LOIC and Hacking: The modern nonviolent protests?

[MPM]

For those of you who don't know what it is, LOIC is an easy to set up program that joins you into a voluntary botnet that you can leave at any time.

Controllers will use these botnets to cause a DDOS on various websites/servers that they are currently protesting.

 

Tonight, someone compared a DDOS using LOIC to the sit ins during the civil rights movement, and it can't be denied that there are some similarities.

In both cases, the goal is to disrupt normal operation. In a sit in, the disruption is caused by protestors taking all the available booths/seats in a business so real customers can't be served. In a DDOS, the server is crippled by the huge numbers of requests to the website. Again, real customers can't access the site.

 

Is this a legitimate form of protesting in the modern age?

If you do, do you think that these modern protesters should be as proud of their achievements as the civil rights protestors?

 

I personally think this is a great way to protest. It requires next to no effort on the majority part, but is just as effective(if not more effective) as a sit in. You also have the advantage of being mostly anonymous. Two of the problems with sit ins is that there wouldn't be enough protestors to make a statement or you could end up in jail. A DDOS mostly eliminates these problems.

However, I don't believe that the individuals involved are as important in history as those during the civil rights movement. The civil rights protestors basically risked their lives being involved in a sit in. They could be thrown in jail. They could be beaten. They could be ostracized from their community if they were white.

 

Another modern protest method is hacking.

As a preface, I'm atheist. However, I think most religious people on these forums, as well as any unaffiliated other people, will agree with me when I say that the Westboro church is a intolerant and bigoted organization who are wrong(while they have the freedom to express themselves however they want...).

At the end of Feburary, hackers targeted many of the WBC's websites and took them down. To this day, some of them are still inoperable.

I believe that these hackings are the same as a protestor doing property damage. Both of them are criminal offenses, but are still considered nonviolent because no one is harmed. I don't think a hacking is quite to the level of throwing a brick through a shop window though, even though I would completely support both forms of protests in certain matters. I only think that a hacking is less effective than destruction because the information is digital. It's easier to fix a destroyed website than it is to fix a shattered shop window.

 

How do you feel about the two different types of protests, and would you(or have you) support one of these if a matter came up that you felt needed heard?

 

 

Sorry for the wall of text

[KittyKat]

While I can see where parallels can be drawn, sit-ins were personal and bore risk whereas LOIC is far more faceless and the users basically have impunity. Also, many of those who use LOIC don't really care as much about the message of their protest as they care about the lulz of taking down a website.

[Sir_Squab]

For those of you who don't know what it is, LOIC is an easy to set up program that joins you into a voluntary botnet that you can leave at any time.

Controllers will use these botnets to cause a DDOS on various websites/servers that they are currently protesting.

 

Tonight, someone compared a DDOS using LOIC to the sit ins during the civil rights movement, and it can't be denied that there are some similarities.

In both cases, the goal is to disrupt normal operation. In a sit in, the disruption is caused by protestors taking all the available booths/seats in a business so real customers can't be served. In a DDOS, the server is crippled by the huge numbers of requests to the website. Again, real customers can't access the site.

 

Is this a legitimate form of protesting in the modern age?

If you do, do you think that these modern protesters should be as proud of their achievements as the civil rights protestors?

 

I personally think this is a great way to protest. It requires next to no effort on the majority part, but is just as effective(if not more effective) as a sit in. You also have the advantage of being mostly anonymous. Two of the problems with sit ins is that there wouldn't be enough protestors to make a statement or you could end up in jail. A DDOS mostly eliminates these problems.

However, I don't believe that the individuals involved are as important in history as those during the civil rights movement. The civil rights protestors basically risked their lives being involved in a sit in. They could be thrown in jail. They could be beaten. They could be ostracized from their community if they were white.

 

Another modern protest method is hacking.

As a preface, I'm atheist. However, I think most religious people on these forums, as well as any unaffiliated other people, will agree with me when I say that the Westboro church is a intolerant and bigoted organization who are wrong(while they have the freedom to express themselves however they want...).

