

Anonymous meets real activism? #OpPayPal - Grape
http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/anonymous-meets-real-activism-oppaypal/

======
JonnieCache
_> While they consider a DDoS attack a ‘peaceful protest’ the real thing is
that it is a crime._

I'm getting really tired of this. "Peaceful" and "criminal" are not mutually
exclusive. Sit-ins are often not legal, lying down in the road is not legal,
that's why people get arrested for it.

Not that I necessarily support anything anon are doing, I am just tired of the
really weak moral arguments made against them over and over again. There are
much more internally-consistent ways to criticise them.

~~~
brudgers
Agreed. Indeed, in order to be civil disobedience the act must violate the
some law or rule to which the person is subject in a context in which the
person is subject to it.

------
wccrawford
Technically this is LulzSec, which isn't really exactly the same as Anonymous
since it has a -name-.

And 'real activism'? Why do you get to judge what is 'real' or not? The
protests they've been staging have been very effective at opening eyes. They
have clearly gotten their point across. And they continue to do so.

------
yaix
I disagree with the author.

A DDOS is not necessarily a crime, same a blocking a road to hold a protest is
not a crime, while "just blocking a road" is. The motives for doing so are
much more important than the author recognizes.

And the harsh way gov'ts worldwide are responding to these protests are
worrying. "Let's just smash 'em" is probably not a politically wise response.

~~~
petercooper
_A DDOS is not necessarily a crime_

Under what circumstances or alternative definition? (Without referring to a
physical analogy.)

~~~
mikle
Well for it to be a crime there must be a law against it. Some countries don't
have laws about it, meaning some places on earth don't consider DDOS a crime.

~~~
petercooper
This is why I asked the question, as the grandparent poster seemed to be
making some sort of legal or moral point conflating a DDOS with the right of
assembly. Nonetheless, strictly speaking there are clearly many forms of DDOS
that are not illegal (DDOSing your own equipment, for example, and those
situations you explain) but they don't seem to fit well into the point he/she
was trying to make.

------
axefrog
Causing problems for PayPal's service is shortsighted and has a lot of
collateral damage. For many small business owners, PayPal is the only viable
way to take global payments online. There are a few other payment providers,
but their fees are usually much higher than PayPal's, or their payment
schedules and API integration are severely limited in comparison. With PayPal
I can charge a customer and have the money in my account within a couple of
days, plus feel safe that most fraud is going to be stopped at the door.

~~~
etherealG
bear in mind protest can be seen as a way to change a company policy. noone is
saying paypal shouldn't exist, but personally i do agree they shouldn't be
disallowing payments on behalf of wikileaks.

~~~
axefrog
Agreed, but plain old DDOS against PayPal seems like a great way to get PayPal
to upgrade their DDOS defensive measures and not a great way to get them to
change their policies. Companies change their policies when their customers
become educated about them and the company starts to lose business and look
bad in the media as a result.

In this case, Anonymous will achieve making PayPal's website even slower for a
while. If they lose customers it'll be for the wrong reasons. Anonymous needs
to find a way to educate the public about a company's wrongdoings, not just
disrupt the company's service while not making sure everyone knows exactly why
that company's service has been disrupted. They seem to have this misguided
idea that DDOS = public education and corporate humiliation. That's what I
find shortsighted.

~~~
jasongullickson
_Anonymous needs to find a way to educate the public..._

Anonymous has its own means and methods which you may or may not agree with.

If you agree that something needs to be done but think there is a better way
to do it, then _you_ need to carry it out, enough "armchair quarterback"-ing.

------
rick888
Which I find hilarious, because they themselves (anonymous) decided to censor
the shooter frpm oslo's manifesto.

So when censorship fits their needs, it's okay.

~~~
icebraining
While it's __not __my position, some people might believe that you can lose
that right if you do something like killing dozens of people. The freedom to
travel inside your own country is important too, but if you kill or rob
someone, most people will agree that you should be jailed.

Again, I don't agree with it, but it's not necessarily hypocrisy, just
different values.

------
mikecaron
PayPal better be reading this and arm themselves against security breaches as
best they can...

------
VMG
> [...] all for taking part in a historical activist movement.

Sorry, you've lost me there. Get off your high horse.

------
nextparadigms
Governments don't want people to protest over anything bad they do. They want
them to sit nice and quiet and let them take the decisions themselves, so
they've criminalized almost any type of protest. The few types of protests you
can do today are because other people have fought for them before us, too. But
ideally, the Governments wouldn't want you to protest at all, whether you do
it in crowds or on your own on Twitter.

From a _current_ Government's view, all revolutions are illegal, too.

~~~
petercooper
_They want them to sit nice and quiet and let them take the decisions
themselves_

This is the very definition of a government's job in many western countries.
The government is elected by the electorate in order to make decisions on our
behalf while we get about our lives.

Whether or not governments "allow" protest to certain levels or not is a
different matter, but the design of most current western democracies is one
that should, in essence, not require significant levels of protest, since they
were elected to do exactly what they're doing by a plurality (or even
majority) of the electorate.

 _But ideally, the Governments wouldn't want you to protest at all, whether
you do it in crowds or on your own on Twitter._

 _Ideally_ , would anyone _want_ to protest or want other people protesting?
_Ideally_ , I certainly wouldn't. Of course, in our less than ideal world,
sometimes it is necessary, but unless they're doing it for fun or attention, I
doubt anyone "wants" to have to protest.

