You are talking about people having their machines infected and taken control of, to then participate in the DDoS, I assume?
That WOULD be hacking. Not of the DDoS target - but of the machines used. That's a different story though.
As for "Netflix dies if amazon is attacked" - well, this is true with physical blockades too. If you block access to one business, many nearby business will also be affected. Especially in things like malls.
While this analogy dies hold some water it fails on one simple point. Get arrested for a sit-in and you will be fined a hundred bucks and be sent on your way. Get arrested for a DDoS and you better enjoy your next five years in prison, as well as a ban from using cell phones for another ten years.
The punishment is way, way, way out of proportion.
I always said I like what they are trying to do, but the way they do it is like shooting themselves in the foot. Like you I never supported any of their methods.
...but they appear to have a bloody good point, and that's annoying. DDoS is a non-intrusive "attack". It doesn't involve hacking, stealing passwords, using worms, backdoors, anything.
The occupy analogy actually HOLDS. It's a non-violent, non-intrusive, and non-destructive denial of service. It's a hell of a lot more benign than pro-lifers physically pushing and insulting people outside abortion clinics.
I have to ask myself: why is DDoS worse, than 100 people locking arms to keep people out of a business while singing and chanting? The inescapable conclusion is that it is not. It just happens to be branded as illegal. It's different from a physical protest, and different scares old people - but it's not really any better or worse, and certainly no more dangerous. Quite the opposite in fact. Far less danger is posed by a DDoS than an actual physical demonstration that always runs the risk of derailing into violence.
It's pretty interesting really... I just saw the film "Breaking the Taboo", which deals with the war on drugs. Feels much the same as the war on terror really, or the war on copyright infringement. They all have a few similarities: they all work towards the creation of police states, cost billions, hurt a lot of people - and in the end seem to have no measurable positive effect what-so-ever.
It's taken 40 years to even begin to question the effectiveness of the war on drugs. I wonder if the politicians will learn from this, and rethink the approach they take on terrorism and copyright infringement. I really hope we won't be stuck with these issues for 40 years as well.
Waging war on your own population, and treating everyone as a criminal until proven innocent, is never a functional solution.
Option 1: Telling them
1) Send the DMCA takedown notice to remove illegal content.
2) Megaupload complies.
3 There's no case.
Option 2: Not telling them
1) Flat out lie to Megaupload: Ask them to assist in a criminal investigation by NOT removing illegal content.
2) Flat out lie to the courts: Get a warrant on the accusation of hosting the illegal content you asked them NOT to delete.
There's words for option 2. "Legal" is not among them.
There was an option 3: investigate Megaupload without breaking the law, fabricating evidence and lying to the courts. That's the issue.
The key thing to remember here is that going after solitary stealthy individuals is HARD, and going after the poor bastards who run very visible companies or websites is EASY.
Neither government nor big business wants to chase after hundreds of millions of actual criminals (and I use the word in the loosest sense), when they can simply go after the 100 big service providers.
The law may in most countries still hold the individual responsible, and the service provider innocent, but that's merely semantics... Megaupload, Piratebay, SurfTheChannel -pick a country and it's the same all over- screw the law; go after the providers for "conspiracy!"
Mark my words, it's just a matter of time before the letter of the law says a provider is directly responsible for all of the actions of the users, and even search engines will be criminally responsible for automatically finding and indexing illegal content. It's not going to help anyone, or stop "piracy", but it is going to happen none the less.
They really do have their heads that far up their bums. It's inevitable.
While I can't speak for the rest of Europe (and note that if you thought US states had big differences in law - you don't even want to know how different the laws are in the relatively recently formed EU) but in Sweden, lending is certainly not illegal. It's not illegal to lend and borrow films, books, movies, paintings, cars, etc.
It's just not.
Not that there aren't some trying to change all this, but at least they haven't succeeded yet.
So a paper has to be printed, paper and has to be bought, machines must be maintained, rents have to be paid, papers have to be shipped, paperboys must be paid... and somehow I can get a paper in my mailbox for what? A dollar a day? How much of that money has ever been "profit"? I always suspected it was "little to none", and that the profit actually came from the advertising - and as such the change to digital shouldn't be a problem: you get 1 dollar less for the paper, you pay one dollar less to print and distribute it.
You know, after looking at the chart in Steve Buttry's article, it sort of reinforces this creeping suspicion that I've had for a while:
Newspapers aren't in decline due to freeloading readers, but rather the newspapers' complete and total failure to collect payment from the advertisers. Somewhere along the line, the corporations seem to have said "online advertising is worth less than print advertising" and the papers just went slumped down and said "ok..."
As a result, it's now the readers who are expected to pick up the slack, to pay the full price, despite the fact that the papers no longer have printing and distribution costs. (Sounds like pay-per-view, and buying games as digital downloads, doesn't it?)
Does this sound about right, or am I just being overly cynical?
I remember reading somewhere on techdirt that "you can patent a plow, but not the concept of plowing". Call me crazy, but isn't that EXACTLY what's going on here? They aren't patenting knives, protective gloves, automated butch-o-matics... They are patenting the concept of cutting a piece of meat. How the hell did that get through the patent office? What are they smoking over there, and can I please have some?
"That is, young people in these countries were not prepared to give up without a fight wide-ranging access to the kind of culture that had been denied to their parents' generation because of Soviet censorship, and to which they now had access despite their continuing economic disadvantages. And so they took to the streets."
That says it all really. The population in the former soviet block remembers, and know first hand what it's like to not have all the rights we take for granted, and they are willing to fight to defend them.
We on the other hand... "the west", we have grown lazy and silent, become too trusting of our governments and our industries and just flat out assume they have our best interests at heart, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We could all use a healthy dose of dictatorship to rekindle our fire for protecting our rights.
While the idea of using case insensitive passwords may be questionable (is questionable in my opinion, as it's at least up to the users if they wish to use upper case letters or not), there's far worse things going on around the net.
There are for example some major places, that shall remain nameless, that feel 6-letter passwords are just fine and dandy, as long as they contain at least one upper case letter and one number - but at the same time they decide to reject 20+ long lower case password because it's apparently "insecure" in comparison, which of course is a load of dingo's kidneys.
The obsession with special characters in passwords stems from the old days when passwords were 8 letters or shorter. In todays day and age you are much better of with "greenthumbtreehuggerpetflies" than "1eE4ad", not to mention that your strange little word-riddles are a lot easier to actually fucking remember... Of course, you have to use "Gr33nthumbtreehuggerperflies" instead because you have to use numbers and caps, and that makes it slow to type and much more annoying to remember, even when you do the obvious leetspeak letter replacements.