Anonymous wants DDoS attacks recognized as speech

Anonymous wants DDoS attacks recognized as speech

www.theregister.co.uk

The loosely organized hackers of Anonymous don't just launch distributed denial-of-service attacks for the lulz. They do it to send a message, which is why they've petitioned the Obama administration to recognize DDoS as a legal form of protest.

The petition, which was filed on the White House's We the People website, argues that DDoS "is not a form of hacking in any way" and that it's really not much different than repeatedly hitting the refresh button in your web browser....

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.hitb.org

I find it interesting that someone - claiming to be Anonymous - initiated this 'petition.'

Considering that there is no recognizable "person" requesting this consideration, how can it be addressed?

The rationale behind DDOS attacks as being a form of protest is fairly rational (to a point):

It is, in that way, no different than any "occupy" protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.

But there are some real problems with this entire line of reasoning - from the perspective of a petition:

1) "Who" has this right to protest? Anonymous? Any citizen? Foreign entities?

2) What "targets" are "fair game?" Anyone? The government itself? Banks," "paid for services?"

Perhaps it is needless to say, but the establishment and all of her ancillary groups (like the media) will denigrate and characterize this as a step towards anarchy.... for example they include this:

Not all such attacks are launched for similarly high-minded reasons, however, and given the recent spate of cyberattacks on US banks – which are now believed to have been orchestrated by the Iranian government – this petition is unlikely win much sympathy from the White House.

Not to mention the small problem that the We the People site seems to have become a favorite forum for pranks and jokes. Recent oddball petitions have included one request to build a real-life Death Star, and another to remake the American justice system in Judge Dredd's image.

I can understand the parallel between a DDOS and a form of "protest" ala "free speech" - but when people protesting interferes with commerce... you can expect the government to slam down hard on the protestors.... profit is not to be threatened... especially in our era of corporate/government cohabitation.

www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

In my personal view...well, it took a moment thinking on this but I think I have the difference for how a protest is valid and DDoS is simply a criminal attack.

A protest generates attention, sympathy (if done right) and carries the main purpose of being seen and generating support from the public to change whatever it is that is being protested.

A DDoS attack, on the other hand, is hidden and secret by design and nature until after it's done. The point isn't to draw sympathy as more than a secondary benefit while disruption at best and destruction as the norm are the intent by design. Protests may bring actual tangible harm to a target ,,,but not by sole purpose and design. DDoS has no OTHER immediate goal or purpose.

So.. That's where I'd say protest is protected while DDoS ought to be prosecuted.

Just my humble opinion of course.

To block the access to a business is trespassing and a crime. They are commiting a crime. If they want to have the freedom of speech then use your voice like everyone else. If they stand for so much good then stop hiding.

No one will take them serious as long as they are behind a mask.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I can respect that position.

What if the DDOS were "announced" beforehand? Say for example, I announce that I hate Super Duper Widgets Incorporated for their shameless exploitation of whatever people.... and THEN get my group to launch the DDOS? If a political purpose is expressed, is it not "political?" and thus an expression of "free speech?"

Remove the element of anonymity and what form does it take then? Only Cyber terrorism? Or Crime?

Somehow I am inclined to think ultimately your position will hold all the mojo. But I still feel there is a valid rationale behind the concept of using it as a political tool of protest.

reply to post by Maxmars


Well corporations are "people" and money is "free speech", so why not DDoSes?

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Well corporations are "people" and money is "free speech", so why not DDoSes?

agreed, if corporations want the benefits of being considered "people" then they have to accept the liabilities of being "people"

reply to post by Maxmars

Well, I think the problem comes in with, again, the goal of the method. DDoS is designed to disrupt if it doesn't work very well ....and destroy if it does. I think the best way to put this is how I personally think of it myself when it comes up. In my case, with my own web site properties/projects ..in your case.. the site you work at.

It doesn't matter the purpose because there will always be a reason or cause. Some we may agree with and most we won't.

Taking the 'right/wrong' of the cause out of it for a moment to focus on just the method and impact ... What right has someone to DDoS ATS clear off line for whatever period they can technically achieve that or blow one of my websites offline in the same manor? At the least, I'll have costs and issues to deal with regarding the corporation supplying the pipe and infrastructure as well as ATS would, I'd guess.

