Anonymous Takes Out Go Daddy

[Epona]

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 prefer those who promote internet censorship?

No I would rather people fight internet censorship by legal means, instead all they're doing is justifying these laws to regulate the internet. I've added my signatures to petitions against things like Sopa and Pipa because those people went about it the right away, legislatively. I'm not going to promote a bunch of privileged kids who watched V for Vendetta once and now think they have to go around "protecting" people.

That's ok, people doing more than signing a few petitions probably don't think your methods are useful either.

Sorry man, when you are fighting against those who can bribe lawmakers signing petitions may not always be enough.

So your saying that we should be just as bad as them, if so then how can we say we're any better. We can't take the high ground and tell people how wrong they are because they can say that we're just as bad, and in anonymous' case they are just as bad as the people who proposed SOPA.

Everyone has the right to free speech even the ones we disagree with. I don't agree with the people who created SOPA but I believe they have the right to say their opinions and we should argue against them instead of just taking away their rights.

If you think SOPA was about the poor corporations using their freedom of speech then you need to rethink things.

SOPA was about corporations using their financial power (bribery) to control the internet. We won that battle with petitions but what about the next time or the time after that. If you think playing nice will always work, sorry, it won't.

If you don't have the nerve to fight unconventionally that's fine, I don't have the nerve either but unlike you, I won't condemn those who do.

 

[PunkRex]

At least one company is making the best of the situation, however: Go Daddy rival HostGator [https://www.facebook.com/HostGator] is offering 50 percent off domain registrations and six months free on new hosting accounts for anyone using the coupon code "godaddyisdown."

Could you possibly rub anymore salt into the wound?

 

[Nimzabaat]

member of a terrorist organization.

>anonymous
>terrorists

That's laughable. Anyway, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I bet that if the US gained independence in the 21st century the British would call them terrorists. Bashar Al-Assad's government (and a few months ago, the Russian government too) considered the rebels "terrorists".

Hitler was the bad guy

"And the Hadjis hate the American way of life and want to take our freedomz!" World isn't black nor white.

I just mentioned Hitler because to my knowledge he survived at least two assassination attempts. I figured that if I just got Godwin's Law out of the way it would be win-win.

I didn't compare GoDaddy to Hitler, I just used him to explain that sometimes what looks like an hypocrisy is not.

FYI cyberterrorism has been around for at least 30 years (1980s). Welcome to the internet.

I will concede that there are times when things that look like hypocrisy are not. This is absolutely not one of those times.

 

[Caverat]

Okay. But I wasn't talking explicitly about that either.

.......

Unless the meaning of "rotting in jail" now means 6 months in jail/300 hours of community service, I think that a life sentence for running Low Orbit Ion Cannon does not follow the penal code.


I never said hacking should be legal. Guess what, conspiring against tyrannical governments is illegal too.

.....

I just mentioned Hitler because to my knowledge he survived at least two assassination attempts. I figured that if I just got Godwin's Law out of the way it would be win-win.

I didn't compare GoDaddy to Hitler, I just used him to explain that sometimes what looks like an hypocrisy is not.

What are you talking about then?

This topic is about the DDOS attacks on godaddy.com. Ion cannons? Tyrannical governments?

What point are you trying to make? godaddy.com is not a tyrannical regime, neither is the system in which it exists. Comparing it to such is childish, and sensationalist. Your posts are consistently irrelevant to what we are discussing. Sure, shitty governments exist and people are oppressed in grotesque ways. There are also droughts, forest fires, and the Curiosity probe is driving around Mars. They are all just as unrelated to the OT.

No one here is saying that any apparent hypocrisy is automatically hypocrisy. 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.

 

[ElPatron]

FYI cyberterrorism has been around for at least 30 years (1980s). Welcome to the internet.

>Anonymous
>cyberterrorism

Still laughable. Compared to killing and maiming people for life with plastic explosive and steel nails, their acts are more comparable to vandalism. Kicking trash cans, graffiti the city hall and even set fire to the park's swing set.

I'm sure those punks loitering after 1AM and shotgunning beer are domestic terrorists.

When Anonymous starts stealing documents from the FBI and introduce viruses in the Pentagon, then they get the cred they need to become cyberterrorists. A bunch of kids pointing a Low Orbit Ion Cannon and temporarily taking down websites are just cybervandals.

I will concede that there are times when things that look like hypocrisy are not. This is absolutely not one of those times.

Alright. Take the bike.

 

[ElPatron]

What are you talking about then?

My guess is that it was a direct reply to something I quoted. I'm not going back to check.

This topic is about the DDOS attacks on godaddy.com. Ion cannons?

And the LOIC is a tool that was used for DDoS attacks. I'm sure some people still use it today, but I think it's outdated. I'm not sure, I haven't kept up with hacking stuff in years.

Come on, Command & Conquer?

No one here is saying that any apparent hypocrisy is automatically hypocrisy.

Maybe you aren't. You most certainly are not. But you're not everyone here.

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.

 

[Caverat]

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.

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.

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

Wikipedia willingly chose to censor themselves as a way to protest and show what could theoretically be possible should bills like SOPA pass.

There is a difference between the two acts: One was a choice by the body being censored, which is exercising their freedom to self-censor as a means of expression. The other was something forced on another body by those deciding to censor something.

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.

They are not the same. The actions of anonymous are exactly the actions they claim to oppose.

This is not about "hardships". It's about getting kidnapped to some African prison-island and beaten by the secret police if you were found listening to Russian music. Or having 5 friends at home at 1AM. It's about crime statistics being tampered with to make the country look safer. It's about political opponents being ambushed by thugs with submachine-guns and make it look like it was the Commies who did it.

This is not about quality of life, it's about freedom that our military fought for.

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

 

[CapitalistPig]

anonymous still bothers? a little late to the SOPA party arent we? the guy involved didnt care about SOPA from what the article makes it sound like. I get the idea behind the attack, by "stress testing" the system they wake up those involved to care for their system better. But, there only going to do so to protect against another attack of this nature. Thanks for taking down my school servers assholes. Lots of people at school got left in the cold from 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.

 

[Darkness665]

Could use an update to point out that GoDaddy screwed up their DNS tables. Nothing anon about it.

 

[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.

 

[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.