Anonymous Petitions to Make DDoS a Legal Form of Protest

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
212
I would say yes and no. Yes, it should be considered a legitimate form of protest, using only voluntary computers, but using other people's computers who don't wish to be involved by hacking into them or using an exploit in a browser to install the DDoS software should be completely illegal.

Quite frankly, I believe it should be at least a 1 year criminal penalty to install software on someone's computer without their knowledge and expressed permission, including using other programs to piggy back your own software into the computer. People who do such things are absolutely despicable and deserved to be jailed. The bastard who made that fake antivirus that installed through exploits in browsers should be found and jailed for life.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
40
occupy protests requires numerous people who believe in the same thing.

Ddos attacks can be done by one person who is just bored.

DDos protests can be organized by having thousands of people who believen in the same cause essentially do the same thing as a true protest.

Edit: Aside from that, the bigger issue is no one has a clue what a DDos Protest is about since there are no picket signs or people to talk to.
 

serendipiti

Distinguished
Aug 9, 2010
152
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]As much as I may not like a lot of companies, DDoS is still an outright attack on them rather than something like a boycott which is simply not using them. I don't see a reasonable way to legalize it.EDIT: Even if it gets legalized, there'd be no reason to release people jailed over it AFAIK. Just as you can't be charged with a crime for committing an act before it is made illegal, you shouldn't be able to get away with committing a crime just because it is legalized after you committed it.[/citation]

If it gets legalized, it would be a form of protest: strike. There are regulations about strike, (at least in Spain): you need to deal with some bureaucracy which will establish some minimun services, etc... Getting into strike without that bureaucracy is still a crime or fault.
In your edit, you got wrong (at least in Spain): you are warranted the right of being judged with the less severe law: the current one or the one which was applied when the acts occurred...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Took down 20, take down 20 more, and they're asking for RIGHTS? Yes, sure, you will have your rights to ddos, in prison, with no internet. Getting buttgouged by some big guy named Billy will add 10 points to your profile.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]As much as I may not like a lot of companies, DDoS is still an outright attack on them rather than something like a boycott which is simply not using them. I don't see a reasonable way to legalize it.EDIT: Even if it gets legalized, there'd be no reason to release people jailed over it AFAIK. Just as you can't be charged with a crime for committing an act before it is made illegal, you shouldn't be able to get away with committing a crime just because it is legalized after you committed it.[/citation]

actually i believe that if something is made legal after you are in jail for it, you have to go through the court system to get released, but unlike false imprisonment, you dont get money for the time you served.

personally, i want people in jail for drug uses in non violent instance to be immediately released, and violent ones to be reviewed and sentences amended to reflect its no legal, as in sentence you like you did whatever you did as if you were drunk and not high.

and as a form of protest. its like standing in an area and picketing a place, it makes it harder to get in and out, and draws awareness. i beleive it should be legal because it does get attention, weather thats because its illegal or if its just because ot the people who get targeted i dont know.

[citation][nom]adbat[/nom]DDoS no - it can be preformed by one person or two people with there army of illegally acquired zombie army, or if they are lucky they just might have access to classroom full of PC'a with external IP's and good connections.But DoS attack where each "protester" can be accounted for just like in real protest I'm all for that I could take part in an protest like that.[/citation]

yea, we cant have it because someone may use a bot net...
we cant have roads because people may speed on them
cant drink soda because you may get fat
cant eat any food not green because you may get fat

i can go on, but making something illegal because it may be abused is stupid to me.

[citation][nom]abbadon_34[/nom]First, this is not the way to do it. You have to file a lawsuit, not politely ask Obama to comment. Second, good luck, DDoS has cause real monetary damages and can't be considered free speech. The flaw in their arguement isn't that is has the same effect as hitting refresh, but that it's INTENT is cause a problem, not to mention they are close to being labeled a terrorist group but they THREATEN before doing this.Not that I don't agree with some of their causes, but this is waste of time.[/citation]

yea, im also sure picketing an business as a protest also makes them lose business (costs money) but its legal.

