Although Anonymous is not your personal army, and when Jesus asked them their name, they replied "My name is Legion, for we are many", and by many, they mean over 9000; and they're also a front for the Marcab Confederacy....
They take large sums of unmarked, non-sequential large denomination bills, and don't skimp on the briefcase. Deliver it to moot's beachfront property in Mexico.
Also www.aiplex.com appears to be back up.
You're not sticking it to the man, you're sticking it to the low-level employee who is punching the clock for the man but doesn't actually have any say in steering procedure.
And I guess that's fine if you want the publicity. But that's all you're going to get out of it.
This is silly, though, because there is little point in bringing down a website that nobody visits. If a tree falls in the forest...
They seem to be fighting fire with fire but the fire of DDoSing a torrent file server burns brighter.
Your IP address is not anonymous.
If a law is unjust you IGNORE it. You don't take enforcement into your own hands, much less anonymous enforcement. If you truly believe what you fight for you'd come out and be proud of it because you know you're right. But nothing says uncertain motives more than cowering behind anonymity for a cause.
It very well could indicate a flaw in democracy, nothing is perfect.
Civil disobedience goes like this:
1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt)
2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly.
3. You get arrested and punished.
4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law.
DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.
Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones.
If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.
An impossibly broad definition -- it encompasses all crime.
Just because you're civilly disobeying doesn't make it right.
Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.
When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
Of course nothing is perfect, which is why if you don't believe in the democratic and judicial process then you might as well have anarchy and take everything into your own hands. We don't have a government because it's perfect. We have it because it allows us to funnel all problems with respect to it. A standardized process with which to improve society instead of having mobs act on impulse everytime they get angry.
Or maybe this is about having our constitutional right to bear cyber arms (and use at will). In which case I would encourage every cyber citizen to ignore the unjust anti-DoS laws and proudly use his/her low orbit ion cannons at will. that would be civil disobedience.
Sure we're angry at the MPAA. We can choose not to accept their terms (by not buying or pirating). Or if you don't believe in copyright, pirate the stuff and take on the legal consequences. But stooping to their level is dishonorable, and questionable in motive. Sure these dos guys are probably kids but we should encourage them to hold back and fight back honorably.
Personally I'd take the copyright debate a lot more seriously if I could separate the folks who have legitimate and well thought-out points to make about the weaknesses of existing copyright law from the folks who just want to get stuff for free.
I know right? If they did something wrong point that out. Attacking them because you think they're assholes and you feel like it is just plain immature.
The USA isn't a democracy. Not formally, because it doesn't have universal adult suffrage, and because votes aren't of equal value. Not practically, because the electoral system means that no-one outside the two big parties can get anywhere. And that's even before we look at abuses of the system such as gerrymandering, or votes not being counted properly.
The USA is in practise run by corporate interests such as the MPAA and RIAA. A good example of this is the ACTA treaty, negotiations for which started under the Bush administration and continued seamlessly under Obama. So lacking in democratic oversight is this that lawmakers aren't even allowed to know what's in it.
The question of whether your mens rea can actually be proven is an entirely different question from whether it is illegal.
a) BitTorrent it.
b) Scream in agony.
What else, they stabbed us in the back? I know I'm breaking Godwin laws here but that's some pretty sickening Kristallnacht rhetoric there.
kids will be kids
Same can apply with anti-piracy. Anonymous = noobs.