Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds DDoS Attacks Threaten Human Rights
CWmike writes "A new study warned this week that DDoS attacks launched against sites run by human rights and dissident media groups threaten to knock free speech off the Web. The study, conducted by Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, showed that such attacks frequently knocked such sites offline. Of the sites surveyed by the center, 62% were victimized by DDoS attacks in the last 12 months, and 61% experienced unexplained downtime."
Preventing people from accessing a web site prevents other people from reading the content of said site.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
There was no study when Georgia (the country, not the US state) was DDoSed during a "dispute" with another country that's gonna remain unnamed for now. Well, maybe because you just don't piss on countries with almost as many nukes as the US.
There was no study when the Iranian government was DDoSed during the 2009 elections, pretty much kicking the Iran off the web. But I guess that's ok, they're "evil" after all, right?
There was no study when wikileaks was under a DDoS just a month ago, probably because they are now evil too (I watch too much Fox, I admit it).
But suddenly, when companies come under a DDoS that terminated business and froze funds of an organization that fights FOR more transparency and freedom of information, a DDoS becomes an attack on the freedom of speech.
Doubleplusgood timing!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As we've learned with the recent round of attacks in the news, the effects are brief and leave no long-term impact on the targets.
The threat to free speech isn't DDoS, it's censorship.
Boo hoo. You had me and then you lost me.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Neither link meets definition of a DDoS attack. By definition, a DDoS attack is a third party forcing you to deny service by overloading your server. That's entirely different than an organization voluntarily deciding to not do business with a group.
So DDoS'ing visa.com affects human rights? This did not mess up their back end systems for processing transactions or anything. All that happened was that people could not access the front-end, but it effected human rights? Fail post is good at posting fail articles
The world is how you make it
DDOS is a form of free speech, just like a lunch counter sit-in. Yes, they take some sites off line for a bit, but they're always back. As long as you're not using an illegally obtained bot-net, you are merely exercising your normal rights as a user of the internet. You're just requesting content, just like the rest of your 10,000 friends.
Sure, the people doing a DDOS could get their own website to get their message out. But who would view it? A DDOS sends a message that can't be ignored.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What is censorship but a DoS, a denial-of-service? Ok, it's centralized, I give you that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A denial of service attack means launching junk traffic at a site to temporarily monopolize its serving capacity and thus deny the service to legitimate users; the service can resume as soon as the cannons stop firing.
Censorship means using force to permanently remove suppress something as a means of dictating what is and isn't allowed.
Not unless stopping someone from speaking is free speech. If you are standing at a podium, speaking your mind, and I rush you and duct tape your mouth shut is that free speech? I think you'd have to agree no. Even though it can be argued to express an idea (that being that I don't like what you are saying) the effect is to silence you, not to counter your voice with my own.
Shutting down someone for saying something you don't like isn't free speech.
Um, what human rights groups are being assaulted by DDoS attacks? The article mentions only a few groups, and the closest things to human rights groups in that list are a Vietnamese environmental protest group and a Russian independent newspaper. And honestly, I can think of a dozen things off the top of my head that could get a group DDoS'd when dealing with Russia.
So I went and skimmed the actual report discussed by the article. (No, I didn't read all 66 pages of it.) It doesn't seem to reference any groups other than those mentioned in the article.
I have no doubt that DDoS attacks can be a threat to human rights sites, but so far I don't see any.
And I am having a hard time avoiding the conclusion that the article is deliberately conflating the pro-WikiLeaks attacks with attacks on "human rights."
The Internet is full. Go away.
Most importantly, it's not distributed.
That's a very narrow definition of denial of service attacks, and not usually used in security circles. The class of denials of service attacks is usually assumed to include every attack that, well, denies you the opportunity to use a service. That would include blowing up a transformer that is instrumental to providing power to the service that you're trying to consume, or setting the server room on fire and burning down the servers, which may well contain the only copy of the service they're hosting if the admins are particularly stupid.
Denial of service attacks don't necessarily temporarily deny access to the service, it can absolutely be permanent.
The public reaction to the most recent DDoS activities is far more alarming than the DDoSes themselves. Sure, people are trying to silence speech they do not agree with, but the fact that they are successful means these sites need the attention of a network/infrastructure admin, not the media. Once these attacks become irrelevant, they will stop, along with the sensationalist media that has accompanied them. I might be wrong, but I think all this media coverage has just made the problem worse.
first, wall street journal asks whether do we REALLY need net neutrality, then, harvard puts out that the reaction of THE PEOPLE against the control mechanisms of established wealthy, are stifling 'free speech'.
apparently, the censorship that has been tried to effect by visa, mc, paypal, amazon, banks, american government, is not stifling free speech. but, the reaction AGAINST it, is. the VERY people that are supposed to have free speech, are being restricted, and when they react to it adversely and fiercely, it becomes 'stifling free speech'.
you gotta love corporate capitalism. even science works in your way, through connections and donations.
Read radical news here
Maybe he was just stating a fact. He did say "Its not DDoS" after all.
Censorship is not permanent. It only feels that way since it usually lasts for more than a few days. This is the main difference to a DoS, which usually lasts only a very brief time compared to a censorship law. But if censorship was permanent, a lot of things could not be discussed in most of Europe.
The difference is mainly that the actor is a different one. Censorship is usually installed by some kind of governing body, be it an actual government telling what its citizens may or may not see, a church saying what its parishioners may or may not view or parents doing it for their kids.
A DoS is usually executed by a person or group without governing power, to protest against something or to demonstrate.
