Anonymous Takes Out Go Daddy

[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"