Response Paper 1: Petition asks White House to make DDoS attacks a form of protest
Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks have long existed in a controversial area of the law. DDoS is implemented by bombarding a website with requests that overwhelm the server capacity and effectively brings the website offline. This flood of traffic is often accomplished through the use of Internet connected computers that are usually maliciously controlled by hacktivists, otherwise known as bots, and involves no actual hacking . This technicality has generated debate on the appropriate punishments for DDoS cases as it could be argued that the act was not in itself illegal. Consequently, petitions have been filed, such as the one covered by Meghan Kelly …show more content…
It is this physical presence that alerts the bystander to the protest and gives them the opportunity to consider the injustice that the protestors are rallied against. However, in the case of DDoS, the bystander is unsure if it is truly a protest or if it is the result of technical difficulties. This uncertainty is compounded by the inability of the bystander to discern between protestor and non-protestor. The lines are clearly drawn between the two in a traditional protest. In cyberspace, this is not the case. Furthermore, even within the protest community, there does not exist the communal spirit that would encourage genuine volunteers to join due to the lack of physical presence. This is exacerbated, as DDoS is by its very nature exclusionary. It restricts access from the protest of those unversed in technology but who agree with the ideals of the protest. Moreover, DDoS artificially renders additional protestors redundant through the use of bots, which leaves the DDoS “protest” to the whims of a few or even a single person. It is this inherent nature of the Internet that renders DDoS victims unable to determine the ideals behind the act, as there is no method to reveal whether the act was in protest or with malevolent intent. These aspects serve to create uncertainty when the usage of DDoS is involved that feeds doubt about the sincerity of the protestors behind the event. As such, the ideals that the protest stands for are diluted, a consequence that would not occur in a truly peaceful sit-in
Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks have long existed in a controversial area of the law. DDoS is implemented by bombarding a website with requests that overwhelm the server capacity and effectively brings the website offline. This flood of traffic is often accomplished through the use of Internet connected computers that are usually maliciously controlled by hacktivists, otherwise known as bots, and involves no actual hacking . This technicality has generated debate on the appropriate punishments for DDoS cases as it could be argued that the act was not in itself illegal. Consequently, petitions have been filed, such as the one covered by Meghan Kelly …show more content…
It is this physical presence that alerts the bystander to the protest and gives them the opportunity to consider the injustice that the protestors are rallied against. However, in the case of DDoS, the bystander is unsure if it is truly a protest or if it is the result of technical difficulties. This uncertainty is compounded by the inability of the bystander to discern between protestor and non-protestor. The lines are clearly drawn between the two in a traditional protest. In cyberspace, this is not the case. Furthermore, even within the protest community, there does not exist the communal spirit that would encourage genuine volunteers to join due to the lack of physical presence. This is exacerbated, as DDoS is by its very nature exclusionary. It restricts access from the protest of those unversed in technology but who agree with the ideals of the protest. Moreover, DDoS artificially renders additional protestors redundant through the use of bots, which leaves the DDoS “protest” to the whims of a few or even a single person. It is this inherent nature of the Internet that renders DDoS victims unable to determine the ideals behind the act, as there is no method to reveal whether the act was in protest or with malevolent intent. These aspects serve to create uncertainty when the usage of DDoS is involved that feeds doubt about the sincerity of the protestors behind the event. As such, the ideals that the protest stands for are diluted, a consequence that would not occur in a truly peaceful sit-in