freeworldgroup.com

Yup. It is now being sent to the White House in the form of a petition to make it legal for anybody to make a DoS / DDoS attack. (more info right here) ------> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121433-Anonymous-Seeks-to-Legalize-DDoS-Attacks

Bascially "Anonymous" and others are comparing it to an example of "Occupy Wallstreet". Where thousands of people sit on a public place and protest. That is basically what a DoS / DDoS is, but just on the internet. So, it would be hypotheticaly "Sitting on a webpage in protest".

Thoughts?

Freedom of speech is the ideal that one is allowed to publicize their thoughts. This would give people the ability to prevent others from doing so. There is no counterargument to this outside of arguing against freedom of speech, which is the tenet this petition is based on.

You base your argument we had in chat on the opinion that a DDoS attack is protest. You cannot seem to understand that this is an unlawful protest, for the reasons stated above.

Not to mention you could cripple businesses, individuals, and governments economically and day to day. That's not protest. That's sabotage.

*Legalizing

DDoS attacks are not as serious as PDoS attacks,so I don't Find the need to be too worried about it.
The Intention for attacks also vary,so if ,for example, you want to mess with someone for the lol's of it.It does little harm,but if you go to attack a banks,Like most people that perform DoS attacks, that's where it gets to an illegal level.
At the moment It is Illegal to Perform this types of attacks in certain countries.

Now If this was Made Legal,I would be Unaffected as I am not a host for a website,but One with a Website would be considerd vulnerable without the proper software to prevent this types of attacks,as it would be Legal to attack any Website.
The Problem with this would be that If they Live in different countries.
Ex.
A person performs a DoS attack In the US to a web host that has a website that is in the UK.
Under US Laws it would be legal,but under UK laws it would be considerd Illegal.

mmm wrote:Freedom of speech is the ideal that one is allowed to publicize their thoughts. This would give people the ability to prevent others from doing so. There is no counterargument to this outside of arguing against freedom of speech, which is the tenet this petition is based on.

You base your argument we had in chat on the opinion that a DDoS attack is protest. You cannot seem to understand that this is an unlawful protest, for the reasons stated above.

Not to mention you could cripple businesses, individuals, and governments economically and day to day. That's not protest. That's sabotage.

This wouldn't prevent people from saying things as there are other ways to get things around the world. (TV, Radio, etc) DDoS (for the most part) is almost always a protest of some sort. Wether it being somebody hating a site plainly by the name or corrupt corporations. (Example nobody has thought of...) If we are in a public debate and you are speaking, if I scream "LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL" it would not "Deny" you of free speech. It might momentarily until I leave that debate. Then you can speak your mind again as whatever you wanted to say. <---Unless a server is completely destroyed, the site will most always come back. So you'd still be allowed to express your free speech, but just with a bunch of people screaming "LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL".

"Sabotage means an intentional destruction of something."

"Protest means a strong complaint expressing disagreement, disapproval or opposition"
^---Technically, you can't destroy free speech first off. :\ Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sabotaging something that is Bad / Corrupt to make it better / stop spreading it is a good thing, no?

blood, I'ld check my moral compass if I were you.
Seriously it's way off.

And DoS/DDoS attacks are also used to get into db's, for example the db you're using now on this forum.
And then steal your private information.

If that's still protest or just shutting a site down, great.

But is shutting a site down harmless?
I don't think so.
Lets say that competitors of internet business websites can then legally shut their competitors website down.
This means that you can simply be putting the competition out of business.

Starting to sound like a bad idea to you now?

DDoS attacks are simply internet sit-ins. It's the equivalent of repeatedly refreshing the page. I don't understand as to why an internet sit in is considered to be violation of law to such a degree. I mean honestly, 5 years in jail for that crap? Maybe it shouldn't be legalized, but I think the time in which you can get jailed for it should be reduced. It's ridiculous.

A DoS is not a sit-in.
A DoS attack is more like blockading a building, smashing in it's windows and may lead to pillaging said building of any goods stored inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

Obviously, some of you have been severely misinformed.

A correct comparison between protesting on the street and protesting on the internet is the following:
Protesting articles/movieclips/voices on forums, social media, online petitions, etc.

Also don't forget that when protests on the street go violent, the police will intervene and make arrests.

And the freedom of speech is limited.
Within freedom of speech you can be emotional, make your point.
But you are not allowed to put up a blockade, throw in windows, start riots,...
Freedom of speech is not absolute.

So why should it be on the internet?

And to give you a real good case:
Would you like it if fwg went down due to such attacks from one person?
Because that's what you are in essence saying.

Hitokiri wrote:PWNG

Thank God, someone with some sense.

Hitokiri wrote:A DoS is not a sit-in.
A DoS attack is more like blockading a building, smashing in it's windows and may lead to pillaging said building of any goods stored inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

Obviously, some of you have been severely misinformed.

A correct comparison between protesting on the street and protesting on the internet is the following:
Protesting articles/movieclips/voices on forums, social media, online petitions, etc.

Also don't forget that when protests on the street go violent, the police will intervene and make arrests.

And the freedom of speech is limited.
Within freedom of speech you can be emotional, make your point.
But you are not allowed to put up a blockade, throw in windows, start riots,...
Freedom of speech is not absolute.

So why should it be on the internet?

And to give you a real good case:
Would you like it if fwg went down due to such attacks from one person?
Because that's what you are in essence saying.

I'm fully aware of what a DDoS is. It's where you flood a website with fake requests via a botnet in order to shut the website down. This can also cause the firewall to crash, thus allowing temporary access if you know how to do it.

It's the equivalent of pressing the refresh button thousands of times, all it's doing is speeding it up and making it possible for only 1-2 people to crash a site. It's unethical, but it's not severe enough to equal manslaughter.

About to make a bit of a point...

It is very, very easy to dis-allow a DoS / DDoS attack. There are numerous programs from companies out there to allow sites to survive even the biggest of attacks. For example, "CloueFlare". Not very expensive. It is very useful. Tested it on my own sites. (Told them about it to not undergo anything illegal). It never went down. Even once.

Now with that being said, software like "CloudFlare" are the practical equal to a home security system. (ADT, LifeShield, etc.)

"If you don't have the latest security, then it's not anybody else's fault you didn't survive the latest form of attacks." :\

Also, I greatly disagree..."Sitting In" and "Plundering" are completely different...