Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
MEGAUPLOAD HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN BY THE FEDS
Posts
Lucidstillness
View playlists
Closeauthor=Dyhalto
Yes, it had to be today.
A coordinated DDOS attack against political entities is a modern version of a protest or strike, and the purpose of a strike is to Shut It Down.
While it may only take a handful of people to initiate DDOS attacks as we see it, the measure of public opinion in favor or opposed to the act is what gets counted at the end of the day.
And yeah, it was a close call there :o My curse is broken.
I disagree. A strike has definite goals designed to win concessions, and is a legal protest by refusing to work; its goals are not to destroy property or infrastructure. What happened yesterday was a strike, and it seems to have done some good in changing people's minds about SOPA. By contrast, the hackers set out to cause damage and sow panic, which, yes, is an act of terrorism.
If one hates the government and supports terrorist action, that is their own business, but terrorism is in no way the equivalent of a strike.
Lucidstillness, you can't compare Anonymous's brand of "terrorism" to the more traditional kind, not in any meaningful way. To start with they're not killing innocent people.
Also, you have to acknowledge that terrorism isn't always bad, or more accurately, that while terrorism DOES have an actual meaning which IS always bad, its USAGE tends to be definition-ally closer to "revolutionary activity that the labeler doesn't like".
Also, you have to acknowledge that terrorism isn't always bad, or more accurately, that while terrorism DOES have an actual meaning which IS always bad, its USAGE tends to be definition-ally closer to "revolutionary activity that the labeler doesn't like".
Hey, I'm not saying there aren't degrees of terrorism or debating terrorism itself, only that terrorism is defined as 'the use of threats or force to coerce', which is the stated intent of the hackers. Hacking of this type may not be what one immediately thinks of when they think of terrorism, but it is a form of terrorism and it certainly isn't anything like a strike.
I mean, we even have a specific term for it: Cyberterrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberterrorism
I mean, we even have a specific term for it: Cyberterrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberterrorism
author=benos
http://109.236.83.66/It's back again anyway. Inb shut down again.
Is that the real site or one of its many impersonators already?
A strike has definite goals designed to win concessions,
Like the recent hackings?
so uh
Here's hoping not too much was lost.
@Feldschlacht
The strike yesterday was to stop SOPA. The hackings were designed to cause panic in the government with only a vague goal of intimidation. Even if they had a specific goal, the use of intimidation tactics and the destruction or property goes far beyond the parameters of a legal strike.
@Feldschlacht
The strike yesterday was to stop SOPA. The hackings were designed to cause panic in the government with only a vague goal of intimidation. Even if they had a specific goal, the use of intimidation tactics and the destruction or property goes far beyond the parameters of a legal strike.
I genuinely wish I was sick/exhausted/busy right now, because I would actually enjoy getting into a rigorous discussion of the definition(s) of terrorism with you, Lucid, but unfortunately I don't have the time or the energy; maybe the day after tomorrow I'll pop back in.
Okay. Please note that I'm not angry or anything; it is a genuinely interesting topic. I am very much anti-censorship myself, and I can understand the frustration even though I do not approve of the methods.
It is also true that most hacking activities fall under the broader definition of cyberterrorism.
Anyway, I hope you're feeling better soon.
It is also true that most hacking activities fall under the broader definition of cyberterrorism.
Anyway, I hope you're feeling better soon.
Just going to say DDOS attacks (which really shouldn't be constituted as "hacking", but whatever) usually do not result in destruction of property.
Well, not 'real' property anyway. The National Conference of State Legislatures defines cyberterrorism as being:
The use of information technology by terrorist groups and individuals to further their agenda. This can include use of information technology to organize and execute attacks against networks, computer systems and telecommunications infrastructures, or for exchanging information or making threats electronically. Examples are hacking into computer systems, introducing viruses to vulnerable networks, web site defacing, Denial-of-service attacks, or terroristic threats made via electronic communication.
