Anonymous Petitions to Make DDoS a Legal Form of Protest

[Guest]

Anonymous wants to make DDoSing a legal form of protest.

Anonymous Petitions to Make DDoS a Legal Form of Protest : Read more

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[mdahlke]

Not even going to read the article...DDoS is not a form of protest, it's a dick move.

 

[tanjo]

Yeah, might as well build a concrete wall on building entrances/exits. Nothing illegal there. Same effect, too.
/s

 

[adbat]

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.

 

[derekullo]

I don't see this ending well ...

 

[vaughn2k]

Grow up guys...

 

[casualcolors]

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.

 

[abbadon_34]

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.

 

[spectrewind]

[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]

It won't be.

 

[spectrewind]

As far as I know, a petition has to be filed by *someone*.
A summons generated that a respondent must react to.
No longer anonymous at this point? My logic is flawed....?

 

[Gundam288]

[citation][nom]spectrewind[/nom]As far as I know, a petition has to be filed by *someone*.A summons generated that a respondent must react to.No longer anonymous at this point? My logic is flawed....?[/citation]
John Smith, John Doe, Jane Doe, etc. still an unknown person in my book.

 

[JJ1217]

lol

 

[techcurious]

Ya ok.. If the DDoS was performed by means of thousands of people hitting refresh on their browsers at the same time, I would agree. But the way they do it is more like 4 guys hiring thousands of people to block a street, which I suspect would be illegal too..

 

[-Jackson]

Meh, if legal corruption (aka, Lobbying) is possible, I don't see why the heck not this can't be.

 

[tpi2007]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]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 logic says otherwise and so does the law in probably every civilized country.

If an action is no longer deemed to deserve such a severe punishment as being considered a crime, then there is no longer a legal basis or moral justification (because the behaviour is no longer considered to deserve such a punishment - this is especially obvious in those cases of laws that are obsolete and that are still applied from time to time, even though the majority of the people think the law is wrong, and then when the law is abolished, everybody still doing time is released) to continue to punish someone for something that is not currently regarded as deserving jail time, it's a matter of being fair and treating people equally, and as such anybody doing time for such a behaviour has to be released immediately as soon as the law goes into effect, otherwise you are not treating people in an equal manner. And by equality I mean this: if someone still doing time in jail for such a behaviour is left in jail to do the whole time, he would be treated unequally compared to someone who, in the free world, does the exact same thing but does not go to jail anymore.

Having said this, and talking about the subject of the news, I don't think this will result in anything. This is akin to a blocking of a physical location, a building, for example, or a demonstration that blocks roads. If you make a requirement to the local government, such a demonstration may be authorised (like in strikes and subsequent demonstrations in the streets, provided the authorities take security measures for the safety of everybody (police, ambulances, etc), the general public is informed in advance, so they can plan another route, etc), but if the requirement isn't made or if it's not authorised, then, to the authorities, it is still illegal.

 

[fudoka711]

"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.

 

[billgatez]

Good luck trying to get this passed.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]Ya ok.. If the DDoS was performed by means of thousands of people hitting refresh on their browsers at the same time, I would agree. But the way they do it is more like 4 guys hiring thousands of people to block a street, which I suspect would be illegal too..[/citation]


actually both by their very nature are illegal as they interfere with other people's rights to use said buisness /street or internet service . i hope these guys go stuff their head in a toilet and drown already , i hate this hacktivist group

 

[LORD_ORION]

DDoSing... definitely less annoying than blocking real traffic in the streets?

Also whatever happened to DRDoSing?

 

[hedwar2011]

Let's see if I can go ahead and find the right words for this....


NO!

 

[Wisecracker]

Those guys (and gals) must have some great weed.

 

[cookoy]

can be abused by a small group of people, while the majority who has legitimate need to access the site suffer

 

[ddpruitt]

So the script kiddies finally figures out jail isn't fun?

 

[house70]

Never gonna happen.