US diplomatic cables to be dropped by wikileaks; US doing pre-emptive damage control

[aurik]

Maybe you shouldn't have quoted and responded to a post that was made as a reply to someone who likely had a different argument than you:

Tbh, Archi has pretty much the same point as I do.

To equate DDoSing mastercard with a sit-ins because they both caused the media to report the attacks and the attacker's motivation, you pretty much also have to equate sit-ins/DDoSing with bombing empty churches. It's a classic reductio ad absurdum argument: the latter analogy is absurd (or at least seems that way to me), and it's a logical application of the rule that Cadsuane uses to justify the former analogy.

Sure. If you want to define terrorism as a subset of activism, then church bombings are like sit-ins in that sense. However, since this is a pretty vacuous truth, my spirit guides tell me that what you really meant to imply was that DDoS'ing corporate websites is an illegitimate, antisocial, unethical, unjustifiable, uncivil form of protest like church bombings are, or since you're very likely going to balk at the hyperbole of the comparison, like G20 looters. Hm! Isn't this implication exactly the question being discussed (as well as the question that you're begging)?

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you try to answer that underlying question and establish that it is an illegitimate form of protest like you've been trying to do but without exploiting nebulous definitions and heavy handed comparisons? Maybe you could tell us what exactly condonable protest and civic discourse is in the 21st century and how modern democracy is evolving or devolving and... oh my god we'd actually be touching on the salient and profound lessons to be learned from cablegate and the middle eastern revolts which is actually a very serious topic that warrants somewhat more consideration than some fuckwit kneejerk one line opinion! You'd be in serious danger of having an actual point if you did this.

Way to miss the point. I guess you're not smart enough to follow what I'm saying, so I'll just let you be stupid.

(Also while DDoS's certainly have a dollar value in damages, no physical property is damaged or needs to be replaced which is an important legal distinction.)

(Actually, DDoSing does damage physical property. When you spin hard drives and constantly read/write memory at abusive rates, things tend to die. In addition, since mastercard doesn't own the underlying infrastructure but instead purchases it on a by-use and by-tech-hour schedule, DDoSing does more than just prevent mastercard from doing business)

[Kerberoz]

Actually, DDoSing does damage physical property. When you spin hard drives and constantly read/write memory at abusive rates, things tend to die.

...so, going by the average lifespan of a server hard drive divided by the cost, these attacks have caused almost a fraction of a cent in damages. Oh noes.

[aurik]

I know for a fact you're one of the dumber ones posting here, but I thought I'd still point out that paragraph has a third sentence which is relevant. HTH.

[archibaldcrane]

Technically they didn't prevent Mastercard from doing business, they DDoS'd their actual website, not their credit card processing system. I'm sure at some point occasionally people go to mastercard.com...but I've had a Mastercard for 12 years and have never found a reason to go there.

[Max™]

I'm pretty sure if Anon were out to cause havoc... they'd do any of the shit they've done to cause havoc before... in this case the point was to protest those who pussied out about Wikileaks, it was done in a specific manner, for a specific reason, and they DIDN'T attack Amazon due to several factors. The servers are buff, and with the holiday season approaching, at least some of them felt it would have been punishing people trying to buy presents for family members and whatnot, as opposed to Amazon directly. Since the people who would have been affected by attacking Amazon weren't directly involved in the Wikileaks issue, they canceled that attack.

If you actually look at what was done, you see your comparison to church-bombing is stupid cuntbaggery, and you should be ashamed about being admonished by a fucking retard.

[Cadsuane]

Tbh, Archi has pretty much the same point as I do.

To equate DDoSing mastercard with a sit-ins because they both caused the media to report the attacks and the attacker's motivation, you pretty much also have to equate sit-ins/DDoSing with bombing empty churches. It's a classic reductio ad absurdum argument: the latter analogy is absurd (or at least seems that way to me), and it's a logical application of the rule that Cadsuane uses to justify the former analogy.

Way to miss the point. I guess you're not smart enough to follow what I'm saying, so I'll just let you be stupid.

Likewise. First of all, it's a comparison of aspects, not an equivocation, so there is no absurd conclusion in saying sit-ins are -like- church bombings, and there is no reductio ad absurdum, only a vacuous comparison.

A. DDoS's are like sit-in protests because they are a non-violent form of activism that interrupts commerce and causes little or no property damage. True! They are alike in and possibly only in these ways.

B. DDoS's and sit-ins are like church bombings because they are forms of protest that garner media attention and discussion. Also true but vacuous; this similarity is irrelevant to the underlying discussion (see E.).

