Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Feb 2011 10:45 UTC
Internet & Networking Absolutely fantastic article over at Ars about a guy trying to hunt down Anonymous - which cost him and his company dearly. "Aaron Barr believed he had penetrated Anonymous. The loose hacker collective had been responsible for everything from anti-Scientology protests to pro-Wikileaks attacks on MasterCard and Visa, and the FBI was now after them. But matching their online identities to real-world names and locations proved daunting. Barr found a way to crack the code. [...] But had he?" A comment to the article says it best: "Personally, I'm rooting for Anonymous. I may not care for their attitude or their methods sometimes, but I think a little fear and caution on the worst excesses of those who would impair our rights is good thing." Governments and companies should fear the people - not the other way around.
Thread beginning with comment 461804
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Governments
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 10th Feb 2011 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Governments "
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's akin to real-world protests, like blockades of factories or government buildings and such. Perfectly allowed, and a key power of the people in ensuring their well-being. I see no reason why real-world protests should be accepted and protected by law, while digital protests are not.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Governments
by Brendan on Thu 10th Feb 2011 15:13 in reply to "RE[4]: Governments "
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

It's akin to real-world protests, like blockades of factories or government buildings and such. Perfectly allowed, and a key power of the people in ensuring their well-being. I see no reason why real-world protests should be accepted and protected by law, while digital protests are not.


While there's special provisions for real-world protests, there's also special provisions to ensure real-world protests don't (for e.g.) block access to people going into premises. For example, if you're protesting against ice-cream then you can stand on the footpath/pavement yelling and holding signs outside an ice-cream shop, but you can't prevent potential customers from going into that ice-cream shop.

While there could be special provisions for digital protests, there should be special provisions to ensure digital protests don't block access to people going to web sites. For example, if you're protesting against ice-cream then you can put up your own "No ice-cream" web sites, YouTube videos, articles, etc all over the place, but you can't prevent people from going to an online ice-cream shop.

Note: I don't see the need for special provisions for (the non-DDoS form of) digital protests - it's already covered under "freedom of speech".

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Governments
by roverrobot on Thu 10th Feb 2011 20:21 in reply to "RE[5]: Governments "
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

While there could be special provisions for digital protests, there should be special provisions to ensure digital protests don't block access to people going to web sites. For example, if you're protesting against ice-cream then you can put up your own "No ice-cream" web sites, YouTube videos, articles, etc all over the place, but you can't prevent people from going to an online ice-cream shop.

No, your example would be analogous to protesting in San Francisco while you want to educate people to go into a specific ice-cream shop in New York. A more proper example would be allowing the deface a website yet leaving a link in an obvious place on the page to the original page, so that everyone walking into the ice-cream shop can see your sign, but they can still enter it.

Reply Parent Score: 1