"A broad "you can't refuse to provide services to anybody who demands it" ruling simply isn't sustainable."
yes? and? a company which uses sweatshop labour may not be breaking the local laws in the 3rd world country where they're doing buisness or breaking any contracts yet people still have every right to protest their actions. And depending where you live there can be a lot of limits to your right to refuse service. if you just refuse service to all black people or gay people you can end up in hot water in some places. if you refuse service without good justification in others you can also get in trouble.
Helping a forgien government pressure a journalistic organisation by proxy can attract a certain amount of ire in many places.
I don't see it as picketing, I see it as potentially just another form of non-violent protest. It's not that much of a strech. Sit-ins are also illegal yet they're also valid forms of protest.
Isn't the line: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
if the telcos broke the law and opened themselves up to liability, even through what you call a loophole (ie the laws actually working) then they should have known they were exposing themselves as such. They're the ones with the legal teams after all.
So they did something illegal(after someone, apparently without the authority to make it legal told them it was legal) at the governments request and then the government not only covered it's own ass but theirs as well. That damn well does deserve protests.
on scale I'm talking about? no no no good sir.that insanely high scale was the bar that you set. apparently the posibility of being banned in only one country wasn't good enough.
wikileaks was news. mastercard refusing to do buisness with them was a footnote that didn't even make it into most newspapers until Anon protested it.
So anyway. given your eariler insistence that you don't believe for one second that the icelandics regulator thing had anything to do with the anonymous protests please prove to the level which you personally would accept that the protests about employees rights at the turn of the century along with women's rights and civil rights were conclusively the result of those protests and not just something that happened to happen shortly after.
I just want to get an idea what you personally will accept as proof.
Is there anything at all that can be done online similar to picketing without being a full blockade?
If not then all-online companies become pretty much immune to anything except letter writing campaigns vs bricks and mortar companies which can be picketed or end up with people holding sit-ins.
perhaps a highly coordinated DDoS which switched on and off every 60 seconds....
oh absolutely. It's not a very effective form of protest unless it gets lots and lots of media attention.
I just get sick of all the idiots in this thread comparing it to firebombing/ram raiding the store because they want to make it sound scary.
it's a poor form of political protest but it is political protest non the less and an utterly non-violent form as no people or property are harmed in any way.
why not? without the protests getting it splashed across the front pages it would have stayed boring nerd news.
Right, so protesters shouldn't bother protesting anything unless it might cause the company involved to be banned from trading in a big country. check.
out of interest could you give me some examples of protests you think actually suceeded? I mean ones where they had more effect than possibly leading to the company possibly being banned from trading in an entire country and which you can conclusively prove where the actual cause.
I'd be interested in how you go about proving that your example protests were the causes of the changes in question since as far as I can see your claims are utterly unfalsifiable.
sure, most DDoS attacks do but unless these kids were botnet herders that isn't really an issue. I heard that some botnet got involved but again, not really an issue.
If you turn up to a protest you aren't automatically legally liable for the actions of some other person who shows up and throws rocks.
The anon protests used the LOIC software which is a volentary botnet.
which may lead to them no longer being allowed do buisness in an entire country. Without the Anon protests the issue wouldn't have hit the headlines and the politicians/regulators would almost certainly never heard of it.
well if it's work for the government then it's going to be considered as within the law by the government unless you get really unlucky and they want to shift the blame afterwards.
Great that as long as long as nobody is killed then anything is ok! right?
So I guess people also shouldn't protest about the warrentless wiretapping and the companies which helped and the government which afterwards declared the whole thing legal and gave the companies involved amnesty?
in the real world "oh we were able to make lots of money doing that" doesn't make all the protesters go away.
Which is an argument which could be used for pretty much any deplorable act by any company.