At the end of Feburary, hackers targeted many of the WBC's websites and took them down. To this day, some of them are still inoperable.

I believe that these hackings are the same as a protestor doing property damage. Both of them are criminal offenses, but are still considered nonviolent because no one is harmed. I don't think a hacking is quite to the level of throwing a brick through a shop window though, even though I would completely support both forms of protests in certain matters. I only think that a hacking is less effective than destruction because the information is digital. It's easier to fix a destroyed website than it is to fix a shattered shop window.

 

How do you feel about the two different types of protests, and would you(or have you) support one of these if a matter came up that you felt needed heard?

 

 

Sorry for the wall of text

 

See, see, that's what made the civil rights protesters so impressive. They were willing to to be beaten, thrown in jail, or at best ostracized. That means a lot more then just downloading something on your computer.

 

Plus, the Westboro church just seems like a small, extreme minority doing high racist and bigoted....publicity stunts. That's far different from standing up to the government/majority due to strong moral reasons. If you really want to do something to them, figure out a way to make the media stop paying attention to them. Who knows; maybe they'll stop because, like little children, stop misbehaving when people stop reacting to it; or perhaps they'll do something they can get thrown in jail for.

 

Now, I mean, it's not ALL a publicity stunt, they are racist and bigoted and all that, but I think to a certain extent the reason why they push it towards such an extreme is just for the media attention.

[RpgGamer]

I disagree that website repair is easier than window repair, but I like and agree with your argument. i would like to inform you however that misuse of the LOIC can result in being V&. Use with caution. All in all, I would love to partake in protests, digital or in reality, but I have not done either. I was once tempted to get myself the LOIC software [over what, I no longer recall], but after reading all the warnings and disclaimers, I thought it was in my best interest to watch the internet attack each other from the vicarious third person view. As for real protesting...obviously riots and whatnot are dangerous, but I feel they have a clearer sense of well...reality.

 

tl;dr

 

modern times be damned, nothing says "[bleep] the system" like a molotov cocktail

[No_M0re]

I think it's wicked. :thumbup:

 

lul.

[Orpheus]

I disagree that website repair is easier than window repair, but I like and agree with your argument. i would like to inform you however that misuse of the LOIC can result in being V&.

 

Easy argument: "I got a virus and lost control of my computer."

[jasignhagj]

Tell that to the people in the states that got v& for Operation Payback.

[dargonhuman]

As a preface, I'm atheist. However, I think most religious people on these forums, as well as any unaffiliated other people, will agree with me when I say that the Westboro church is a intolerant and bigoted organization who are wrong(while they have the freedom to express themselves however they want...).

At the end of Feburary, hackers targeted many of the WBC's websites and took them down. To this day, some of them are still inoperable.

I believe that these hackings are the same as a protestor doing property damage. Both of them are criminal offenses, but are still considered nonviolent because no one is harmed. I don't think a hacking is quite to the level of throwing a brick through a shop window though, even though I would completely support both forms of protests in certain matters. I only think that a hacking is less effective than destruction because the information is digital. It's easier to fix a destroyed website than it is to fix a shattered shop window.

 

As a Christian, I agree that the Wesboro church is completely wrong in the way they're handling their concerns; Christians are supposed to be more loving and compassionate than that. On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right and counter-attacking them by taking down their websites isn't the answer either. Were I inclined (and had the skills) to do so, I'd hack their website and change the text to the Bible verses they seem to have forgotten, such as "...love thy neighbor as thyself..." from Leviticus and Matthew, "...be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves," also from Matthew, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," again from Matthew and a whole bunch others that I can't think of at the moment.

Also, throwing a brick through someone's window =/= nonviolent protest. Any kind of destruction of property, public or private, is by nature a violent act. Sit-ins were non-violent as no one got hurt by the protestors and nothing was destroyed, just like picket protests and such. Still, that being said, yes, peaceful protests for the right causes are perfectly acceptable. Protests for the wrong reasons, peaceful or not, aren't.