
Shutting down Iranian government websites is cyberwarfare - sweetdreams
http://trueslant.com/level/2009/06/14/is-shutting-down-iranian-propaganda-websites-cyber-freedom-fighting-or-cyber-terrorism/
======
madair
I urge readers to consider the importance of civil disobedience in the face of
overwhelming abuses of power by the Iranian government. I'm not advocating any
one particular method, but his arguments are weak. Abusers of freedom may cry
foul, but that doesn't make it so.

~~~
zcrar70
What makes it right for you to take down an Iranian government website, but
wrong for someone in Iran to take down a US government website, or for someone
in China to take down the Dalai Lama's website?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Because when you attack something, you are attacking the people that hold it?

In the United States, every citizen owns part of every government website, so
to attack one is to attack us all.

In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the
people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To
attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to
be attacked.

I have no obligation to view the legitimate property of a democracy in the
same way as a bunch of thugs ruling a country by force of arms. They are not
equivalent.

I'm not advocating one way or another -- in fact, I'm opposed in this
instance. But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you
were able to come up with one.

~~~
zcrar70
> But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able
> to come up with one.

Actually, my question was rhetorical, and your answer was arrogant.

> In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the
> people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force.
> To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved
> to be attacked.

You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate, all you
know is what you've read on a couple of western websites. To take the higher
moral ground based yon your own sense of morality (which may be different to
that of those people your purport to defend), and enforce your beliefs by
force (by attacking a government website) makes you no better than the
'assholes' you claim to be defending against.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. Not everything is
the same. To just throw out some nonsensical relative moralism and expect it
to float in a room full of critical thinkers seems a little far-fetched.

 _You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate_

It's not for me to decide. It's up to the Iranians. It's only up to me to
decide how to deal with their public policies that effect me. The Iranians are
perfectly content going door-to-door, gathering up satellite dishes and
televisions, imprisoning their opposition, shooting demonstrators -- all of
those things that dictatorships do. And guess what? I am perfectly happy
letting them. As are you, it seems.

But some folks have higher moral standards than you or I, and to them,
injustice of this nature requires action. There's no higher moral ground that
I'm taking, nor you, for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a
higher moral ground than "everybody does it, and who are we to judge?" You
might not like it, but it exists nonetheless.

~~~
zcrar70
_Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane._

I didn't think it was, but I'm once again surprised by the arrogance and self-
righteousness of your statement. I thought that this kind of bombast had no
place here, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

 _in a room full of critical thinkers_

I take it you're including yourself from that group, but that I'm not a part
of it? Or at least that's the implication I'm getting from your comment.

 _nonsensical relative moralism_ / _You might not like it, but it exists
nonetheless._

Err, no - it was actually a genuine question. When the Chinese hijack the
Dalai Lama's computer network, they genuinely think that they are in the
right. But you might disagree with that; what makes your right truer than
theirs?

This type of question has confounded philosophers for thousands of years. It's
not an easy problem to solve, and is fraught with contradictions. The best
we've arrived at is that principles like 'equality' are enshrined in our
constitutions; each of our opinions are considered to have equal importance,
and that includes the opinions of the Chinese and the Iranians. You seem to
show no awareness of this, which makes me think that your bombast and self-
righteousness may be misplaced.

You may be right that there is such a thing as a higher moral ground, and you
may even be right that it applies here; I think it would be difficult to
define in an off-hand 10 line comment, but I'd be glad to read your attempt
should you care to try.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
No bombast intended. Chill out.

This type of question has NOT confounded philosophers for thousands of years.
Moral relativism -- the idea that everything is just about the same, depending
on how you look at it --as a popular meme is very recent in the historical
record.

Look. It's lazy thinking, that's all. I'm sorry to have to say that. Critical
thinking requires of you to make moral choices. So make some. I've made mine
in the matter. Nobody is saying your thinking skills or any better or any
worse than anybody else. I'm just asking you to use them.

If you're still having problems, try a little Kant: only do those things that
you would want the rest of the world to do. If your code says it's okay to
attack sites because you "think you are in the right", whatever _that_ means,
then you should expect everybody to do that. If your code involves other
things, then formulate your rules and stick to them. But don't sit around
saying it's just all kind of the same. That's the starting point: without your
brain analyzing it, yes, it's all kind of the same. But that's why you have a
brain; its to tell the difference.

Look I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or was rude or something. I really am.
But there's an important point here. So I'll bow out now and perhaps the next
time you hear it you'll get it.

~~~
zcrar70
_No bombast intended. Chill out._ / _perhaps the next time you hear it you'll
get it._

Contradictory?

 _Look I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings_

You didn't - but you still didn't answer my question. What makes it OK for you
to hijack Iranian government websites based on hearsay you read on the
internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack the Dalai Lama's
computers?

Now that this story is a couple of days old, there seems to be a little more
perspective on this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=660169>

This is an article explaining how an echo chamber effect through Twitter and
the net _may_ have convinced people that the election was stolen, even though
it _may_ not have been. The situation isn't black and white like you painted
it; things rarely are.

I don't suppose you'll even consider that you might be wrong, but it would
certainly be nice if you had gone about it with a little less conceit.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Okay. I'll play along as long as this isn't getting emotional.

 _What makes it OK for you to hijack Iranian government websites based on
hearsay you read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack
the Dalai Lama's computers?_

Perhaps you missed the several times that I said I did not make that choice.
Let me be clearer: I do not think that is right for me to do in this case, and
I do not support doing it.

What do you mean by "right"? The point I was making is that _you have to make
the choice_. Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to
make the choice. Quite frankly I don't care which one you pick. I chose not to
support hacking their sites. You may choose otherwise. Or not. Instead of just
asking "what makes it OK?" perhaps the better question is "How is this
different from X for me?" It's your job to figure out your own rules; not go
around saying the problem is insolvable. That's whacked. Nobody is looking for
a universal solution. What's required is a personal choice. Leave ultimate
truth to the philosophers.

~~~
zcrar70
_Perhaps you missed the several times that I said I did not make that choice_

I didn't miss you saying that, but I also noticed that you replied to my
original post with an unequivocal answer - so you don't support doing it, but
you also think it's OK? Did I understand that correctly?

In any case, I should perhaps have been clearer:

What makes it OK for _someone_ to hijack Iranian government websites based on
hearsay _they_ read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to
hijack the Dalai Lama's computers?

I wasn't talking about you in particular - you did seem to defend those that
carried out the attacks. You still haven't answered that question.

 _Moral relativism as a popular meme is very recent in the historical record_

Who talked about moral relativism? Not me. The point of my question was
twofold:

* One person's right is another's wrong, and that arriving at some sort of greater truth is something we (as a civilisation) haven't been able to figure out yet. This has nothing to do with moral relativism as far as I'm concerned, and I still don't think it's an easy question to answer.

* We only have partial, incomplete and possibly biased information about what's going on in Iran, the same way that Chinese DDoSers' understanding of Tibet is probably heavily skewed by the information they have access to.

That's why I don't think it's OK for us to DDoS Iranian government sites, and
then complain about Chinese hackers doing it to anyone else.

 _Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to make the
choice._

I think it's perfectly fine not to have a strong opinion about something that
you don't know enough about.