Bopal? well they had to answer to shareholders(translation, make lots of money) and have to do what they feel is best for the company! IBM helping a genocidal government?You don't know what kind of pressure they received !
well there was some article written by an american lawyer talking about the issue with a DDoS being that each individual step is perfectly legal: you have every right to send a SYN to the server and only in agregate does it lead to any kind of effect.
There's even a legit debate that it falls under "non-violent political protest" since it's done as a protest about a political issue in an utterly non-violent manner which does no physical damage to any property.
It's not taking over a computer or taking access to anything you aren't allowed access so while IANAL it might be somewhat hard to prosecute.
oh the poooooor mom and pop stores. perhaps they'll be more inclined to instead do buisness with companies which don't attract such... oh hey there's the point of the protest like any other.
any kind of protest will disrupt buisnesses in the local area or which rely on those which are being disrupted. Think they don't? tell that to the poor mom and pop store off a road blocked during any big protest.
Slashdot Mirror
sure but traditionally
"I intend to disrupt their buisness with non-violent actions to draw attention to their immoral activities"
is given more leeway than
"I intend to make them pay me money to make me stop doing this"
as far as intent goes and the latter is a more common use of DDoS attacks.
which is more than a little weak, online companies are effectively immune to most traditional forms of protest such as picketing or sit-ins.
You're pretty much stuck with letter writing campaigns and putting a sign on your own lawn.
A DDoS is closest to a sit-in in that respect. a sit in can also get you arrested but is considered a legitimate form of non-violent protest.
"A broad "you can't refuse to provide services to anybody who demands it" ruling simply isn't sustainable."
yes?
and?
a company which uses sweatshop labour may not be breaking the local laws in the 3rd world country where they're doing buisness or breaking any contracts yet people still have every right to protest their actions.
And depending where you live there can be a lot of limits to your right to refuse service.
if you just refuse service to all black people or gay people you can end up in hot water in some places.
if you refuse service without good justification in others you can also get in trouble.
Helping a forgien government pressure a journalistic organisation by proxy can attract a certain amount of ire in many places.
yes?
your point?
where did I say they shouldn't/didn't get arrested?
I'm only arguing that it's non-violent political protest and should be treated as such.
I don't see it as picketing, I see it as potentially just another form of non-violent protest.
It's not that much of a strech.
Sit-ins are also illegal yet they're also valid forms of protest.
Isn't the line: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
if the telcos broke the law and opened themselves up to liability, even through what you call a loophole (ie the laws actually working) then they should have known they were exposing themselves as such.
They're the ones with the legal teams after all.
So they did something illegal(after someone, apparently without the authority to make it legal told them it was legal) at the governments request and then the government not only covered it's own ass but theirs as well.
That damn well does deserve protests.
Correction: *the reforms in womens right, civil rights etc were the result of*
in those juristictions it must be really really easy to get any protesters you don't like arrested.
Pay someone cash to turn up with a firebomb and voila, all the protesters you want rid off get the blame.
Sure people get arrested for sit-ins but they're still considered a valid form of political protest.
I'm merely replying to any inane or rediculously over-dramatic posts about it.
(read,"throwing firebombs into Barclays ")
it's mere happenstance that you're creating more of those posts than anyone else in this thread.
on scale I'm talking about? no no no good sir.that insanely high scale was the bar that you set.
apparently the posibility of being banned in only one country wasn't good enough.
wikileaks was news. mastercard refusing to do buisness with them was a footnote that didn't even make it into most newspapers until Anon protested it.
So anyway. given your eariler insistence that you don't believe for one second that the icelandics regulator thing had anything to do with the anonymous protests please prove to the level which you personally would accept that the protests about employees rights at the turn of the century along with women's rights and civil rights were conclusively the result of those protests and not just something that happened to happen shortly after.
I just want to get an idea what you personally will accept as proof.
Is there anything at all that can be done online similar to picketing without being a full blockade?
If not then all-online companies become pretty much immune to anything except letter writing campaigns vs bricks and mortar companies which can be picketed or end up with people holding sit-ins.
perhaps a highly coordinated DDoS which switched on and off every 60 seconds....
oh absolutely.
