1. #11
    MB_Avro_UK's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,978
    I can't speak for American criminal law but there are similarities with English law.

    Mounting a DoS attack is an offence against the Computer Misuse Act under English Law, and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    And don't forget that Civil Law can be powerful. Less proof is required. You may remember that OJ Simpson was convicted of the murder of his wife under Civil Law but not under Criminal law.

    I hope this helps.

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    WTE_Galway's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    6,010
    Originally posted by Outlaw---:
    While the general feelings are good, I was hoping to get more answers/thoughts on the specific questions I asked.

    Anymore takers??

    --Outlaw.
    Well in terms of Freedom of the press in the US, and what you cannot print, the Wiki article is a good starting point:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...in_the_United_States

    wiki also give a good review of Lovell v Griffin

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...l_v._City_of_Griffin

    where the press was defined as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." which clearly includes blogs, twitter and facebook.


    It seems to me the significant thing about the US 1st amendment is the PURPOSE of the Freedom of the press provisions is to prevent politicians controlling information by declaring anything embarrassing secret.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    Zeus-cat's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,436
    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:

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...litary_funerals.html
    I firmly believe these people have every right to their beliefs and every right to publicly protest, but I believe they cross the line when they harass people at a funeral. They should not be allowed to cause severe emotional distress to innocent people just for publicity.

    You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claim freedom of speech. I think this falls into the same category.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    My problem with the Anon people is that I don't have any faith in them reining in their destructive impulses. They are fanatics and they only look as good as their worst member.

    I think we're entering a new era of online attacks. What's next? Republicans overloading "liberal" news sites (i.e. all of them but Fox) because they don't like them or disagree with them? Liberals trying to take down Fox News? PETA and various other crazy groups doing whatever their fanatical followers think they should do to sites they don't like?

    The techies of the world will have to find a way to neutralize these attacks, and that is only talking about these sorts of DDOS attacks which seem pretty easy to pull off. At some point they will cross the line into hacking and other illegal actions because of their political beliefs.
    Share this post

  5. #15
    WTE_Galway's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    6,010
    Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:


    The techies of the world will have to find a way to neutralize these attacks, and that is only talking about these sorts of DDOS attacks which seem pretty easy to pull off.
    These particular attacks, being repeat attacks coming from a small (500 to 1000) set of IP addresses, would likely be very easy to defeat.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Which makes me think they'll resort to other tactics eventually.

    I think certain people will tolerate their activities so long as it doesn't inconvenience their personal lives.
    Share this post

  7. #17
    I'm not so sure BS, I started keeping an eye on Anonymous when they went after Scientology, thought it was a good lark. Saw the mischief and general chaos they were causing in the beginning and thus dismissed them as nothing but an internet sideshow for laughs. But with any amorphous group with no leadership they evolve quickly and dynamically, and with the Wikileaks fiasco they have gone from a group of troublemakers and trolls to a real force for activism. The troublemakers are abandoning Anon for the most part because they don't have any real interest in freedom fighting, but due to the leaderless dynamics they are recruiting many many new members who are drawn to the idea of a group of ordinary citizens of earth standing up to those who would oppress the freedoms of those less powerful. I think the most attractive aspect of this newly emerging Anonymous is the idea that there is no one more powerful than the people, the thought that there is no higher authority than the people themselves. It's an extremely powerful idea, one that sadly the people have failed to realize for far too long. Just as in the move V for Vendetta, an idea has power and momentum all of it's own, Anon didn't adopt the Guy Fawkes image for nothing, and I would be very surprised if Anon abandoned this new-found activism and went back to pranking for the lulz.


    Frank Patrick Herbert - “If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.”

    "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
    — Benjamin Franklin

    Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence
    Share this post