I'm sure most of you are familiar with Anonymous and LulzSec at this point—they've certainly made plenty of headlines. Well, in a joint announcement released the other day, the hacker groups have called for a boycott of PayPal over the company's decision to withhold donations from WikiLeaks. The statement refers to denial-of-service attacks against PayPal in December as a "digital sit-in," and it slams U.S. authorities for not seeing them as such.
In its coverage of the story, VentureBeat quoted an interesting response by white-hat hacker Sam Browne. Here's what Browne said:
A lot of people say that Anonymous is morally and legally justified to take down sites with denial of service. The difference between that and a sit-in is that in a sit-in you are physically present and you permit the police to arrest you. Here is where Anonymous reveals their complete lack of moral fiber. If you really want to protest the law and you want to break the law, Gandhi and Martin Luther King showed how to do this. You stand up in public with your real name and you let the police arrest you for doing something like blocking traffic and then this causes a public examination of why you did that and whether your cause is important.
This all raises some interesting questions. Are DDoS attacks the modern-day equivalent of sit-ins and peaceful protests, and should they be viewed as such by the law? Or are they simply vandalism carried out by people who, above all, strive to skirt accountability?
|The TR Podcast 147: Amazon airlifts, 4K goes mainstream, and 290X goes wobbly||3|
|TR's Christmas 2013 system guide||29|
|Apple granted patent for head-mounted display||67|
|Dell introduces its first Chromebook||50|
|Race the Sun is on Steam, and you should play it||49|
|An update on Radeon R9 290X variance||114|
|Ubisoft's Snowdrop engine makes The Division look incredible||111|
|No Man's Sky has procedurally generated planets, looks amazing||55|
|Samsung brings 840 EVO to mSATA, drops new firmware for 2.5'' version||19|