My question here is in regards to the LAWS only. Not the politics behind them. I hope it doesn't cross the line. I'm asking because I'm kind of in the middle on these laws. Being in the middle is pretty unusual for me (except for that one time when my ex-wife had just the right amount to drink and the hot redhead at the other table was...but I digress) so I thought I'd throw this out there.
Two questions for those who are in the know of the application of press protection (as opposed to the actual wording)...
Does freedom of the press grant the right to print anything?
Can anyone claim to be the "press" and print anything they want?
A general question for those who feel that DOS attacks should not be illegal...
Should there be limits on DOS attacks?
For example, should I be allowed to bring down your Internet connection if I feel like it?
Obviously I do not include zombie botnets in this discussion. I'm talking about willful and knowing attacks.
--Outlaw.
![]()
I believe the application of the laws when it comes to protest depend on a perceived legitimacy of the protest. For example you probably couldn't get away with picketing outside my house claiming it is in protest of my bad interior design and that you stand for the freedom of interior designers to rid the world of bad taste. But if you were to picket outside the offices of a business that funded a group that espoused racism then you may have grounds for a protest. I'm not entirely sure of the laws in regard to protest and what is or is not legit, but I will say many protests that in retrospect were for the betterment of all and were for worthy causes were at the time despised and hindered at all turns because they upset the applecart so to speak. Many at the time thought the civil rights marches and protests should be stopped and it was nothing but a bunch of uppity troublemakers out to do nothing but cause anarchy. I guess ones man's protest is another mans thorn in the side, for the most part though, history has shown that it was usually a thorn in the side of those in the wrong. Obviously the DDoS attacks are a grey, and while I don't believe for one second that Anonymous has given up on a very powerful tactic they have made an effort to move away from them for now and concentrate on more traditional protest. Through Operation Leakspin and Operation Paperstorm and even several traditional rallies, they have been able to continue raising awareness on the issue without Anonymous itself becoming the story and overshadowing the cause.
As for what is press and what is a journalist, I think that on the one hand it is a hard distinction to make, and on the other it's pretty simple. I do understand that not anyone writing any old thing can be a journalist, but at the same time if someone is receiving information about happenings in the public interest and is relaying in a factual manner that information to a large number of people, then does that not make them a journalist? Should they not be afforded the same constitutional protections as, say Bob Woodward? In the case of Assange and Wikileaks, I certainly think they are journalists and the press, I think that would stand on it's own but it's been further legitimized by the fact that some of the worlds most respected newspapers have worked closely and directly with Assange and Wikileaks to publish the reports he has received.
Edit: Here is a good article in the Guardian that explains why Anonymous' actions are protest, not hacking or cyber crime.
The answer to both questions is no. The press can't knowingly print lies about you. If they do, you can sue for libel or slander (I always get these two mixed up).Does freedom of the press grant the right to print anything?
Can anyone claim to be the "press" and print anything they want?
The term press is now more broadly applied than in the past because of the internet, but the average citizen just can't call themselves part of the press. And the press has more freedoms in getting access to information, from the government at least, than does the average citizen. The president often includes members of the press when he travels, but this same access is not typically granted to an average citizen. Credentialled members of the press can access the White House and attend press briefings, but average people typically can not.
I think that anyone can claim to be the 'press' as far as the internet is concerned. It's easy, just start a website with a catchy handle like 'Realtruthexposed.com', and you become part of the news information world internet.Originally posted by Outlaw---:
Does freedom of the press grant the right to print anything?
Can anyone claim to be the "press" and print anything they want?
On a related topic, Wikipedia used to allow anyone to anonymously revise a wiki page at will with no supervision. Individuals, corporations, religions, etc would revise to their own benefit or someone else's detriment whether it was the true information or not. From what I understand, a lot of the time the (mis)information would be soon corrected on the better known bios of individuals, but on some of the lesser known topics would remain unnoticed, in some instances several days or longer. Back in 2005 I had an argument with a guy involving the issue of John Seigenthaler having a Wiki page edited with false information published as factual worldwide about him out on the internet for 5 months before it was noticed and corrected. This guy loved the fact that the users themselves could post subjects, and anyone in the world could edit them anonymously. When I said that it leads to exactly what happened to Seigenthaler, he countered that the wiki users themselves policed it where the administrators themselves would never even have to get involved. Besides, all it was was some misinformation that eventually got corrected, what's the big deal?
I asked him if he really believed that. He emphatically said that he did, so I raised my voice a bit and said his name, "----- is a child molester!" We were sitting in a coffee shop, and several people looked over. The guy cringed down and told me 'Don't say that!" I looked around me and publicly corrected that it was not true that ----- was a child molester. I asked the guy, what's the matter, I thought you said it was okay to say whatever you wanted to say. Besides, it got corrected, so what's the big deal?![]()
I'm not sure on the exact laws regarding DoS attacks in the US, but I'd bet they are deemed illegal even as a form of protest. Just because you're protesting something doesn't give you the right to protest in any fashion you see fit, especially if it can cause harm to other people, businesses, or public infrastructure. (For example, it's OK to picket outside abortion clinics, but fire-bombing them is not.)Originally posted by Outlaw---:
A general question for those who feel that DOS attacks should not be illegal...
Should there be limits on DOS attacks?
Here is an example of the 'free speech' issue involving verbal abuse at protests, even if it causes no physical harm to whoever or whatever the protesters are against:Originally posted by jarink:
I'm not sure on the exact laws regarding DoS attacks in the US, but I'd bet they are deemed illegal even as a form of protest. Just because you're protesting something doesn't give you the right to protest in any fashion you see fit, especially if it can cause harm to other people, businesses, or public infrastructure. (For example, it's OK to picket outside abortion clinics, but fire-bombing them is not.)
http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...litary_funerals.html
This is a situation where prosecution will usually be politically or press driven rather than because some obvious crime like murder has occurred.
It would seem depending on the jurisdiction the two most likely lines of prosecution are:
a) Telecommunication laws and regulations. Many jurisdictions have specific tel-com acts that forbid willfully interfering with communications
b) alleging conspiracy
First off, DOS attacks ARE ILLEGAL in the US. There is no question about that. Whether or not it will stand is another issue but the law is there and completely clear. You may wish to argue the fact that they SHOULD be legal but please do not argue whether or not they are legal. THEY ARE NOT. It does not matter if it's distributed or not, attacker aware or not.
The above article has nothing to do with the legality of a DOS. It simply states (correctly) that it is not hacking or cracking. Furthermore, the guy is either clueless (he's not) or he's spreading disinformation just like those he hates so much (BINGO!!). A DDos is simply a DOS emanating from multiple networks at once. This makes it more difficult to stop as you can't simply shutdown a single 8 bit subnet at the firewall. It does NOT require a botnet NOR does it require zombie PCs. If 20 people in 20 different parts of the country (and therefore more likely to be on different networks) decide to initiate a DOS attack against a single host it's a DDOS.Edit: Here is a good article in the Guardian that explains why Anonymous' actions are protest, not hacking or cyber crime.
--Outlaw.