So, hacking of this type does qualify. The term is, of course, highly stigmatized, and I doubt the hackers would consider themselves cyberterrorists; some consider hacking to be distinct from any terrorist activities altogether, regardless of the extent of the hacking. Legally however, it does fall into the same category.
The use of information technology by terrorist groups and individuals to further their agenda. This can include use of information technology to organize and execute attacks against networks, computer systems and telecommunications infrastructures, or for exchanging information or making threats electronically. Examples are hacking into computer systems, introducing viruses to vulnerable networks, web site defacing, Denial-of-service attacks, or terroristic threats made via electronic communication.
So, hacking of this type does qualify. The term is, of course, highly stigmatized, and I doubt the hackers would consider themselves cyberterrorists; some consider hacking to be distinct from any terrorist activities altogether, regardless of the extent of the hacking. Legally however, it does fall into the same category.
The use of information technology by terrorist groups and individuals to further their agenda. This can include use of information technology to organize and execute attacks against networks, computer systems and telecommunications infrastructures, or for exchanging information or making threats electronically. Examples are hacking into computer systems, introducing viruses to vulnerable networks, web site defacing, Denial-of-service attacks, or terroristic threats made via electronic communication.
That paragraph distinctly identifies DDOS attacks (subtype of denial-of-service attacks) separately from "hacking into computer systems", so as I already stated DDOS attacks really shouldn't be considered a form of hacking.
I do agree both hacking and DDOS attacks qualify as cyberterrorism, though.
Natook
1000
author=Lucidstillness
Well, these organizations support it:
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of%20SOPA%20Supporters.pdf
Estée Lauder Companies
L'Oreal
no it's SOPA not SOAP. ffs
Dyhalto
7536
author=SegNin
Point is, no one cares about your crappy (or even not crappy) amateur freeware game--unless you make a game where their intellectual property is prostituting itself. And the game starts to get noticed by everyone. Then there might be issues.
Technically, we don't know that yet.
I think I mentioned before that if stuff like SOPA/PIPA go through, the big stuff will go down first, followed by a trickle down effect to deviantart and this site.
author=Lucidstillness
I disagree. A strike has definite goals designed to win concessions, and is a legal protest by refusing to work; its goals are not to destroy property or infrastructure.
You have to look at it with more abstraction than that. The crux of the strike is that you want to turn off the machine in order to harm the upper echelons and effect change without resorting to physical violence.
Strikes were never really "legal", as it's usually the people acting against those who define legality. If anything, they were adopted into the legal system and given a distinct set of rules to abide by in order to downplay their effectiveness. As an example in recent years, you can see moves to mitigate public unrest with dopey concepts like "Designated Free Speech Zone".
author=Lucidstillness
If one hates the government and supports terrorist action, that is their own business, but terrorism is in no way the equivalent of a strike.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
People are going to have to learn that "Terrorist" is a very loose and hot term, and dangerous to liberty if applied willy-nilly by your ruling class. Sure, the official definition is simple : One who uses terror to advance political aims. But if you frighten a billionaire by threatening his income stream, does that make you a terrorist and you are now vulnerable to the judicial might of the state?
tpasmall
228
Don't forget anyone suspected of terrorism can now be held indefinately without a trial. They can just round people up without reprocussion.
author=tpasmall
Don't forget anyone suspected of terrorism can now be held indefinately without a trial. They can just round people up without reprocussion.
What I was thinking about all the while reading this thread.
The legality of strikes is something that has been debated throughout the 20th century and earlier. Strikes weren't really legal in the U.S. until President Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Today most people consider strikes to be an acceptable means of winning concessions, though naturally the heads of certain corporations are not fond of them.
I cannot see the same transformation happening with cyberterrorism though; the use of terrorist tactics is not the instrument of an organization wishing to work within the conventions of society. Rather, it is essentially a declaration of war on said society, intended to win concessions through intimidation. As long as a society has tools at its disposal to fight terrorism, it will, and in so doing said society will use increasingly hardline tactics to eradicate the perceived threat. Some people want a full-on web war; I don't. What I want is a peaceful solution that is fair and clears up ambiguities as to jurisdiction. I don't want to see the government restrict service because of a few yahoos (no pun intended).