C. DDoS's and sit-ins are morally reprehensible because they are like church bombings. False! Unclear use of the word "like" amounts to sophistry; this statement does not follow from B and no contradiction is obtained.

D. Church bombings are a condonable form of protest because they are like sit-ins and DDoS's. False! Similar to C.

E. DDoS's are a legitimate form of protest like sit-in protests are. <- unresolved question (even if suggested by A) whose negation nevertheless fuels your circular logic and fictional victory

Can't make it any clearer than this.

(Actually, DDoSing does damage physical property. When you spin hard drives and constantly read/write memory at abusive rates, things tend to die. In addition, since mastercard doesn't own the underlying infrastructure but instead purchases it on a by-use and by-tech-hour schedule, DDoSing does more than just prevent mastercard from doing business)

Service hours on industrial hard drives are measured in years and a DDoS attack would likely comprise less wear than a routine defragmentation anyway. Property damage is pretty hard to demonstrate here and I think you know this.

[aurik]

Likewise. First of all, it's a comparison of aspects, not an equivocation, so there is no absurd conclusion in saying sit-ins are -like- church bombings, and there is no reductio ad absurdum, only a vacuous comparison.

Let me repeat the chain of events since you have the memory of a goldfish and the comprehension of a 2 year old:

1) I said the analogy wasn't very good
2) you asked why
3) archi said well, for one, it's not like you're standing there explaining why you're preventing the company from doing business
4) you said, well they got plenty of media coverage as to why
5) and I followed up, well bombing empty churches does the same, thus comparing sit-ins to firebombing. Therefore your defense in #4 is ridiculous because it leads to ridiculous equivalences. Reductio ad absurdum.

I'm not replying the rest of your post because it's based on your faulty understanding of the discussion at hand and hence irrelevant.

Also if I was to point out another difference between sit-ins and DDoSing, when you go do a sit-in, you make yourself available for arrest for trespassing (and yes people did get arrested, charged, and convicted of trespassing!) When these jokers anonymously DDoS someone, they are NOT making themselves available for arrest. Pretty significant difference there, makes the analogy quite ill-fitting. Hence why seems more appropriate to me to compare them to the G20 protestors that mask themselves and smash windows and run away: they are just damaging the company and hoping not to get caught later.

Service hours on industrial hard drives are measured in years and a DDoS attack would likely comprise less wear than a routine defragmentation anyway. Property damage is pretty hard to demonstrate here and I think you know this.

This is the third and last time I repeat this: Mastercard PAYS PER USE for their infrastructure. If you spike that use on deliberately unwanted traffic, you are costing them money. The fact that to continue doing business they have to pay technicians to diagnose and route around the DDoS costs them money. By sending them billions of junk packets you aren't just preventing them from doing business (like a sit-in), you are causing them to spend money maintaining their infrastructure (akin to smashing their windows, and having them incur the cost to repair it)

[Cadsuane]

I'm not replying the rest of your post because it's based on your faulty understanding of the discussion at hand and hence irrelevant.

That's unfortunate, since it clearly nullifies your argument. Your posturing is thin, and this conversation is over if you're going to be this dense.

Also if I was to point out another difference between sit-ins and DDoSing, when you go do a sit-in, you make yourself available for arrest for trespassing (and yes people did get arrested, charged, and convicted of trespassing!) When these jokers anonymously DDoS someone, they are NOT making themselves available for arrest. Pretty significant difference there, makes the analogy quite ill-fitting. Hence why seems more appropriate to me to compare them to the G20 protestors that mask themselves and smash windows and run away: they are just damaging the company and hoping not to get caught later.

I'm not explaining why this is wrong again.

This is the third and last time I repeat this: Mastercard PAYS PER USE for their infrastructure. If you spike that use on deliberately unwanted traffic, you are costing them money. The fact that to continue doing business they have to pay technicians to diagnose and route around the DDoS costs them money. By sending them billions of junk packets you aren't just preventing them from doing business (like a sit-in), you are causing them to spend money maintaining their infrastructure (akin to smashing their windows, and having them incur the cost to repair it)

Last time I'll repeat this: it was never contested that DDoS's cause damages. Most forms of civil protest do. The only false claim that you made and are abandoning in this paragraph is that they destroy physical property.

[aurik]

Ok well you go be awesome and wrong!

[Cadsuane]

'k

[Edelweiss]

Bradley Manning hit with 22 new charges.