anti pirate sites taken down from 4 chan.

[billy]

so pretty much everyone and his dad can create a cyber attack if they have enough friends.

it is sad that tpb gets the blame for stuff like this as was mentioned earlier.
i've heard ddos attacks are criminal, is it true and if so what sort of punishments are meted out?

[billy]

the Scientology attacker actually sounds a bit like qwizie
interesting reads vf, thanks.

[Touchstone]

That's the thing with these groups--short attention spans. Best thing if you're attacked is do nothing and say nothing--the storm will pass in a couple of days. There's no fun in attacking someone who doesn't cry or get angry.

[billy]

i take it when they move on the ddossed sites resume their business ?

which kind of makes their attacks futile to the sites who can afford to wait
and also damages the rep of torrent sites at the same time.

[mrmod]

I don't condone the actions, but that's what happens when you well, screw with the internet. It gives pirates a bad name, but it shows that some of us know how to strike back which could be useful.

[Touchstone]

That is a valid point.

But I can't help feeling that this particular form of protest is likely to do more harm than good to the cause it's in the name of.

Marching on the MPAA's headquarters (or something like that) would give the opportunity of face-time on television and a chance to articulate "our" concerns.

Anonymously attacking a website just gives the MPAA an opportunity to articulate their concerns.

[billy]

active civil disobedience and sometimes aggressive civil disobedience stopped things like slavery, gave women the vote, and in many countries stopped sweatshop conditions for workers. to name but three. it gave the usa their charter and brought down more than one government (four)

Raising the level of agression points in only one direction: more retributive agression etc.

unless you raise the level to a point where there can be no retribution

[billy]

i think it'll be effective for a while and then it will be foiled with some program, of course something else will pop up and so the cirlce goes.

the worst case scenario is;
the net get's closed to the public because of the disruption of electronic commerce etc.

[billy]

the worst case scenario is;
the net get's closed to the public because of the disruption of electronic commerce etc.

The net, the commerce, is the public.

As an old phone company guy, I would agree that the system would run better with no customers, since then all the load and capacity issues would go away.

But the Internet, just like the public telephone system, is not something you can ever "close to the public" as if it was a municipal swimming pool.

it's that word ever that makes me giggle a little.

given enough incentive from mass ddoss attacks and such they'll close it down to just a trickle. who controls the ip addresses?

sorry but i believe there are way to close the ned to the public. whether they'll the used depends on how much pressure large business can bring to bear.

[Touchstone]

sorry but i believe there are way to close the ned to the public. whether they'll the used depends on how much pressure large business can bring to bear.

Large businesses have more to lose than gain by closing the 'net. If it is ever done it won't be done by businesses.

The US government is probably the only entity which could seriously disrupt the 'net, by forcing closure of the US backbones and, perhaps, strong-arming some other countries into doing so. But even then they wouldn't be able to close it down totally or for very long--the resistance from the public, from business, and from other governments would be phenomenal. I honestly can't conceive them ever even trying it.

[billy]

maybe but in times to come i wouldn't put it past them. when i say close the internet i mean as a sharing tool. only allowing business to host sites etc.
joe public would be able to access them to spend cash but that would basically be it. we'd only be able to use the web like we would a phone book. only able to use the rudimentary input of pushing a choice of buttons.

and i do agree the odds of it happening are extremely remote.


one other way they could gain some control would be

[Touchstone]

Another way of looking at it is this. If they could have stopped "sharing" they'd have done it by now. They've certainly been trying hard enough and for long enough (and I'm talking centuries not years).

Sure, in future, they will get more sophisticated.

But...so will we.

And the playing field is very much tilted in our favour.

They have, for example, to spend millions of dollars on inventing a new copy protection mechanism. But they can't make it totally secure because, obviously, they need people to be able to play stuff. We then can take as long as we want in cracking it. And we'll do it for free, for the fun, and the fame. And all we need is for them to have made one tiny mistake and...boom...their shiny new system is cracked. [By "we" I don't mean me, I mean the never ending stream of maths students, and computer science students, etc. with time, motivation, and state-of-the-art skillsets.]

[billy]

remember the way the consumer interacted with the tv shopping channels.
thats what i'm on abot, those in business giving out a show of sketch with an adevrt attached and ring this number.
using yout keyboard and place an order.

the only ones allowed am ip would be businesses. and yes vf i know how file sharing works.
mandating that machines only have the ability to receive like the radio does. like i said i don't think it probable but there may come a time when someone decides pull the plug and give them something else.