is not as accurate as it could be.

Disrupting a business' ability to conduct business entirely is not a legal strike/protest method. You cannot be on private property without the permission of the property owner. If the owner of a property asks you to leave, you can and deserve to be removed by the police if you refuse to go peacefully. That is justice. If I, or any entity/business/person owns property, they/we should have the right to decide who is permitted on that property.

Expressing yourself is one thing, if you disrupt a business to the point where you are effecting the livelihood of others, that is crossing the line. Justice is then served by removing the disruptive elements by any reasonable means (IE: Asking those conducting an illegal protest to leave, if they refuse, drag them out. If they resist, force compliance.)

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.

If a person declares themselves as a member of a particular group, carries out an act, and that group he/she claimed membership in then supports and praises said action. No, that is not evidence enough for a conviction in a court. But, it is different than your mugger/rapist beater analogy. Here's one closer to the mark:

A practicing catholic priest molests a child, and the church organization as a whole, while not taking part in the molestation, comes out and condones and supports the actions of that member of its organization. Does the church bare any blame? Should their be any negativity thrown their way?

I think: Yes.

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.

You compared the take down of godaddy.com to an act of disruption on North Korea's government controlled media. I asked you not to, because it is ridiculous. The US government does not control godaddy.com, nor does the US government compare to the North Korean. I don't understand what you do not get about my asking you to not bring up the Nazis or the North Korean government with regards to the US government or godaddy.com.

Godaddy.com was not a 'crossfire' casualty between protesters and the US Government. It was a needless act of digital vandalism/disruption of innocent businesses by a group that is so possessed by an urge to rise up and protest something, that they liken themselves to a fictional freedom fighter, a character who they are in no way similar to (As the government they protest is in no way even close to the same level as the government in V for Vendetta)

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.

When you praise/defend an action, especially from a legal standpoint regarding acts of protest, you are attempting to legitimize it. If it was illegitimate activity, then it would be illegal. By defending it as a form protest, you are attempting to legitimize it.

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?

There is, at least in Canada and the US, a legal limit on the amount of time you can delay any particular vehicle while protesting/striking. If you go over that limit, you can legally be removed from the path of the vehicle. You have the right to protest and express yourself, you do not have the right to outright prevent an individual or a group from conducting their own legal business. If you did, that would be unfair and immoral. Imagine if companies were allowed to barricade you in your home? Would that be okay? Of course not, and neither is the reverse.

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 didn't say you were insulting someone's ability to read, I called you on saying the other guy's future responses would be born of him simply trying to get the last word. Of course people are free to consider themselves right. That's what arguments/debates are, people have an opinion/viewpoint that they consider correct, statements then get made to convince the other of the 'truth' that each already believes.

You and I have both done this, everyone who argues at all in the history of debate does this.

I took exception to you making the statement that he was free to consider himself right if he needed to, implying that he was actually incorrect objectively, and you in your superior/correct position were offering him the empty consultation that he could consider himself right. That mentality is what I referred to as childish, because it is not reasonable or mature.

 

[ElPatron]

Yes, you did, when you said:

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

it implies that you are responding/refuting someone who made that claim.

Doesn't imply I implied you said it. I just think that if there was anything worth censoring, it would be things that make you look bad.

I highly doubt anyone would pay for hosting just to reveal that.

Disrupting a business' ability to conduct business entirely is not a legal strike/protest method. You cannot be on private property without the permission of the property owner. If the owner of a property asks you to leave, you can and deserve to be removed by the police if you refuse to go peacefully. That is justice. If I, or any entity/business/person owns property, they/we should have the right to decide who is permitted on that property.

That is not "justice", that is... the whole point of chaining yourself to a gate. You stay around there, by the time the police arrives the media will be filming and you just shout "Hi mom!" or whatever political things you want to say.

Expressing yourself is one thing, if you disrupt a business to the point where you are effecting the livelihood of others, that is crossing the line. Justice is then served by removing the disruptive elements by any reasonable means (IE: Asking those conducting an illegal protest to leave, if they refuse, drag them out. If they resist, force compliance.)

Civil. DIS. Obedience.

DIS. It's a prefix. I already implied all there is to know about civil disobedience by using the term itself. It's self-explanatory.

If a person declares themselves as a member of a particular group, carries out an act, and that group he/she claimed membership in then supports and praises said action. No, that is not evidence enough for a conviction in a court. But, it is different than your mugger/rapist beater analogy. Here's one closer to the mark:

A practicing catholic priest molests a child, and the church organization as a whole, while not taking part in the molestation, comes out and condones and supports the actions of that member of its organization. Does the church bare any blame? Should their be any negativity thrown their way?

I think: Yes.

So you are comparing civil disobedience acts from a individual that claims to belong to a group that is far from being organized to... The molestation of a child by an individual that is proven to be part of a religious organization that actually shouldn't support those acts?

Awful analogy. A priest normally belongs to an organization (can be proven) and I doubt you can use the rape of children to protest against anything.

Plus, religion is "the man". They still have some sort of power and influence, which automatically means that I don't like them too much.

Godaddy.com was not a 'crossfire' casualty between protesters and the US Government.

Uh, yeah it is? Whatever the intentions of the attacker, he got his own 15 minutes of fame to raise awareness to whatever he might have wanted to say.

When you praise/defend an action, especially from a legal standpoint regarding acts of protest, you are attempting to legitimize it. If it was illegitimate activity, then it would be illegal. By defending it as a form protest, you are attempting to legitimize it.

So because I defend the use of assassination and insurrection as tools of freedom fighting, they have to be legal? I don't think so, murder is not legal.

Plus, not all protests are legal.

There is, at least in Canada and the US, a legal limit on the amount of time you can delay any particular vehicle while protesting/striking. If you go over that limit, you can legally be removed from the path of the vehicle. (...) Imagine if companies were allowed to barricade you in your home? Would that be okay? Of course not, and neither is the reverse.

I'm pretty sure there are limits everywhere, but just because it's the law doesn't mean people will follow it.

Companies would barricade me inside my own house? Okay. But anyone gets it, gets out horizontally.

I didn't say you were insulting someone's ability to read

Really, Sherlock? I wouldn't know if it weren't for your brilliant deduction.

That was sarcasm, just in case.

I called you on saying the other guy's future responses would be born of him simply trying to get the last word.

His only arguments were insults. I'm pretty sure that's what he wanted.

I took exception to you making the statement that he was free to consider himself right if he needed to, implying that he was actually incorrect objectively, and you in your superior/correct position were offering him the empty consultation that he could consider himself right. That mentality is what I referred to as childish, because it is not reasonable or mature.

>pseudo-psychology
>implying implications

I'm pretty sure that you're working outside the boundaries of rhetoric and just tried to decipher my mind. With no proof.

Not interested.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

HostGator's reaction was legitimately hilarious.

Also, it freaking amazes me how someone intelligent enough to (allegedly) single-handedly take down a large company's operations can barely type as well as a grade-schooler.

 

[Strazdas]

I hate godaddy simply for the fact that they pretty much own half of DNS and can at will take down half of the internet since it all replies on DNS now (lets face it how many of you connect via ip adresses?) and godaddy stated that they are willing to shut down whatever they want if someone claimed "it was teh pirates"