Did the one committing the attack have the right to do that? Now...lets say, instead, some creative and intelligent user I piss off or one you and staff here anger leads a real world protest march in front of the ATS offices ..as there must be some, somewhere. In my case, it'd be my residence for a physical place to protest. That method of doing essentially the same thing for showing their anger ...won't destroy anything but my grass or your peace and quiet at the offices ...while drawing the public attention desired.

One is free speech and one is criminal by virtue of intent AND designed effect, IMO.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


The question is begged: Is Anonymous a "corporation?" and if not... are they a "gang" or a "movement?"

Truly we cannot expect anonymous to be the force of justice... they are entirely unaccountable for their actions.... and only the "little" fish get caught (which tells us something - though I'm not prepared to say what.)

DDoS attacks are not free speech anymore than putting a lock on the front door of a business is.

This is hilarious. Who ever made the petition knows nothing is going to happen. Its just a ploy to get attention, to make anonymous look like good guys. In reality they are both good and bad.
For those that do not know Anonymous IS NOT A HACKER GROUP. Any one can get involved in their acts. Its just a bunch of people on internet forums that discuss topics and take action against those topics. Most of the time they are ATTACKS against individuals because Anonymous does not agree with what the individual has done. They do attack websites by constantly spamming with special programs but most of what they do is against individuals.

For example, lets say their is a story in the news of a mother abusing her child. They will find every thing they can about the person on the internet and use it in what ever way they can to torment the target. They blindingly fallow and believe they are doing good. They are playing the judge, the prosecutor without ever meeting the person or hearing their side of the story. They only go by what the news says. Witch means they can EASILY be manipulated, used as pawns. I used to have a friend that considered him self to be apart of the group. Their is allot you can do with a little information from the net. Anon is wide and physically finds people. He used to tell me allot of fked up # thinking he was doing it for a good cause.

You can find the group on 4chan, if you are thinking about joining be weary, you will be used as a pawn to destroy INNOCENT peoples life's.

Originally posted by Infi8nity
Most of the time they are ATTACKS against individuals because Anonymous does not agree with what the individual has done.

Or they attack people with similar names of those they don't like
www.inquisitr.com...

DOS attacks are lame they should get no respect at all i do allot of exploit
development and its not easy,But i enjoy the challenge..All of there vulnerability
they use are mostly SQLI which is basically injecting into the database even then i
dont consider this hacking..

I write exploits for software bug's once they have been fixed (Patched) by the vendor
these people get 0 respect from real hackers they are not hackers any ways

Once they shown they can defeat dep and seh protection i might only then start too listen.

But i will give them the for exposing what they have upto now
especially with regards to the rape case.

reply to post by Maxmars


I disagree...

Even protestors are not allowed to block the entrance of a business nor can they block a public right of way and deny use to people not involved in the protest.

A DDos attack does just that - it prohibits the use of a service to all parties, regardless if they support the group or they dont. Secondly, protesting does not cover malicious actions against another party.

so no, DDos should not be recognized as free speech.

I stand now convinced that DDOS attacks should not merit free speech protection.....

Now if someone could just hash out the subtle presence of it being "anonymous" as the determinant;.... after all "anonymous" donations to political parties is considered "free speech;" .... but that is a thread of another color....

DDoS attacks are NOT "Free Speech". I am allowed to protest, but i am not allowed to, say, block the parking lot of a business.

Well since sites they target, to do their protests, are run by real people, with real incomes often pertaining to the sites, and this is harming them directly, it could be said, that they're protest is violent as it harms and you may have the right to speak up, but not by violating my rights, or abusing my personhood.

If its being done by a small number of people co-optng others machines with a botnet then its criminality.

If its being done by a mass of individuals voluntarily its a protest online in the same way as a demonstration is in public.

IF you have to force participation by unwilling people for it to be effective then its not a legitimate form of protest.

Originally posted by Maxmars

I find it interesting that someone - claiming to be Anonymous - initiated this 'petition.'

Considering that there is no recognizable "person" requesting this consideration, how can it be addressed?

petitions.whitehouse.gov...

Look at it yourself, the creators name is there.

reply to post by ashtonhz8907


Strictly out of curiosity... I wonder if that is a real person... (don't go looking) and I wonder if that is the same as identifying yourself as "Anonymous?"

I didn't imagine that was a real identity given... but I suppose it is not illegal to start a petition - even if the request is not strictly legal...