[citation][nom]-Jackson[/nom]Meh, if legal corruption (aka, Lobbying) is possible, I don't see why the heck not this can't be.[/citation]

got to love that...
bribery that is legal... no under the table for us, we flaunt it.

[citation][nom]fudoka711[/nom]"considering the poor treatment that occupy protestors have experienced at the hands of law enforcement"These occupy protesters (*cough* Oakland) don't realize the poor treatment the people have received at the hands of these occupiers.And DDoSing is still just a form of harrassment. Also, by making a website, or multiple websites unusable - what does it actually accomplish. Again, it just makes it bad for the rest of us.[/citation]

dont know about you, but when a site is down, i google why.

 

zyric83

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
14
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Just as you can't be charged with a crime for committing an act before it is made illegal, you shouldn't be able to get away with committing a crime just because it is legalized after you committed it.[/citation]

What sense does that make? A. was jailed for toilet papering someones yard because it was illegal at the time. Law changed to say its no longer illegal. You want to force A. to stay in jail for something that is no longer considered a crime?

Lets look at it this way... Alcohol was band, now it no longer is banded, you want to make alcohol unable to be sold because during the ban it wasn't allowed?
 

Fulgurant

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2012
584
0
19,065
31
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]and as a form of protest. its like standing in an area and picketing a place, it makes it harder to get in and out, and draws awareness. i beleive it should be legal because it does get attention, weather thats because its illegal or if its just because ot the people who get targeted i dont know.[/citation]

yea, we cant have it because someone may use a bot net... we cant have roads because people may speed on themcant drink soda because you may get fatcant eat any food not green because you may get fati can go on, but making something illegal because it may be abused is stupid to me.
yea, im also sure picketing an business as a protest also makes them lose business (costs money) but its legal.
The point is that in order to stage an effective protest in real life, you have to enlist more than one person for your cause. By contrast, a single person can potentially pull off one of these internet attacks. You may scoff at that practical difference, but it is an important one.

And no, it's not legal to gather a crowd with the express purpose of physically blocking the entrance of a business or residence. Yes, peaceful protests of sufficient size most likely do reduce commerce for the business in question, but the moment your protest turns even the slightest bit violent, the law takes a dim view of it. The First Amendment gives us the right to free assembly; it doesn't give us the right to do whatever the bleep we want on other people's property.

And if you want your protest to block a street or take up a park or whatever? You need to get permission from the local government ahead of time. Anonymous doesn't warn anyone before it attacks a website.

Specious petition is specious. The only question is whether Anonymous understands how specious their argument is.

got to love that...
bribery that is legal... no under the table for us, we flaunt it.
Your concerns about lobbying are understandable, but irrelevant.
 


First thing --- this ain't happening

Second --- in addition to the TP charge, that person not only committed a trespass, but caused economic harm. The convict is responsible for not only their direct actions but any secondary and tertiary results of those actions.

AND --- this is not even driving home the simple stoopid fact that such malicious action violates an individual's freedom of expression and commerce. Even by name. Denial of Service Attack.




 
[citation][nom]zyric83[/nom]What sense does that make? A. was jailed for toilet papering someones yard because it was illegal at the time. Law changed to say its no longer illegal. You want to force A. to stay in jail for something that is no longer considered a crime? Lets look at it this way... Alcohol was band, now it no longer is banded, you want to make alcohol unable to be sold because during the ban it wasn't allowed?[/citation]

The point was not that the act was still a criminal act, but that when it was committed, it was a criminal act that should be punished because it was illegal. My example was simply a reversal of the USA law which, IIRC, lets you not be charged with a crime if you committed it before it was considered a crime by law (IE if you get drunk the night before a law against drinking was enacted, you're not charged for it because you didn't commit the *crime* after it was considered a crime). IDK the name of it, but I'm pretty sure of that being true and I was simply wondering if the inverse of it is also true because the inverse of it is what the Anon guy seems to want to attempt.

