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."
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.
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.
I think they are trying to make the idea of "X fights Y's Fire with Fire" news.
Honestly, when people advocating Free Speech DDoS a site, they ARE inviting people to DDoS Sites on Free Speech. Regardless if you agree with the moral implications of either scenario - you have to admit it shouldn't be all that surprising.
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.
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.
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
Many don't realize that a DDOS hurts more then your target. Most places use external data centers. A really bad DDOS can bring down a data center then hit many other sources, which could be more vital information then a silly web page, saying stuff that people don't want to read.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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."
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).
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
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,
On a related note, no true bachelor is married.