For the young guys out there, you should know that DOS is illegal. If an individual is caught doing this, they could end-up in jail or in the least get a criminal record. So, if you want a decent job and to be a productive member of society, don't DOS websites.
Also for the young kids: illegal is not always synonymous with immoral, and sometimes to be a productive member of society you have to step across that line.
DDoS or human flesh search would be morally acceptable IF there were no other recourse in society for justice. In china the government is authoritarian and the people have human flesh searches as their effective form of justice. But to condone illegal activity for change in places like the united states is to suggest that there is critical flaw in the democratic process. Is there? Because if there is then we should acknowledge that and fix that too instead of relying on mob rule all the time. The only person I can see who morally justifies this (for him/herself) would be some teenager who has never been allowed to vote (thus not having any other recourse for change). But I think its irresponsible to encourage these who must be kids to take the illegal route to get what they want if there is a viable legal route. Write your senator or something, don't cheer the mob on. Make sure you're not operating on impulse.
The MPAA has powerful lobbyists. I can see people being disenfranchised pretty easily, at which point, what's your recourse? Vote in the next guy who'll be just as easily swayed? I don't agree with DDOS'ing people, but I can understand how some people might think it's one of the few options which might bring about change.
Sometime it is better to employ a taoist strategy of doing nothing and let them create their own demise. If they are targeting P2P users, than it let them know not to pirate that content and consume somebody's else. If that somebody else is smart, than he could enter into a mutually beneficial relationship rather than wasting money to try to fight piracy.
So you're saying the system is broken? It very well could be but you honestly think any of these kids checked to see? And if they have tried doing it legally and fail then I would like to see more fight towards that issue, as in my opinion it's a bigger issue if corporations are controlling our gov't than them attacking a few pirates.
If a law is unjust you IGNORE it. You don't take enforcement into your own hands, much less anonymous enforcement. If you truly believe what you fight for you'd come out and be proud of it because you know you're right. But nothing says uncertain motives more than cowering behind anonymity for a cause.
Civil disobedience is a very well-defined term in its proper usage, and does not extend to all forms of "breaking the law because you're angry about something".
Civil disobedience goes like this:
1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt)
2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly.
3. You get arrested and punished.
4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law.
DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia.
Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones.
If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.
Well, I'm not American and I'm not especially familiar with all the details of US history, so this is the first I've heard of this particular event. However, I'll have a read of the wikipedia article (there's a longer article about the actual event linked from the one on the location) and see what I think.
Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.
We'll, we're discussing the MPAA, which is an American organization, American civil disobedience with regard to Rosa Parks, Harpers Ferry and the catalyst for the American Civil War.
When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
No what 4chan is doing is akin to telling a white person to go to the back of the bus in retribution.
Of course nothing is perfect, which is why if you don't believe in the democratic and judicial process then you might as well have anarchy and take everything into your own hands. We don't have a government because it's perfect. We have it because it allows us to funnel all problems with respect to it. A standardized process with which to improve society instead of having mobs act on impulse everytime they get angry.
No, it's like telling George Wallace to go to the back of the bus. If the MPAA wants to be the chief asshole of the internet then they don't get to play in it with the rest of us. It's not the downfall of society, it's just a little mischief to compensate for an obviously broken democracy. It has always happened and always should.
Then let us shed some blood and refresh the tree of liberty. Who cares about the MPAA. Let's DoS the government so we can fix it. For if we ignore the root of the problem we'll have to keep being mischievous to compensate for everything, and then what are we? We would no longer be civil, and disobedience would govern us. Seriously what's the problem? Government or one anomaly that is the MPAA? If it's the former then well need more than a little mischief. We'll need revolution (or at the least major reform)! If the latter, then why the mischief, go through proper channels.
Or maybe this is about having our constitutional right to bear cyber arms (and use at will). In which case I would encourage every cyber citizen to ignore the unjust anti-DoS laws and proudly use his/her low orbit ion cannons at will. that would be civil disobedience.
Sure we're angry at the MPAA. We can choose not to accept their terms (by not buying or pirating). Or if you don't believe in copyright, pirate the stuff and take on the legal consequences. But stooping to their level is dishonorable, and questionable in motive. Sure these dos guys are probably kids but we should encourage them to hold back and fight back honorably.
What, precisely, has the MPAA done that is so wrong?
Personally I'd take the copyright debate a lot more seriously if I could separate the folks who have legitimate and well thought-out points to make about the weaknesses of existing copyright law from the folks who just want to get stuff for free.
> What, precisely, has the MPAA done that is so wrong?
I know right? If they did something wrong point that out. Attacking them because you think they're assholes and you feel like it is just plain immature.
> But to condone illegal activity for change in places like the united states is to suggest that there is critical flaw in the democratic process.
The USA isn't a democracy. Not formally, because it doesn't have universal adult suffrage, and because votes aren't of equal value. Not practically, because the electoral system means that no-one outside the two big parties can get anywhere. And that's even before we look at abuses of the system such as gerrymandering, or votes not being counted properly.
The USA is in practise run by corporate interests such as the MPAA and RIAA. A good example of this is the ACTA treaty, negotiations for which started under the Bush administration and continued seamlessly under Obama. So lacking in democratic oversight is this that lawmakers aren't even allowed to know what's in it.
How is DDOSing some websites productive? I would call appearing like immature bullies rather counter-productive if you fight for improving your rights.
Your IP address is not anonymous.