I can understand disagreeing with that standing, but I don't see how anyone (at least in the USA) can say that it doesn't make any sense.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
40

Here is a funny but true story.

I have had 2 speeding tickets in my life, usually when some idiot is driving slow next to someone else driving slightly slower, both under the speed limit.

I finally get to pass, and hammer it ... cop sitting there around the bend ... crap.

Here is the funny part. 2 weeks after after I paid the ticket, they removed the 55 zone and let the highway be 70 all the way through.

2nd time, a month after the court date, they moved the speed trap from 3/4 mile from the stop light (pretty stupid in the first place) to 1/4 mile from it.

Did I get a refund on those tickets? In both cases I would have been driving the speed limit with the new posted speeds.

If you break the law, you break the law at the time it was a law, you knowingly broke the law. Changing the law doesn't change the crime, but sure does suck to be you.

BTW blazorthon, your looking I think is ex-post facto law.
 

Dantte

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2011
94
4
18,635
0
DDoS is not the same as an occupy movement or protest:

It is the legal right of an individual to protest, as long as this protest within the law. Such as, a protest may block the front door of a business, but should someone wish to enter that business, the protest must then NOT block the back door or let someone enter unobstructed, otherwise the protest is ILLEGAL. DDoS attack does not provide for this provision of the law.

Also, those who participate in a DDoS attack have a heighten level of anonymity over those who are on the street with a sign marching. A private business can see the face of a protester and has every right to bar them from a store at a later date, how do you provide for this transparency in a DDoS attack?

Protesters must also follow all trespassing laws. You cannot enter a business's propoerty and protest from say "the sales floor." One could argue that entering the website and doing a DDoS is a form of trespassing.

Simiply put, DDoS is not a form of protest, or atleast not a legal form. Its the equivalent of burning down a building because you dont agree with what they are doing. This is ILLEGAL!
 

Fulgurant

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2012
584
0
19,065
31


All of that is true, technically: you don't automatically get released/remunerated if a law that you broke is later changed. But if a law that you broke is later found to be unjust, there is a very strong chance that you will be freed (if imprisoned) or that you will at least receive some sort of public apology, if not outright reparations. All of the above is at the discretion of the court and, possibly, of legislators.

(Or, you could sue the government years later for unjust treatment, which again leaves the matter in the hands of the court.)

What you're talking about is the Bill of Attainder clause of the Constitution, or more precisely, the concept of an ex post facto law. (Those two terms are related both in the document and by natural consequence, but they're not synonymous.) The government is explicitly disallowed from enforcing laws retroactively, because (among other reasons) that would allow people within government to use the law as a bludgeon against their enemies.

In the abstract, you're right: it's natural to assume that the ex post facto principle works in both directions, applied either to the government or to the individual, but the purpose of the constitution is to protect the individual and restrain the government -- so although the government cannot retroactively apply laws to citizens, the same restriction does not apply to citizens seeking redress for punishments meted out in the name of laws retrospectively found to be unjust.

To use a stupid example: if a law were passed mandating 30-year prison sentences for anyone posting on Tom's Hardware with the name, "blazorthon," and you were imprisoned, you would be released as soon as the courts declared the law unconstitutional. You'd also likely receive a profuse apology and you'd have an excellent chance of winning a great deal of money in a civil suit. You wouldn't rot in jail for the next three decades simply because of your unfortunate timing.

Incidentally, noob2222's example doesn't fit the unjust-law criterion: he got cited for speeding. The specific speed limit on the particular stretch of road was changed later, but that doesn't change the fact that he flouted the speed limit at the time. Speeding, in principle, is still just as illegal now as it was when he got pulled over. Even so, if noob2222 had the time, money, and inclination to take the matter to court, he might make a compelling case that the ticket should be wiped from his driving record.
 

s997863

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2007
124
3
18,685
0
if ddos attacks are illegal, then why isn't anyone investigating who attacked demonoid? no question about legality when the govs themselves are behind it, eh?
 
