British Spies Wage DDoS War On Anonymous, LulzSec

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Parnage:

dumbseizure:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.

I'm willing to be stripped search in an airport just in case it stops a terrorist group.

I'm willing to be monitored online 24/7 by intelligence agencies just in case I do something illegal.

I'm willing to be attacked by my own government in DDoS attacks in the off chance they stop people I find annoying.

I'm willing to trust the government to do the right thing because the government has never done wrong and are well known for stepping back if the population feels they've gone too far.

Do you see how scary you sound? I don't even have to bring up stuff like shutting down groups I disagree with because I find them annoying or corruption and misuse of this kind of power.

At what point is it not okay for you?

Seriously, what the fuck is with you people and pushing 1 point to an extreme.

Am I fine with this DDos? yes.

Strip searches in airports? No, but i'm fine with what they currently have going.

Monitored online? er no.

Any-fucking-thing else you wanna say?

Just because I agree with this doesn't mean I am for the government doing all of that.

And no, I don't sound scary cause I didn't fucking say half of what you said I implied, what I am noticing is how stupid you are for taking one point I said and running half a fucking mile with it though.

Gilhelmi:
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.

This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.

CardinalPiggles:

First of all, yes the law is above the law derpy, otherwise how could ambulances speed towards a dying person to try to save his life, how could police officers shoot dangerous criminals, and how could fire fighters speed towards a burning building to try to save lives/buildings.

Secondly, fighting fire with fire is a metaphor. Being attacked is all these hackers understand. Creating more defenses is just like extending the obstacle course for these people. They see it as a challenge to be overcome. And besides, Thunder's tactic was DDoSing crappy chat rooms, whereas these hackers were DDoSing government websites. Slight difference there, not exactly the napalm attack you were getting at now is it.

There is a line that could quite easily be crossed here, but I don't believe Thunder has crossed it yet.

No they are not above the law. ambulances CAN NOT speed above the speed limit in ANY CASE. what they can do is ifnore traffic lights, and that is written specifically in the law itself btw. the law also gives exception to police officers speeding when in chase of criminal. this is written in the law and the officers are not above it. This is why we got units meant to investigate of police follow the law themselves.

It is a metaphor, however it is only as good as an eye for an eye. you know, the metaphor that leaves everyone blind.
There is no defence agaisnt DDoS. there are only 3 ways to deal with DDoS.
1. arrest the DDoSers - the legal way.
2. Have your server more powerful than the DDoSers units power - the ignoring way,
3. DDoS them back - the illegal way that is as bad as the DDoS itself.

It does not matter what website you are DDoSing, it is still illegal unless you are in Germany, where is is considered a legal form of protest. As suck Drooling Thunder should be held accountable for their crimes just as well as anonymous should. Said chat rooms were probably hosted on a multi-chatroom server that hosted thousands of cahtrooms and the DDoS did more actual damage than the government sites being down for a few hours. but of course her derp as lnog as government site noone visits is down its massive damage.

Thunder has crossed the line the moment it has decided to break the law.

omega 616:
I also believe that the government should be totally transparent and any corruption dealt with in a very serious way ... also a fan of sortition.

We would get along i think :)

dumbseizure:

Just because I agree with this doesn't mean I am for the government doing all of that.

And no, I don't sound scary cause I didn't fucking say half of what you said I implied, what I am noticing is how stupid you are for taking one point I said and running half a fucking mile with it though.

So you both agree and are against it? how does that make sense?
you basically said you agree with removal of a faction just because you find it annoying. This is as scary as KKK speeches.

dumbseizure:

Parnage:

dumbseizure:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.

I'm willing to be stripped search in an airport just in case it stops a terrorist group.

I'm willing to be monitored online 24/7 by intelligence agencies just in case I do something illegal.

I'm willing to be attacked by my own government in DDoS attacks in the off chance they stop people I find annoying.

I'm willing to trust the government to do the right thing because the government has never done wrong and are well known for stepping back if the population feels they've gone too far.

Do you see how scary you sound? I don't even have to bring up stuff like shutting down groups I disagree with because I find them annoying or corruption and misuse of this kind of power.

At what point is it not okay for you?

Seriously, what the fuck is with you people and pushing 1 point to an extreme.

Am I fine with this DDos? yes.

Strip searches in airports? No, but i'm fine with what they currently have going.

Monitored online? er no.

Any-fucking-thing else you wanna say?

Just because I agree with this doesn't mean I am for the government doing all of that.

And no, I don't sound scary cause I didn't fucking say half of what you said I implied, what I am noticing is how stupid you are for taking one point I said and running half a fucking mile with it though.

Well that's just it isn't it? Before nobody was happy that the government would use a mass attack affecting others for just once group, but they're all ok with it now, because a small group of people I don't like got hit by it too!

Monitored online? Guess what, that already happens. NSA is an American thing but you'd be silly to think that the government doesn't have a section of their branch to monitor web use. I should know, I was going to apply for that position, it pays well.

Strip searches in airports? They have machines that show you naked already. The only difference is now you don't need to take your clothes off for them to see you naked.

At this point you just seem really misinformed.

Strazdas:

Gilhelmi:
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.

This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.

An opposing faction that happens to do things that are arguably immoral and definitely illegal in pursuit of their political goals. Free speech does not legitimize illegal actions, no matter how much some would like it to.

General Winter:

Strazdas:

Gilhelmi:
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.

This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.

An opposing faction that happens to do things that are arguably immoral and definitely illegal in pursuit of their political goals. Free speech does not legitimize illegal actions, no matter how much some would like it to.

