That would be OK, but the quid pro quo is that the rest of the web should not be putting the personal details of private individuals in their windows. If they go doing that they would be foolish not to expect people to break their windows in protest.
Basic definition includes violence or threat of violence as far as I can see. Clicking websites doesn't count in my definition, nor most people's I suspect. In Testra's case I think there is probably fear, but nothing much to do with any 'reprisals'. I suspect their fear is that they would damage their brand through a stupid decision to do something that most of their customers and many other people internationally would view very negatively. It's convenient for them to blame an external third party rather than admit their obvious mistake of listening to political lobbyists rather than their customers.
Noone got injured or suffered any violence of any kind, (with the possible exception of Ryan, we don't know yet). Get over these stupid violence/stealing/terrorism analogies, they are irrelevant and designed to make all this sound worse than it was.
I think you might need to throw a bucket of cold water over your head and then get some perspective. Terrorists are people with guns, knives, explosives, or other life-threatening weapons, who cause actual bodily harm or death to civilians in pursuit of political or financial objectives. People in basements who click websites for a laugh are about a million miles away from instilling any kind of terror.
For a business to make a sensible u-turn because they realise they will piss off large portions of their customer base and wider society at large, thus damaging their brand, has nothing to do with terrorism and more to do with good business.
Once dox relating to the internals of the filtering machinery are leaked, I would imagine someone will figure out how to cure the cancer by disabling the filtering machinery. Like everything, it's bound to have some weak points making it vulnerable to being compromised one way or another. Unfortunately, disabling the filter might involve disabling the ISP's routing altogether. I guess these ISPs must have already built into their business models that they are painting giant targets for international protest action against them, and are ready to lose customers, handle complaints, and clean up the mess after the inevitable backlash.
If you look in China, Iran, Syria, and numerous other parts of the world you can probably find plenty of people. There is only one internet, so making the argument that you don't know anyone who needs anonymity is spurious. If someone needs anonymity on the internet, then the internet needs to be capable of supporting anonymity, that's how the internet works - shared services that we all make use of as and when we need them.
If there is ever going to be a corporate/government approved internet someone will have to lrn2sec. Otherwise they will be pwnd regularly by every teenager who fancies having a go. There are millions of them in the world and the more power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, the more the discontented will be keen to watch it all burn down for the lulz. The more people's power is taken away the less investment they have in playing nicely.
I think they were quite smart picking some easy targets like the entertainment industry before scaling up to, say, the chinese government. Getting a chance to flex their tools while also attracting attention from people who might be able to compromise their anonymity. Then attacking some friendly governments to give those governments enough incentive to pile in and point out where the anonymity gaps are. Anonymity should emerge from all this much stronger and more capable. As for draconian laws, lets hope the politicians aren't all stupid enough to vote for them. Ah wait...
I'd argue the opposite. Internet use is always inherently anonymous. Yes anyone can trace your IP to a physical location if they are persistent enough, but nothing on the internet ever really proves who was using the computer or internet connection at any given time. Maybe webcams go some of the way to providing proof, but of course video can be faked. You need independent evidence not related to the internet to remove anonymity.
I wonder how long you will still be able to legally buy a second-hand computer for cash. It seems that if you want to be anonymous online you have to start at the bottom of the stack.
I wonder if that's what happened here. It does seem unlikely that anyone would use their own servers to launch a giant hack attack. Does anyone know which of the victim companies was the real target of the DoS?
I heard Iceland are putting in a legal framework to support free speech online that would exactly stop them from doing any such thing. They are wily vikings and can see that every business is going to need reliable hosting in the future, free from this kind of interference. America is starting to look like a worse and worse place to keep data.
I think you have some interesting fantasies going there about what jail is actually like.
Seriously though, do we really think it's a good idea putting people with actual hacking skills in regular daily contact with a bunch of actual criminals? What could possibly go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say somewhere like Iceland's Thor Data Centre is looking attractive. http://www.enterpriseinnovation.net/content/curtains-operas-iceland-data-center I know Icelandic policy is to establish itself as a place where people can do things like publish anonymous leaks free from intrusion and censorship. This blog has some background. http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/01/icelands-data-haven-plan-finds-an-american-friend-internet-archives-brewster-kahle/
That would be OK, but the quid pro quo is that the rest of the web should not be putting the personal details of private individuals in their windows. If they go doing that they would be foolish not to expect people to break their windows in protest.
