is it perhaps time to take a more firm stance against the mpaa in the form of denial of service attacks ?
active versus passive resistance
is it reasonable to use force to oppose an injustice which is greater than the attack? unjustified shutting down of websites through denial of service is surely unethical. however this is not the case, making an active protest in response to a greater crime is surely justified. it follows that since there is a real concern, we should protest in the most effective ways possible. and that passive resistance might be shunning responsibility. this particular situation, in which a doubtfully criminal activity was stomped by the mpaa's abuse of power, demands a swift and brutal punishment in return.
ethical questions.
you own the internet. neither the big corporations nor government should have iron fist control over the internet. it is first and foremost community run and owned. since there is no firm authority over the internet power lies in the hands of its users, should they chose to wield it. the companies connecting to the internet should be forced to obey the common reasonable unwritten rules which place privacy and rights of the individual at the uppermost tier. since they are connecting to our network and not obeying our rules they must be forced into compliance with the community. otherwise everything worthwhile about the net will go to the dogs. by this i mean the free exchange of ideas between mature adults, without interference or censorship. we cannot allow our network to be overrun. if ignorance prevails, eventually it will be.
everyone of us should question our own ethics and the laws of our soceity. one of the most important human characteristics is our reasoning ability. every individual should decide what he thinks is right based on careful consideration and discussion with others. we should not blindly follow the laws of our particular soceity if they are bad laws - laws which enable individual freedoms to be ridiculously restricted by government or corporation. we shouldnt be afraid to fight for what we think is right, as long as we have carefully considered the situation and arrived at a reasonable conclusion.
think of a dos attack analogous to a street protest. with enough participation, in perfectly legal ways, traffic can be stopped, or access to certain places hindered. the action often inconveniences others but this cost must be outlayed in order for the effect to increase. imagine the message sent by shutting down mpaa websites for a day and continuing to do so until lawsuits against DeCSS are dropped entirely.
we are responsible if the community doesnt act to protect what it values.
getting caught.
the adage safety in numbers holds true for launching a denial of service attack. an enormous amount of traffic to a site would be generated from large numbers of individual untargetable users all over the internet. furthermore, it is impossible to counter a large diversified attack. unlike a street protest, it will be much harder for individual protesters to be nabbed and made examples of. in the unlikely case a single user is targetted for prosecution the amount of traffic they generated couldnt be construed as damaging to the site. united we stand...separate we do little.
dispelling the myths.
there is no big brother in government or in industry. after all, these organisations are staffed and run by individuals. there is no evil sentient being with an hidden agenda for the world. what happens however is that the majority of people blindly support organisations which may undermine more valuable rights. the organisations continue to exist because of their popular support. think of the average consumer. they are a complete product of their environment. the world arrived in the situation where advertising and money rule supreme. how this occured is fairly incidental, suffice to say that it has occured. we now grow up in soceity where it is expected of us to spend as much money as possible and to make as much money as possible irrespective of the cost to the environment, other people and even ourselves. the world isnt a bad place, but if enough people stop trying to make improvements it will rapidly become one. we must reverse the downward spiral before the situation becomes unbearable.
the situation must not be oversimplified. it is naive to think there is a distinct evil foe, and even worse to think that somewhere there are some righteous protectors of justice which will step in when things get too terrible. the onus is on us to do what we can. in this case, there are particular targets because it is the corporations who are clearly bringing forth legal action. it appears that the extreme police proceedings are a result of pressure from the mpaa also.
Slashdot Mirror
is it perhaps time to take a more firm stance against the mpaa in the form of denial of service attacks ?
active versus passive resistance
is it reasonable to use force to oppose an injustice which is greater than the attack? unjustified shutting down of websites through denial of service is surely unethical. however this is not the case, making an active protest in response to a greater crime is surely justified. it follows that since there is a real concern, we should protest in the most effective ways possible. and that passive resistance might be shunning responsibility. this particular situation, in which a doubtfully criminal activity was stomped by the mpaa's abuse of power, demands a swift and brutal punishment in return.
ethical questions.
you own the internet. neither the big corporations nor government should have iron fist control over the internet. it is first and foremost community run and owned. since there is no firm authority over the internet power lies in the hands of its users, should they chose to wield it. the companies connecting to the internet should be forced to obey the common reasonable unwritten rules which place privacy and rights of the individual at the uppermost tier. since they are connecting to our network and not obeying our rules they must be forced into compliance with the community. otherwise everything worthwhile about the net will go to the dogs. by this i mean the free exchange of ideas between mature adults, without interference or censorship. we cannot allow our network to be overrun. if ignorance prevails, eventually it will be.
everyone of us should question our own ethics and the laws of our soceity. one of the most important human characteristics is our reasoning ability. every individual should decide what he thinks is right based on careful consideration and discussion with others. we should not blindly follow the laws of our particular soceity if they are bad laws - laws which enable individual freedoms to be ridiculously restricted by government or corporation. we shouldnt be afraid to fight for what we think is right, as long as we have carefully considered the situation and arrived at a reasonable conclusion.
think of a dos attack analogous to a street protest. with enough participation, in perfectly legal ways, traffic can be stopped, or access to certain places hindered. the action often inconveniences others but this cost must be outlayed in order for the effect to increase. imagine the message sent by shutting down mpaa websites for a day and continuing to do so until lawsuits against DeCSS are dropped entirely.
we are responsible if the community doesnt act to protect what it values.
getting caught.
the adage safety in numbers holds true for launching a denial of service attack. an enormous amount of traffic to a site would be generated from large numbers of individual untargetable users all over the internet. furthermore, it is impossible to counter a large diversified attack. unlike a street protest, it will be much harder for individual protesters to be nabbed and made examples of. in the unlikely case a single user is targetted for prosecution the amount of traffic they generated couldnt be construed as damaging to the site. united we stand...separate we do little.
dispelling the myths.
there is no big brother in government or in industry. after all, these organisations are staffed and run by individuals. there is no evil sentient being with an hidden agenda for the world. what happens however is that the majority of people blindly support organisations which may undermine more valuable rights. the organisations continue to exist because of their popular support. think of the average consumer. they are a complete product of their environment. the world arrived in the situation where advertising and money rule supreme. how this occured is fairly incidental, suffice to say that it has occured. we now grow up in soceity where it is expected of us to spend as much money as possible and to make as much money as possible irrespective of the cost to the environment, other people and even ourselves. the world isnt a bad place, but if enough people stop trying to make improvements it will rapidly become one. we must reverse the downward spiral before the situation becomes unbearable.
the situation must not be oversimplified. it is naive to think there is a distinct evil foe, and even worse to think that somewhere there are some righteous protectors of justice which will step in when things get too terrible. the onus is on us to do what we can. in this case, there are particular targets because it is the corporations who are clearly bringing forth legal action. it appears that the extreme police proceedings are a result of pressure from the mpaa also.