Morality is personal and as such should not be used to justify anything.
That faction does soemthing that is illegal. therefore to stop them from doing something illegal the police does the exact same illegal thing. Its like if in order to stop a thief you would rob his house. this only makes you a thief as well and in my way helps us lower amount of thievery. if anything, your neighboars see you got rich and got away free so they will steal from someone they dont like as well.
Illegal actions should be stopped by legal actions. its why we have laws, you know.

Strazdas:

General Winter:

Strazdas:

This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.

An opposing faction that happens to do things that are arguably immoral and definitely illegal in pursuit of their political goals. Free speech does not legitimize illegal actions, no matter how much some would like it to.

Morality is personal and as such should not be used to justify anything.
That faction does soemthing that is illegal. therefore to stop them from doing something illegal the police does the exact same illegal thing. Its like if in order to stop a thief you would rob his house. this only makes you a thief as well and in my way helps us lower amount of thievery. if anything, your neighboars see you got rich and got away free so they will steal from someone they dont like as well.
Illegal actions should be stopped by legal actions. its why we have laws, you know.

Police kill. Sometimes they must, to keep others safe.
Police steal from thieves. Otherwise, thieves would keep owning the property they stole and justice would not be served.
If a criminal goes over the speed limit, the police are obligated to speed up to catch them.

Sometimes, that's just the job.

General Winter:

Strazdas:

General Winter:

An opposing faction that happens to do things that are arguably immoral and definitely illegal in pursuit of their political goals. Free speech does not legitimize illegal actions, no matter how much some would like it to.

Morality is personal and as such should not be used to justify anything.
That faction does soemthing that is illegal. therefore to stop them from doing something illegal the police does the exact same illegal thing. Its like if in order to stop a thief you would rob his house. this only makes you a thief as well and in my way helps us lower amount of thievery. if anything, your neighboars see you got rich and got away free so they will steal from someone they dont like as well.
Illegal actions should be stopped by legal actions. its why we have laws, you know.

Police kill. Sometimes they must, to keep others safe.
Police steal from thieves. Otherwise, thieves would keep owning the property they stole and justice would not be served.
If a criminal goes over the speed limit, the police are obligated to speed up to catch them.

Sometimes, that's just the job.

No.
Police kill as a means of self defence or defence of other civilians. Such act is defined by law and regulation. This case is not comparible, because anonymous posed no immediate danger to anyone talking among themselves in a chat they own.
Police does not steal (lets ignore corrupt police for this). Stolen property is confiscated if it was proven to be stolen. If not, the thieves get to keep the property. The closest you can get to police stealing is police writing you a fine, esentially taking money away from you.
I have already adressed speeding in a chase.

The difference between your examples and what happenned is that in your examples police does legal actions that are defined in rules and regulations, whereas in the news story police did illegal action equal to that the criminal made. It was thier job to arrest the annonymous, not to DDoS them.

Strazdas:

General Winter:

Strazdas:

Morality is personal and as such should not be used to justify anything.
That faction does soemthing that is illegal. therefore to stop them from doing something illegal the police does the exact same illegal thing. Its like if in order to stop a thief you would rob his house. this only makes you a thief as well and in my way helps us lower amount of thievery. if anything, your neighboars see you got rich and got away free so they will steal from someone they dont like as well.
Illegal actions should be stopped by legal actions. its why we have laws, you know.

Police kill. Sometimes they must, to keep others safe.
Police steal from thieves. Otherwise, thieves would keep owning the property they stole and justice would not be served.
If a criminal goes over the speed limit, the police are obligated to speed up to catch them.

Sometimes, that's just the job.

No.
Police kill as a means of self defence or defence of other civilians. Such act is defined by law and regulation. This case is not comparible, because anonymous posed no immediate danger to anyone talking among themselves in a chat they own.
Police does not steal (lets ignore corrupt police for this). Stolen property is confiscated if it was proven to be stolen. If not, the thieves get to keep the property. The closest you can get to police stealing is police writing you a fine, esentially taking money away from you.
I have already adressed speeding in a chase.

The difference between your examples and what happenned is that in your examples police does legal actions that are defined in rules and regulations, whereas in the news story police did illegal action equal to that the criminal made. It was thier job to arrest the annonymous, not to DDoS them.

Its not easy to catch criminals on the internet when there's absolutely no legislation on the issue. That's not the police's fault, that's not anonymous' fault, but in the end, the police are doing what they had to do to catch an illegal group.

General Winter:

Its not easy to catch criminals on the internet when there's absolutely no legislation on the issue. That's not the police's fault, that's not anonymous' fault, but in the end, the police are doing what they had to do to catch an illegal group.

I agree, however that does not mean that police should take illegal mob vigilante tactics.

Sounds like a huge breach of people's rights. Fantastic. So their plan to fight against Anonymous....is to validate every single one of their concerns about a government-regulated internet by strong-arming their law-abiding citizens?

Nimcha:
fight fire with fire.

CardinalPiggles:
Fight fire with fire.

People who make this statement forget how little sense it makes from a literal standpoint. Fire *can't* fight fire. It can only increase the amount of flames in one place and burn everything and everyone around them.

And I know what you're going to say: "Well, what about when firefighters use controlled burns to stop a forest fire?"

And to that I say this: You do realize that controlled burns don't actually stop the fire, right? They work by burning up all of the fuel ahead of the forest fire so that when the fire reaches that point, it has nowhere to go and can be allowed to burn out. However, this technique is highly dangerous (as it could start a second forest fire), is impractical in many cases (like when the brush is too dry for the fire to be controlled), and only "stops" the forest fire by virtue of allowing it to burn everything and everyone up to a certain designated spot. So it's essentially sacrificing that part of the forest in the hopes that it will be stopped at that point.

So if we apply that to the internet....yeah, you can see where this analogy is leading, and it's nowhere good for you and me.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here