<p>To the "revolutionaries" and "activists" of the world. If you are going to revolt... bloody revolt already. Stop threatening to do it and just get it over with already. </p>
<p>Standing around with a sign, and ddosing mastercard is not a revolt. A revolt is a group of guys with assault weapons siezing territory and shooting otherwise would be authority figures. Unless you are willing to go kill people, and probably yourself in the process.... by all means stop pretending anything done is somehow analogous to revolt.</p>
<p>It's not. Until you have rendered the application of law a functional impossibility, all that you are is either a worthless protestor or a criminal. That's reality. Cold and hard.</p>
<p>Sorry if you delusional belief in your revolutionary hat is challenged by that.</p>
<p>/troll</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 10, 2010 2:35 PM, "Yves Quemener" <<a href="mailto:quemener.yves@free.fr">quemener.yves@free.fr</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> On 12/10/2010 11:11 PM, Koen Martens wrote:<br>
>> I don't think so. It demonstrates the weakness in the internet, and now that<br>>> it is so clearly and prominently exposed, calls will be made to ask for <br>>> measures against it. And since the internet isn't something easily changed,<br>
>> I fear it will be ridicoulous litigation and agreements. Such as ACTA. The<br>>> most likely answer to the ddos attacks is more monitoring on internet connections,<br>>> wider criteria to define 'cybercrime' and harsher response when someone<br>
>> is suspected of it.<br>> <br>> That's a possible scenario. Or at some point people could realize that<br>> brute force is not going to work and that some thinking is in order.<br>> <br>>>> They are trying to illegally censor a journalism website. If they manage to<br>
>>> do that, to get the kind of power necessary to censor globally a journalist<br>>>> on internet, how do you expect to know when the "last resort point" will be<br>>>> there ?<br>>> <br>
>> There are so many things we can do against that 'censorship', and we are<br>>> doing. Think of the mirrors. Think of more intelligent measures: try <br>>> to circumvent the hold on DNS that the US has. Think of a new, better<br>
>> matter of connecting people in the digital world that doesn't involve<br>>> the broken and old internet.<br>> <br>> Yes, that kind of thing is good and I try on my scale to help with that.<br>> But I won't disapprove anymore people who try to fight without gloves now.<br>
> We *are* at the point where the judicial system is used as a weapon, not as<br>> a mean to bring justice.<br>> <br>>> There is so much more we can do other than<br>>> just breaking things.<br>> <br>
> Exactly what things did the DDoS break ?<br>> <br>>>> It might seem like a childish justification but "they did it first" is<br>>>> actually a good argument.<br>>> <br>>> No, it's not :)<br>
> <br>> Actually that's the difference between an attack and a self-defense.<br>> <br>>>>> Breaking stuff is just not<br>>>>> a good way to make your case in general.<br>>>> Actually it is an incredibly effective method.<br>
>> It's not, it deflects attention from the actual cause. The ddos has had the<br>>> result, in nl at least, that the media are primarily talking about how you<br>>> can ddos a site, what these teens are thinking, etc.. <br>
> So you mean that the ddos attacks helped these teens express their points<br>> of view in the media ?<br>> Heh.<br>> <br>>> It has deflected <br>>> attention from the actual content of the cables, which is probably just how<br>
>> the US govmt would want to see it.<br>> <br>> The more ruckus there is around wikileaks, the more people will want to<br>> read these cables. I don't think it deflects anything.<br>> <br>> Iv<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>> Discuss mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div>