Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:07 UTC
Legal "The hacker hordes of Anonymous have transferred their fickle attention to Sony. They are currently attacking the company's online Playstation store in retribution for Sony's lawsuit against PS3 hacker George Hotz. A denial of service attack has temporarily taken down playstation.com."
Thread beginning with comment 469041
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Interesting
by WereCatf on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:35 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

But apparently they still have the fire power to take down target used to multi million simultaneous visitors.[/quote]

It actually doesn't require all that much. It's the amount of small packets from many different IP addresses that cause congestion and is actually surprisingly easy to do. A few hundred PCs is enough, and there's apparently atleast 550 people on Anon IRC channel.

[q]But at the same time, like it or not, they do defend peoples interest against abusive corporate power


By blocking legitimate users from accessing services they're paying for? Nope, that logic doesn't fly.

those ... dumb kids ... with no better idea and/or an appetite for visibility?


Indeed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting
by Elv13 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 05:04 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Well, it make the news and make issue more visible outside of the deep geek-o-sphere, for what it worth.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting
by Alfman on Tue 5th Apr 2011 05:36 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Elv13,
"But at the same time, like it or not, they do defend peoples interest against abusive corporate power"

WereCatf,
"By blocking legitimate users from accessing services they're paying for? Nope, that logic doesn't fly."



Well, in a Martin Luther King type of way, it actually does make some sense.

(Please don't misinterpret this comment as suggesting that taking arms against Sony has the same merit as fighting racism.)

Hypothetically, MLK probably would condone DOS attacks too if they helped his cause.

It's true a DOS blocks "legitimate users", just like MLK's human roadblocks, standins, sitins, etc interfere with public activities. For him, it was a way to send a message, peacefully. He could not fight the oppressors directly, he was powerless that way. He fought by forcing others to get involved.

Edited 2011-04-05 05:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Interesting
by Karitku on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Comparing Anonymous to Martin Luther King makes me just sick. Firstly King never hide his face, quite opposite he gave himself as example of fight against racism. King fought against goverment legistation, anonymous is just bullying company that has all rights to sue Hotz. Besides King was fighting goverment which isn't same as private enterprise. DDOS isn't same as protesting outside company store since people can still access those stores.

Edited 2011-04-05 09:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Interesting
by WereCatf on Wed 6th Apr 2011 00:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well, in a Martin Luther King type of way, it actually does make some sense.

(Please don't misinterpret this comment as suggesting that taking arms against Sony has the same merit as fighting racism.)

Hypothetically, MLK probably would condone DOS attacks too if they helped his cause.

It's true a DOS blocks "legitimate users", just like MLK's human roadblocks, standins, sitins, etc interfere with public activities. For him, it was a way to send a message, peacefully. He could not fight the oppressors directly, he was powerless that way. He fought by forcing others to get involved.


I don't quite believe your argument. MLK's whole intention was to give all those oppressed people real, tangible faces for people to see and to force them to interact with all those people they oppress. The point wasn't to disrupt anything in and of itself, it was merely a side-effect of it. And even then, it was local; it didn't effect any other countries or their residents who can't affect the outcome anyways.

Now, Anonymous's whole point was indeed to disrupt usage and it affects people all around the world, including those who can't do anything about it anyways. And all this while never showing their faces or come out in the open to actually interact with people face-to-face.

I really don't think they're comparable in the least.

Reply Parent Score: 2