More irrelevance. Nobody stole anything here.
It sounds like the vendor overvalued the merchandise.
Basic definition includes violence or threat of violence as far as I can see. Clicking websites doesn't count in my definition, nor most people's I suspect. In Testra's case I think there is probably fear, but nothing much to do with any 'reprisals'. I suspect their fear is that they would damage their brand through a stupid decision to do something that most of their customers and many other people internationally would view very negatively. It's convenient for them to blame an external third party rather than admit their obvious mistake of listening to political lobbyists rather than their customers.
Noone got injured or suffered any violence of any kind, (with the possible exception of Ryan, we don't know yet). Get over these stupid violence/stealing/terrorism analogies, they are irrelevant and designed to make all this sound worse than it was.
a company realises their decision was stupid, unpopular across the world, and likely to damage their brand they start changing their mind.
This is textbook terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism It might be worth reading it before posting such nonsense.
I think you might need to throw a bucket of cold water over your head and then get some perspective. Terrorists are people with guns, knives, explosives, or other life-threatening weapons, who cause actual bodily harm or death to civilians in pursuit of political or financial objectives. People in basements who click websites for a laugh are about a million miles away from instilling any kind of terror. For a business to make a sensible u-turn because they realise they will piss off large portions of their customer base and wider society at large, thus damaging their brand, has nothing to do with terrorism and more to do with good business.
Once dox relating to the internals of the filtering machinery are leaked, I would imagine someone will figure out how to cure the cancer by disabling the filtering machinery. Like everything, it's bound to have some weak points making it vulnerable to being compromised one way or another. Unfortunately, disabling the filter might involve disabling the ISP's routing altogether. I guess these ISPs must have already built into their business models that they are painting giant targets for international protest action against them, and are ready to lose customers, handle complaints, and clean up the mess after the inevitable backlash.
David Davidson seems to be the stock answer when you ask anon what their real name is. Are you the real David Davidson though?
If you look in China, Iran, Syria, and numerous other parts of the world you can probably find plenty of people. There is only one internet, so making the argument that you don't know anyone who needs anonymity is spurious. If someone needs anonymity on the internet, then the internet needs to be capable of supporting anonymity, that's how the internet works - shared services that we all make use of as and when we need them.
If there is ever going to be a corporate/government approved internet someone will have to lrn2sec. Otherwise they will be pwnd regularly by every teenager who fancies having a go. There are millions of them in the world and the more power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, the more the discontented will be keen to watch it all burn down for the lulz. The more people's power is taken away the less investment they have in playing nicely.
Unless their life or liberty was endangered by a government.
Cops are gonna cop but judges have a good track record of expecting evidence of commission of crimes.
if he's ever charged with anything
I think they were quite smart picking some easy targets like the entertainment industry before scaling up to, say, the chinese government. Getting a chance to flex their tools while also attracting attention from people who might be able to compromise their anonymity. Then attacking some friendly governments to give those governments enough incentive to pile in and point out where the anonymity gaps are. Anonymity should emerge from all this much stronger and more capable. As for draconian laws, lets hope the politicians aren't all stupid enough to vote for them. Ah wait...
I'd argue the opposite. Internet use is always inherently anonymous. Yes anyone can trace your IP to a physical location if they are persistent enough, but nothing on the internet ever really proves who was using the computer or internet connection at any given time. Maybe webcams go some of the way to providing proof, but of course video can be faked. You need independent evidence not related to the internet to remove anonymity.
Or second-hand mobile phones.
You're David Davidson unless I'm mistaken.
>The IP and the time of the post give you his account details. Slight correction - they give you SOMEONE's account details.
I wonder how long you will still be able to legally buy a second-hand computer for cash. It seems that if you want to be anonymous online you have to start at the bottom of the stack.
I wonder if that's what happened here. It does seem unlikely that anyone would use their own servers to launch a giant hack attack. Does anyone know which of the victim companies was the real target of the DoS?
I heard Iceland are putting in a legal framework to support free speech online that would exactly stop them from doing any such thing. They are wily vikings and can see that every business is going to need reliable hosting in the future, free from this kind of interference. America is starting to look like a worse and worse place to keep data.
I think you have some interesting fantasies going there about what jail is actually like. Seriously though, do we really think it's a good idea putting people with actual hacking skills in regular daily contact with a bunch of actual criminals? What could possibly go wrong?