I'll admit that the term cyberterrorist has very heavy connotations, but I also think it is important not to be euphemistic in regards to the activities, especially since, as tpasmall pointed out, the legal ramifications are the same no matter what one calls it.
I cannot see the same transformation happening with cyberterrorism though; the use of terrorist tactics is not the instrument of an organization wishing to work within the conventions of society. Rather, it is essentially a declaration of war on said society, intended to win concessions through intimidation. As long as a society has tools at its disposal to fight terrorism, it will, and in so doing said society will use increasingly hardline tactics to eradicate the perceived threat. Some people want a full-on web war; I don't. What I want is a peaceful solution that is fair and clears up ambiguities as to jurisdiction. I don't want to see the government restrict service because of a few yahoos (no pun intended).
I'll admit that the term cyberterrorist has very heavy connotations, but I also think it is important not to be euphemistic in regards to the activities, especially since, as tpasmall pointed out, the legal ramifications are the same no matter what one calls it.
Dyhalto
7536
author=Lucidstillness
The legality of strikes is something that has been debated throughout the 20th century and earlier.
Strikes aren't supposed to be "legal" because they're aimed at those who define legality, or the close friends thereof. All FDR did was legitimize Unions' right to assemble, while erecting a limited space for action.
Legality of strikes isn't even a relevant topic of discussion.
author=Lucidstillness
I cannot see the same transformation happening with cyberterrorism though
First things first, what exactly about this is "terrorism"?
Because some authoritative-looking dude said so on TV?
To me, a DDOS attack is the digital equivalent of blocking entrance to a bricks-and-mortar building. That's a form of striking. No lasting damage is done, unless you count the business that could have been, which is how a strike does it's damage. It only takes a few to bar the door or block the gates, but if popular opinion isn't supportive of the action, it'll reverse itself and go away within short order.
In this particular situation, popular opinion is almost overwhelmingly supportive of the shutdowns. Of course the government, the people who define legality, will send their best authoritative-looking dude to say "those guys are cyberterrorists" on TV.
On a positive note for Megaupload, I heard a rumor that the site is still up. It's just the domain name that was seized, and you can still use it via entering the IP address into your browser.
SegNin
41
PEOPLE, PLEASE STOP SPREADING AROUND WORD THAT MEGAUPLOAD IS BACK OR NOT COMPLETELY DOWN.
Because those sites are fakes!
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-back-120120/
MegaUpload Back? Don’t Be Fooled by Scammers
A few hours after MegaUpload was taken down by the feds the first scammy replacements start to surface.
Tens of thousands of people are visiting these “revived” MegaUpload sites, which have nothing to do with MegaUpload.
If you see a site that looks like MegaUpload, it doesn’t mean that the popular cyberlocker is back.
There is NO official MegaUpload replacement online and it’s highly doubtful that there will be one anytime soon.
So don’t send ad impressions to these sites, or open yourself up to a phishing scam.
Sure, there are plenty of alternatives to MegaUpload, but MegaUpload itself is not back.
Because those sites are fakes!
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-back-120120/
MegaUpload Back? Don’t Be Fooled by Scammers
A few hours after MegaUpload was taken down by the feds the first scammy replacements start to surface.
Tens of thousands of people are visiting these “revived” MegaUpload sites, which have nothing to do with MegaUpload.
If you see a site that looks like MegaUpload, it doesn’t mean that the popular cyberlocker is back.
There is NO official MegaUpload replacement online and it’s highly doubtful that there will be one anytime soon.
So don’t send ad impressions to these sites, or open yourself up to a phishing scam.
Sure, there are plenty of alternatives to MegaUpload, but MegaUpload itself is not back.