The result is the same: Both temporarily disallow the use of a certain resource.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Humans are a threat to human rights.
Now stop trying to seize control of my thrice-damned Internets, you fascist bastards.
About 2 things. They don't see the difference between action and reaction. That, and I'm worried, who the hell is that Dr. A. Hitler?
The threat to free speech isn't DDoS, it's censorship.
And a greater threat is self-censorship !
the mere title of that article, proposing that ddos attacks threaten human rights, will be used by right wing press to actually effect that propaganda. period.
Read radical news here
DDoS attacks at sites working against WikiLeaks rather strengthen human rights.
Slightly off topic though. (And no, I didn't RTFA.)
I agree with you that DoS can be against freedom of speech, but the fact that censorship is applied by the government makes a huge difference in several ways. First, with censorship not only you are disallowed of using certain resource (like publishing a web or book), but you are also disallowed of *expressing* the idea in any way. Then, the state has the monopoly of violence, and if you disobey a law they can ultimately use that violence on you ( by putting you in jail, for instance), while an unsuccessful DoS attacker can only resign him/herself.
It's all in the hands and heart of the user. When the user is a government who controls a botnet the likes of which any casual bot herder could only dream of, then yes, it can be a threat to human rights (and a lot of other things, too).
They are actually DoS by the traditional meaning of the term.
Mastercard is denying service to Wikileaks. Not a actual internet attack but same effect.
I mean really, how can a study find anything about human rights? It can't even be conclusively said that human rights exist, and even if you believe in them (which I do), it's still questionable what constitutes as a right and what doesn't. Are they talking about negative rights, positive right? It could be argued that one has a right to DDoS a website. Analogy: If a man is speaking in the street, saying things I disagree with, do I not have the right to speak louder than he is, thus drowning him out and suppressing his right to speech? Where does his right to speech trump mine? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure one could legitimately argue either way. Rights are such a vague thing, and to be so conclusive about them is pretentious and ignorant. What sensational FUD.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
With the FCC passing a law (no wait, they can't) but they wrote it and congress may reprint it, DDoS is no longer important. The government will do it for us.
We win together or suffer without.
I am weary of people saying "well, just don't do business with them and the problem will go away like magic". These companies form alliances with their fiercest competitors to make sure that people outside their career field have as little say in what they do as possible.
It won't work on ISPs--switching from Comcast to AT&T won't help much.
It won't work on film makers (I'll just refuse to watch Universal Pictures because they are part of the MPAA! I'll just watch Warner Brothers films instead instead! Oh wait...) It won't work on governments and chemical companies (as you've pointed out).
Since this was not an actual statistical survey you cannot extrapolate the findings to mean anything other than the 62% of the sites they got to talk with them had problems (as stated in the article). Now I understand that it might be difficult to get a statistical sample because sites may not want to participate, but that doesn't make this a valid report. Actually, it is worse than valid, because it implies a problem exists without any real evidence to support it. I would have expected more from Harvard. Surely they still teach statistics and sampling techniques there.
How many "DDoS attacks" were in reality too many real people trying to hit the site.
I have to question the methodology of the "study". Of the 300 sites contacted only 45 wanted to talk. Of those 45 only 28 confirmed having been DDosed. Maybe the wanted to talk because they had been DDoSed thereby skewing the results in favour of a sensationalist article. I believe the statistics should be stated as at least 28 out of 300, or 10%, of sites contacted reported DDoS attacks; because that is all they have shown. Ten percent does not make as good a headline as 62%. The real number is probably somewhere between 10% and 62%.
very well said. some people seem to have 'belief'. belief doesnt use logic. they just put their trust in the system, despite the system had always acted to the contrary before, and despite the participants and major players of the system are actually saying that they ARE going to act to the contrary, and against people's freedoms. some people still dont believe they will be able to do that. they ARE able to do that, they have the means, they have the control, they are even buying laws. yet, some people still believe 'everything will work out okay'. because ? well, just 'because' ... against logic and reason, it will just 'work out'. i see it no different than a belief in a religion. they just believe.
Read radical news here
It's not a true textbook example...
Are we really having this discussion, many christian groups have been caught trying to destroy freedom and secular ideas manually. Their DDoS attacks are people literally banding together in groups to massively just continuously refreshing sites and trying to bring them down, just like they did on that site, what was it, digger? where they burried all stories that weren't extremely pro-religious zeleot in nature. They are all, and have always been, fighting freedom and knowledge in every way possible.
Now this, this load of bull is just trying to take that fact, and relabel all other DDoS attacks, including those to preserve or gain the freedom of speech by waging attacks on those who seek to destroy it. Amazing how hard those bastards will try to make everything against them turn into something against everybody. Hell, amazing what an infinite budget and a bunch of sick bastards can get done, am I right or what?
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
Reading the article I did not see any comparison between the frequency of attacks against human rights groups and other politically active or high profile services. My employer has been hit by countless DOS attacks during the last year, and it's not a freedom of speech thing (actually I don't know what the motivation was most of the time). I do believe there will be a greater likelihood of having some human rights sites taken down in a ddos as they won't have a very advanced infrastructure behind the site, but are they actually attacked more then commercial sites?
What? I'm not an AC. I'm logged in. I'm a karma whore. And I just posted:
*
If Berkman donated 1% of its operation budget to maintain hosting for these (so-called) "free speech" issues, there would not be a problem. There's no news here, other than the political ridiculousness of Harvard's liberal whine.
On a related note, no true bachelor is married.
No shirt, no shoes, DoS.