Hacker News Reader

Comment by pointillistic | Hacker News Reader

Considering that the Jesus was the original revolutionary and one of his major acts was throwing the money changers out of the Temple, I am stunned about the internalized commercialization of Christmas and the comments that put into question the current protest.

And I am saying this even though I hate DDos viscerally, my business was a victim of such an attack. But I have to say, as long as no one gets killed or injured this is a legitimate form of protest.

View on HN

On the other hand, the pagans whose rituals were plagiarized as christmas by the inventors of christianity were not above sacrificing money and other valuables, so I guess it's back to the old school.

DDOS attempts that utillize illegal botnets are, well, illegal. As such, they are by definition not a legitimate form of protest.

Most of the people at Anonymous run the DOS attacks on their own computers, not through botnets.

I'm sure there are some script kiddies with botnets there, but I don't think the average Anonymous/4Chan member has one.

That may be true, but is THIS an illegal botnet? What makes LOIC illegal? What makes a determined, coordinated request from thousands of volunteer computers illegal? I liken this to a civil disobedience sit in.

LOIC itself isn't illegal but causing a DDoS is, however you achieve it.

A DDoS is nothing like a sit in. Its more like forming a human chain around the restaurant.

The crux of civil disobedience is that moral men have a duty to break unjust laws. This is not civil disobedience.

Without commenting on the morality of LOIC, what makes its current use illegal are laws, passed by legislatures.

Pick a jurisdiction and you'll find some law forbidding DDOS attacks. Here for example:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s...

That section would cover anyone from NSW participating in this botnet and could be used to prosecute this guy if they find him:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/the-aussie-who-bli...

A revolution doesn't ask from a permit for a city hall. Seriously, I have seen many demos banned arbitrarily for the lack of a "permit".

If it is a revolution, then it is by definition illegal, and by univocation, illegitimate. It may be the 'right' thing to do, but it is not 'legitimate.'

legitimate != legal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

legitimate protest vs. legal protest are very very different things.

>A revolution doesn't ask from a permit for a city hall.

One of the best quotes ever!

There's an assumption there that "illegal == illegitimate". I don't believe that is true. No more true than "legal == legitimate".

Please look up words in a dictionary before you correct people on their meaning, you will seem like less of a fool for doing so. Legitimate and legal are synonyms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimate

Sigh. Did you even read the link you posted? Yes, one of the definitions has to do with laws, but there are plenty of other meanings that don't have anything to do with legailty. Eg: "not spurious or unjustified; genuine"

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

You know what is "illegitimate" is for a service that is a virtual "utility" do cut off service for political reasons. Imagine someone would cut off your electricity if they think your ideas a dangerous.

The only legitimate forms of protest are the ones that will never work.

> illegal == illegitimate form of protest

I'm having some great laughs at everyone here on HN that has never have read a bit about the history of protest movements and labor unions in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com