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 469065
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Interesting
by Alfman on Tue 5th Apr 2011 05:36 UTC 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[4]: Interesting
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 5th Apr 2011 10:46 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

DDOS isn't same as protesting outside company store since people can still access those stores.


Have you ever seen a real protest or strike? They pretty much completely grind any form of business to a halt. In fact, a DDOS is far LESS destructive than a real-world protest, since it's a lot harder to deny people the right to stand in front of your store.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Interesting
by Alfman on Tue 5th Apr 2011 17:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Karitku,

"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."


I didn't even make that comparison, you just invented it.

I knew someone would misinterpret my post that way, which is why I even stated that up front. Of course I know that fighting racism on the streets is different than fighting sony's overreaching control...duh!

My point was that MLK strategies would probably include some form of DOS in today's digital age if it helped him get people to notice his cause. And to that end, you haven't really provided a valid rebuttal.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

RE[4]: Interesting
by Alfman on Wed 6th Apr 2011 01:06 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WereCatf,

"The point wasn't to disrupt anything in and of itself, it was merely a side-effect of it."

That is an interesting point.

In the minds of Anonymous members, was the DDOS against Sony users the ends in and of itself? Or was it the means to push for an ulterior outcome?

Reply Parent Score: 1