Hacking site rated green

Site-rater
Posts: 2924
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

Hacking site rated green

Post by Site-rater » Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:21 am

anonops.net has been rated green despite the fact that it is launching DDOS attacks against various websites.

Site-rater
Posts: 2924
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

I notice my comment has been

Post by Site-rater » Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:03 pm

I notice my comment has been revived on the scorecard, but the rating is still 97/98/98/98.

Guest

This is centered around

Post by Guest » Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:20 pm

This is centered around http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/7841-lega ... ing-or-not and where you or I may agree DDOS attacks are not the way to go or even the right way to handle things, others do disagree.

These groups regard It is the only way they can force changes in the hastily rushed though legislation (Digital Rights Bill) and justice against companies that have exploited this act for their own financial gain.

Guest

DDoS illegal?

Post by Guest » Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:25 pm

@ IssViews,

Regardless of causes or justifications, my sense is that DDoS attacks are illegal here in the US, though I don't have a specific cite (anyone?). From Wikipedia:
  1. "Denial-of-service attacks are considered violations of the IAB's Internet proper use policy, and also violate the acceptable use policies of virtually all Internet service providers. They also commonly constitute violations of the laws of individual nations."
Consequently, as I said, regardless of justifications, it does seem to be a method that at the very least stretches the bounds of ethics and at worst may be downright illegal.

I haven't investigated the site that the OP referenced, so I can't rate it. However, if I did find that they are originating a DDoS attack, I would definitely rate them red!

Guest

Oh, I agree but I was simply

Post by Guest » Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:44 am

Oh, I agree but I was simply adding more info to the issue. Yes it is wrong and unacceptable BUT we both know that others do not hold the same opinion as in their eyes this is justified to combat what they believe in.

Guest

OK

Post by Guest » Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:11 am

@ IssViews,

So you are talking then about raters that allow political bias to enter the equation. Yes, we have some of those, but I hope their reliability is not very high.

Guest

@BobJam If I had to justify

Post by Guest » Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:29 pm

@BobJam

If I had to justify why they would rate different to the rest of us, it would be based on ethical grounds. Reasons being, they may feel the site is not DDOSing as you would get with crime botnets but as a defence to opposition they regard as using illegal measures to combat what they believe in. Their arguement is that certain official bodies have conducted DOS and hack attacks against their servers plus companies such as ACS Law have exploited the legislation to gain great financial rewards using scare tactics and court threats with little or no evidence to support the accusations they stand by,

Perhaps it is wrong for me to consider both sides of the equasion and post their defence to this issue, as explained within a few of these sites. Yes, two wrongs do not make a right however there are times in history when a wrong had to be committed to make changes in a law which was unjust.

This is more of a political issue IMO and as for the raters reliability, well we just have to trust WOT and how it calculates this.

EDIT: I agree DDOS attacks are wrong and site behind this should rated as Deep Red however I have declined to rate either way because of this political issue.

namegirls
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:25 pm

Ethics of war

Post by namegirls » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:25 pm

I think that y'all are missing the ethics of war in your analysis. Ethics are different when it comes to warfare. I understand that this is a bit dramatic, so please forgive the drama, this is the first internet war. Actions which are wrong in other contexts, are easily justified in the case of war. Should I explain more, or does that make sense?

Guest

War, interesting conclusion.

Post by Guest » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:40 pm

War, interesting conclusion. . . yet wrong by all definitions of "war"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

What you have is illegal actions, and the old phrase of "Two wrongs don't make it right" comes to mind.

namegirls
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:25 pm

RE: War, interesting conclusion.

Post by namegirls » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:55 pm

I don't think that you can address this definitionally.

Shooting someone is wrong, except if one is being shot at. That is the point. I call it war, maybe 'attack' is better, or something to that effect. And while you are correct that two wrongs do not make a right, at least not logically, it is incorrect to suppose that therefore one should do no wrong. Again, it may be wrong to shoot someone under any circumstances, but, it is justifiable to shoot someone who is shooting at you, especially in the context of a 'war'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests