I have to be careful here, because I really don't want to find myself
defending idiotic DDoSers. I just happen to think that this is an
interesting question, because we have spent years figuring out exactly
what our tolerance is for disruptive free-speech-type events in the
physical world, but I don't think we've given the issue as much thought
online. I also think that as a society, we often overreact to the "hacker"
threat.
> the internet infrastructure has too many coupled dependencies to be used
> for protests in this way -- there's no way to isolate the effects so
that
> people and activities who aren't being protested won't be injured.
That's the case in the physical world too. Lots of people suffer
collateral injuries when there's a G20 protest.
>
> but even if it were possible to isolate the effects i would find
statements
> of the form "i'm for freedom so i'm ddos'ing you" to be totally
irrational.
I agree with you, but I still think it's worth carefully considering
whether this activity is in any way different to these protests, which we
seem to tolerate. If it really is an issue of free speech, then the fact
that it's idiotic speech is moot.
> seems to be "anybody who is angry at anybody can take pot shots at them
> through the internet infrastructure without any cost or risk to
themselves."
Yeah, maybe this is the crux of the issue for me. When protesters show up,
they're making sacrifices to show solidarity with an issue or a movement.
When someone downloads LOIC in their rec room during the advertising break
for Two and a Half Men, that feels like something different.
There should be consequences. Should they be a 10 year federal prison
sentence? Maybe. Maybe not.
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.