G

Guest

Guest
When I saw this article, I was like "F*** NO!" lol For example, I used to torrent alot on a website called Demonoid.me but a bunch of d-bags thought it'd be cool to ddos the s*** out of it and bring the website down. Now users are out of yet another respectable torrent sharing service. Wtf, internet. Wtf.

PS The owner is trying to get the website back up. Hopefully we'll see it before the end of 2013.
 

bitmaiden

Honorable
Nov 22, 2012
19
0
10,510
0
Problem with this is... how do know which are 'legal' prosteters and which are just botnets? It's something that cannot be legalized in a way that won't be used illegally.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ooo...
Hersey highway!

Lookat'em. atleast it itch...
Doh. *If i wus a hakker id ddos'em always...

No really. Its just a itch. There are bigger balls waiting fer them.
We'll rain hell on them when needed.
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,062
3
19,285
0
[citation][nom]-Jackson[/nom]Meh, if legal corruption (aka, Lobbying) is possible, I don't see why the heck not this can't be.[/citation]

This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read on these forums. The answer to an atrocity isn't another atrocity. We need to root out those who are corrupt while playing within the system we believe is the proper system. If you resort to illegal tactics and corruption yourself, you forfeit your legitimacy. You will have become that which you mean to correct. The only exception is if the law you are breaking was passed without the consent of the people or if the law being passed is unconstitutional (see the feinstein bill).
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,062
3
19,285
0
Not only should this not be legalized, it should be a felony. These attacks are almost always committed by the same people that break into servers (modern day B&E) and steal personal information (burglary, identity theft) and release it to the public. The amount of damages both to the company AND THE CUSTOMERS is enormous. This isn't something we should be taking lightly. If someone broke into a bank, stole a bunch of money, then posted your account numbers and passwords all over the city, you would be out for blood. Why is this any different because it's digital?
 

Fierce Guppy

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2011
84
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]casualcolors[/nom]We're still pretending like these guys are news-worthy? Every time one of them is publicly outed, they not so surprisingly end up being a lonely middle-aged walking stereotype. Embarrassing, really.[/citation]

I was listening a middle aged Anonymous supporter and advocate just yesterday by the name of John Tiessen. He posted a youtube video two years ago claiming another hacker, "The Jester", to be a pedophile. He's a "True Christian" He doesn't lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p8PLJscC-W4#!

The Jester doxed Tiessen.

http://i.imgur.com/8lO7m.png

Why am I not surprised...

This guy has only recently admitted to ~lying~ about the pedophile thing; a "white lie" as he called it, because according to him, the Jester has done far worse things by comparison. What a crapbag.

Have you ever wondered why the Anonymous uses a synthetic voice for their pronouncements?

Wonder no more! Listen to an actual member of Anonymous speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IUcgiLh7Pts&t=13m15s
 

Fierce Guppy

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2011
84
0
18,630
0
Awww. My links got stripped out. nice...

Anonymous advocate accuses Jester of being a pedophile.
Youtube: /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p8PLJscC-W4#!

The Jester doxed Tiessen.

i.imgur.com/8lO7m.png

Anonymous member Sanguinarious speaks.
Youtube: /watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IUcgiLh7Pts&t=13m15s
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0
Anonymous can stick their protests where the sun don't shine. They act as little more than cyber bullies agressively attacking companies they don't like for whatever reason.
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
1,636
0
19,860
27
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The point was not that the act was still a criminal act, but that when it was committed, it was a criminal act that should be punished because it was illegal. My example was simply a reversal of the USA law which, IIRC, lets you not be charged with a crime if you committed it before it was considered a crime by law (IE if you get drunk the night before a law against drinking was enacted, you're not charged for it because you didn't commit the *crime* after it was considered a crime). IDK the name of it....[/citation]

"Ex post facto" or after the fact.
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS