I am one of a pragmatic philosophy; I tend to see the effects in the real world and what’s viable and has results. After watching the Anonymous video, specifically the DDos attacks on Visa/MC for the lack of processing of Wiki-Leak payments, my pragmatic nature is once again strengthened by the addition of another pragmatic support beam. That being said, was what Anonymous did with right or wrong? It depends from which prism you wish to view their actions; either from an ethical or legal point of view.
From a legal point of view is is wrong as a DDos attacked can’t be performed from a single attack point; so the attackers have to either use a bunch of leased servers (which are expensive) or create an botnet, which in itself is a legal mess.
From an ethical point of view, one of the first questions that arises is: Are DDos attacks a form of protest? One side of the issue says that its as ethical as a peaceful demonstration in a city square which can at times bring traffic to a halt. The major difference being that you can get a municipal permit for a physical protest.
It’s not easy to stake a claim if these actions were right or wrong. In the US, a DDos attack falls under federal statutes known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). What is wrong—thanks to my pragmatic philosophy— is the disproportionate nature of the sentence for the crime. Although through a nuanced lens, most attackers rely on computers they've infected to carry out their attacks, hence the harshness of the sentence. It makes me wonder how tough or lenient the sentence would be for an attacker that actually owns the servers used to perform a DDos attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment