[hackerspaces] revspace and randomdata in the news re wikileaks ddos story

webmind webmind at puscii.nl
Fri Dec 10 22:00:43 CET 2010

On 2010-12-10 21:49, Yves Quemener wrote:
> On 12/10/2010 08:45 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> Voluntary participation in a ddos is illegal.
> So what ? History is full of ethical actions that were illegal.

And revolution is always illegal. :)

> Also it would be nice that this kind of statement be in the form "X is
> illegal in country Y", especially on such an international mailing list.
> Intrusion into a computer to make it a zombie is illegal in most countries
> but voluntarily flooding a website through a channel on which it is
> offering services is a gray zone in some countries. Probably not in US, I
> know it used to be in UK before 2005 and I know it is now illegal in
> France. Actually in some place, the law is so poorly worded that putting a
> link on slashdot could be considered an attack.


>> Additionally, as pointed out elsewhere, the ddoses imposed by anonymous
>> served the specific purpose of censorship.
> I don't really believe this statement. What kind of information did
> anonymous want to censor ? It was not an attempt at censorship. It was a
> protest. It is like shouting in front of Visa's headquarters. A mere
> annoyance for them, but a theme for journalists to talk about and a way to
> make a point. I doubt a single participant in the attacks believed they
> could prevent mastercard, paypal or amazon from making a public statement
> (which is what censorship is about)
>> Also, what gives anyone the right to commit themselves to a pursuit that
>> harms others?  A personal question no doubt, but one worth mulling over
>> from time to time.
> Notwithstanding the fact that no one was harmed in these attacks (that were
> retaliation to a real financial harm done to wikileaks) I would say that
> self-defense gives this right. Actually it is a legal principle in a lot of
> countries.
>> Gmc wrote an interesting response to the recent arrest of a dutch teenager
>> in association with anonymous ddosing.  This is an opportunity for
>> hackerspaces to reach out to folks and engage them is discussions on what
>> ethical hacking is or isn't.  As well as an opportunity to channel peoples
>> frustrations into the constructive rather than destructive.
> And this is great. I myself like giving constructive opportunities, to use
> democratic processes even if I feel they are a bit cobbled these days. I
> have no problem saying that anonymous DoSers of mastercard shouldn't be
> called hackers. I just have a problem about calling them unethical.

To add to this, I'd call "Ethical Hacking", any kind of hacking that has
Ethics involved. That is, dealing with concepts on what is right or
wrong. These are personal viewpoints and I do believe the basis of these
attacks where on the belief that what amazon, mastercard e.a. where
doing was wrong and it was a protest to what they where doing. I such,
definitely an 'ethical' action. Independent on whether you think it was
wrong or right.

Now whether ddos'ing is a form a hacking I would find so much more
disputable. Perhaps 'digital activism' is a better term for it.


URL: http://blog.u2m.nl/
GPG-Key: 4096R/FCF154AE 2008-10-19 [expires: 2012-10-18]
Key fingerprint: 0506 976E 2346 53B4 A628  EC33 E23D 16EE FCF1 54AE
Key URL: https://hosting.puscii.nl/~webmind/webmind.asc

More information about the Discuss mailing list