Re: Anonymous not freedom fighters

[Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>]

> From: <robert_mcmillan () idg com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:46:10 -0800
>
>  I have to be careful here, because I really don't want to find myself
> defending idiotic DDoSers. ...

understood.

> > the internet infrastructure has too many coupled dependencies to be used
> > for protests in this way -- there's no way to isolate the effects so that
> > people and activities who aren't being protested won't be injured.
>
> That's the case in the physical world too. Lots of people suffer collateral
> injuries when there's a G20 protest.

if that collateral damage is offset by risk and cost to the inducers and
rioters then there are enough checks and balances in place to protect the
economy.  that's true in the real world, whereas not true online.

shouting "fire!" in an open city park is a different kind of action than
shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater even though the same thing is
being shouted in both cases.  we cannot divorce our analysis from context.

> > but even if it were possible to isolate the effects i would find statements
> > of the form "i'm for freedom so i'm ddos'ing you" to be totally irrational.
>
> I agree with you, but I still think it's worth carefully considering whether
> this activity is in any way different to these protests, which we seem to
> tolerate. If it really is an issue of free speech, then the fact that it's
> idiotic speech is moot.

i think we tolerate things that we either have no choice about or know will
not form a new equilibrium.  it's difficult to know how anyone could have
stopped -- demonstrating that they had a choice about -- the recent events
in egypt.  but those events were merely destabilizing and transformative --
there was no concern on anyone's part that if something wasn't done then
egypt would stay in "protest mode" forever.

those conditions do not obtain online.  first, because the online community
is capable of reading my blog post or reading other thoughts about DDoS as
a form of protest and the rioters are capable of becoming non-rioters --
that can't happen with street protests.  second, because if allowed to stand
and to become a common form of "protest", online DDoS (either against the
people who provide services to wikileaks or against those who don't provide
services to wikileaks) would simply lower the service level of the Internet
while raising everybody's costs, and that could become a new equilibrium.

i am in other words not arguing against something that cannot be changed or
against something could be allowed to stand.  as often as i shake my fist at
the sky and rail against the gods, this time there's an actual point to it.

> > seems to be "anybody who is angry at anybody can take pot shots at them
> > through the internet infrastructure without any cost or risk to
> > themselves."
>
> Yeah, maybe this is the crux of the issue for me. When protesters show
> up, they're making sacrifices to show solidarity with an issue or a
> movement. When someone downloads LOIC in their rec room during the
> advertising break for Two and a Half Men, that feels like something
> different.

oh yeah, oh very much yeah.

> There should be consequences. Should they be a 10 year federal prison
> sentence?  Maybe. Maybe not.

i'd rather see a higher prosecution rate and painful but non-life-changing
sentences.  however, that's a model supported by law enforcement economics.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.