Bob, The attack is accurately named.
Denial Of Service. If it's a service I'm paying for and your attack is denying me of that service, then it is clearly both forcible and injurious. Paul's point is salient and cogent. Best~ -d On 2/13/2011 2:58 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Paul, > > You write > > "Denial of service is not merely a peaceful protest meant to garner > attention for a cause. Denial of service is forcible and it is injurious. > It is not like any form of civil disobedience, but rather it is criminal > behaviour more like looting. " > > But is it really? If I loot your shop, I now possess something that > rightfully should belong to you. DoS isn't entirely like this. How is DoS > different from shutting down business at a brick-and-mortar location by > holding a big rally? They're both "forcible" and "injurious." > > People are often arrested at these G20 protests, but they're generally > later released or charged with a misdemeanor. The consequences of those > arrests are much less severe than in the case of DoS attacks. In fact, > the consequences of those protests seem much more severe than a DDoS > attack. I was in Toronto last summer and the city's center was essentially > shut down both in anticipation of the G20 protests, and then moreso when > the protests actually happened. > > Anyhow, I'd be interested in seeing you expand on this a little more, as I > think it's an interesting question. > > Bob _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
