Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

[Hitokiri]

however you may put it ghost, your explanation of the matter being the comparison to real life is not correct.

And that's where we have the problem there.

No matter how you put it, which type of DoS attack it is.
It has the purpose of not letting anyone reach the site for a period of time.
even measures taken against DoS attacks won't be able to withstand everything (botnets).

All of that leads me to saying that having this legalized will make it legal for anyone to shut this site down.

For the reasoning behind that, you can read the above.

[ghost 9]

You do a sit-in specifically to prevent people from going to a place to illustrate a point.

A simple filter to detect when you're being DDoS'd attached to a void server, will prevent and stop any DDoS attack. Granted, if it was an actual hacker, they wouldn't be DDoSing. They'd do an SQL injection. Which is why it's used mainly for protesting, and not for troll hacking. If someone wants to troll hack, they'd deface the site, not simply DDoS it.

[Blood Knight]

however you may put it ghost, your explanation of the matter being the comparison to real life is not correct.

And that's where we have the problem there.

No matter how you put it, which type of DoS attack it is.
It has the purpose of not letting anyone reach the site for a period of time.
even measures taken against DoS attacks won't be able to withstand everything (botnets).

All of that leads me to saying that having this legalized will make it legal for anyone to shut this site down.

For the reasoning behind that, you can read the above.

Botnets really aren't a problem, unless they are in the size of hundreds of thousands. "Cloudflare" stopped atleast (their numbers) +30,000 different DoS atacks when they had "The J3ST3R" in their protection. Even that never took down his website... And not that this would make much of a difference, but most people that use the more "Noobish" DoSers (Loic, hoic, etc) are some random pissed off 15 year old. If a veteran hacker wanted to and was going full out, I'm sure they could take down most sites you could think of. Either way the methods aren't to great, but would you rather have somebody temporarily make a site unreachable, or have somebody (veterans) use over various skills that you wouldn't even know about to take down the site?

And going off of what Ghost said, I remember a troll hack on the Sesame Street website. The one where they put up all the pictures of...men... <--That was troll hacking. (also done by Anonymous)

[Hitokiri]

What you are saying is not a point.

If a pissed off 15yo would hold a sit-in in a store somewhere, he/she would be left alone as long as it's not a nuisance.
Since that's very much unlikely and there would be harrasment of staff and customers the police would very likely be involved.

If you compare the DoS attack with a sit-in then, why should that be legal?
It is a nuisance/harrasment of other users on the internet who do want to be on that website.

Having security at a place of business in real life also doesn't make such sit-ins legal. Why should having internet security be an arguement to make it legal on the internet then?

So legaly speaking, your "points" do not make any sense.

Unless you are going to take on the arguement that a website is public domain.
Where again, that reasoning would be flawed as the internet, the infrastructure is to be considered the street and public domain.
The website itself should be considered a building; ergo indicating private domain.

And it is a right for any owner to deny you entrance.
It is your right to protest,however it is not your right to prevent any business taking place.

Considering that a DoS attack is very much intended to prevent business from taking place, it should not be legalised.
To protest, as is your right, you can write on blogs, use social media and do online petitions and quite a few other things.

[ghost 9]

What you are saying is not a point.

If a pissed off 15yo would hold a sit-in in a store somewhere, he/she would be left alone as long as it's not a nuisance.
Since that's very much unlikely and there would be harrasment of staff and customers the police would very likely be involved.

If you compare the DoS attack with a sit-in then, why should that be legal?
It is a nuisance/harrasment of other users on the internet who do want to be on that website.

Having security at a place of business in real life also doesn't make such sit-ins legal. Why should having internet security be an arguement to make it legal on the internet then?

So legaly speaking, your "points" do not make any sense.

Unless you are going to take on the arguement that a website is public domain.
Where again, that reasoning would be flawed as the internet, the infrastructure is to be considered the street and public domain.
The website itself should be considered a building; ergo indicating private domain.

And it is a right for any owner to deny you entrance.
It is your right to protest,however it is not your right to prevent any business taking place.

Considering that a DoS attack is very much intended to prevent business from taking place, it should not be legalised.
To protest, as is your right, you can write on blogs, use social media and do online petitions and quite a few other things.

I wouldn't say that DDoS is the equivalent of harassing staff, customers, etc. More like standing infront of said store, and holding a sign with a bunch of crap on it, telling people not to go in, etc. Most people wouldn't go in at a sight like that.

The technology to prevent DDoS attacks wasn't a point, it was showing you how easy these attacks are thwarted.

If an owner can deny you entrance, can't you technically stand infront or around the building, to disrupt others from entering as well? As you'er not doing any physical harm. A DDoS attack simply prevents people from entering a site, it doesn't, if it's the right type, take it offline forever.