It's not a very effective form of protest unless it gets lots and lots of media attention.
I just get sick of all the idiots in this thread comparing it to firebombing/ram raiding the store because they want to make it sound scary.
it's a poor form of political protest but it is political protest non the less and an utterly non-violent form as no people or property are harmed in any way.
and a DDoS is far far far towards the Kids with megaphones side of that scale.
nobody was hurt. no property was damaged. etc etc. utterly non violent.
and " blockade in front of the bank " has another name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in
Well the way they terminated the contract was shifty enough to get them hauled over the coals by the regulators in at least one country.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/
it got enough attention on the issue for this to happen:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/
without the protests mastercards involvement would have been nothing but dull boring nerd news and almost nobody would have heard about it.
why not? without the protests getting it splashed across the front pages it would have stayed boring nerd news.
Right, so protesters shouldn't bother protesting anything unless it might cause the company involved to be banned from trading in a big country. check.
out of interest could you give me some examples of protests you think actually suceeded?
I mean ones where they had more effect than possibly leading to the company possibly being banned from trading in an entire country and which you can conclusively prove where the actual cause.
I'd be interested in how you go about proving that your example protests were the causes of the changes in question since as far as I can see your claims are utterly unfalsifiable.
is getting a crowd of people together and sitting down blocking the entrance to a store an "attack"?
because that's pretty much what a DDoS in this context is.
sure, most DDoS attacks do but unless these kids were botnet herders that isn't really an issue.
I heard that some botnet got involved but again, not really an issue.
If you turn up to a protest you aren't automatically legally liable for the actions of some other person who shows up and throws rocks.
The anon protests used the LOIC software which is a volentary botnet.
Wow.
you really haven't been keeping up with the news.
it drew so much attention to the issue that in at least one country mastercard is being dragged over the coals by regulators.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/
which may lead to them no longer being allowed do buisness in an entire country.
Without the Anon protests the issue wouldn't have hit the headlines and the politicians/regulators would almost certainly never heard of it.
well if it's work for the government then it's going to be considered as within the law by the government unless you get really unlucky and they want to shift the blame afterwards.
Great that as long as long as nobody is killed then anything is ok! right?
So I guess people also shouldn't protest about the warrentless wiretapping and the companies which helped and the government which afterwards declared the whole thing legal and gave the companies involved amnesty?
in the real world "oh we were able to make lots of money doing that" doesn't make all the protesters go away.
Which is an argument which could be used for pretty much any deplorable act by any company.
Bopal? well they had to answer to shareholders(translation, make lots of money) and have to do what they feel is best for the company!
IBM helping a genocidal government?You don't know what kind of pressure they received !
etc etc etc
well there was some article written by an american lawyer talking about the issue with a DDoS being that each individual step is perfectly legal: you have every right to send a SYN to the server and only in agregate does it lead to any kind of effect.
There's even a legit debate that it falls under "non-violent political protest" since it's done as a protest about a political issue in an utterly non-violent manner which does no physical damage to any property.
It's not taking over a computer or taking access to anything you aren't allowed access so while IANAL it might be somewhat hard to prosecute.
I don't know about where you live but the protests had the effect most protests are supposed to have.
after the mastercard DoS the whole issue got splashed across most of the national papers here.
It got the issue media attention.
Also:Anon isn't known for defending their own.
oh the poooooor mom and pop stores.
perhaps they'll be more inclined to instead do buisness with companies which don't attract such... oh hey there's the point of the protest like any other.
any kind of protest will disrupt buisnesses in the local area or which rely on those which are being disrupted.
Think they don't?
tell that to the poor mom and pop store off a road blocked during any big protest.
which would make sense if they actually silenced them.
they disrupted their buisness, which is pretty much the point of any non-violent protest against a buisness and it's practices.