> Except that the intent is not to connect to them to view their
 > website or do
 > business with them.  There is a specific intent here to use up their
 > bandwidth, forcing their costs of doing business higher, with no
 > intent to
 > do business with them.  This is most definitely a punishable offense in a
 > court of law.  Your argument could be used to justify spamming, or virus
 > writing, etc.  Vigilante practices are loathsome and there is a definite
 > intent in the law to protect everyone from vigilantes.
 >
 > I hate spam too, but lowering ourselves to their base level - using
 > unethical network practices - is not the way...

Here, again, ethics is injected in the same discussion with legality.  There
are two questions:  Is it legal? And, Is it ethical?

The first legality, has no precedent.  Not only is it nearly impossible to
prove that the traffic - traffic they welcomed with their spam - is legit or
a DDoS, there appears to be no laws in place relating to such activity.  One
cannot yet state with all certainty that what Lycos is doing is "illegal",
though in strictly legal terms, one could definitely say they are walking a
thin line.  It's hard to prove "intent" in this case... at least prove
intent of the individual nodes.  Intent of Lycos is clear, and that's why
I'm pretty sure it's THEIR necks on the line.  It's up to each person to
decide if it's okay to proceed and become a node on that basis, in LEGAL
terms.

The second, ethics, I would argue is not a black-and-white answer.  If you
are the type of person that sees right and wrong as 100% absolute, then what
Lycos (and hence, participant in the program) is doing is either ethical or
unethical... probably *unethical*, to you.  Ethically speaking, it becomes
up to each person to then decide if killing a spammer's website, with the
intent of stopping their *PROVEN* illegal practice, is ethical.

The question of whether a DDoS attack is a "sin" is at hand.  Up to now, we
could all agree that yes, a DDoS is not a Good Thing (tm).  This new
"service" by Lycos puts that position on much less stable footing.

I know of at least one particular religion (somehow I knew religion would
end up in this!!) that claims that God sees all sin the same, large or
small, and treats all sin the same.

If you believe that DDoS is a Bad Thing, regardless of the intent, then
you'll see it as a Sin, and if you believe that all sins large and small are
to be met with the same punishment (again, ethically, not legally), then you
will take the position that this entire Lycos service is a Bad Thing.

Those of us that do not subscribe to that position would probably feel
differently about the Lycos solution.  Some people aren't willing to accept
that God is going to punish a good person that once participated in the
theft of a loaf of bread to feed his family the same way that He would
punish someone that murdered an entire family and buried them in a shallow
grave by the railroad tracks.

In the same way, some of us are willing to say that in this case, IF this
type of service were considered a sin, (and not simply "Internet justice
where Internet justice is long overdue", which is probably what we're more
willing to say), it's not the same type of sin (vigilante-ism) as killing a
murderer.  It's the stolen-loaf-of-bread type of sin, as opposed to the
killed-the-family type of sin.  And if this type of justice is executed
properly, it could be more effective in stopping the need for such justice
in the future... more than can be said for the killing-the-murderer type of
vigilante-ism that was in the comparison.  Killing-the-murderer never had
"preventing future murders" going for it... this attack against spammers
just might work.

The inflexibility and absolute nature and rules of most religions (in my own
opinion, obviously) are the cause for so many problems today.  There can be
no justice or civility when rules are absolute.  Some call this wishy-washy,
flip-flopping, or possessing a lack of conviction... others call it the
thoughtfulness that separates us from the other animals on the planet.  To
say that "attacking our attackers (spammers)" in a more effective way using
a tool (in this case DDoS) that up to now has been considered "Bad" is
vigilante action that is 100% wrong at all times demonstrates inflexibility
that may in fact be standing in the way of long-overdue justice.

This side of the discussion has philosophical elements, when you begin to
discuss the ethics of a DDoS attack against a spammer's website, so I have
no problem entering that realm.  (At the risk of getting flamed that this is
not appropriate for this list of course!)  Philosophically speaking, the
question in each person's mind will be "it is okay to do something that
borders on 'evil' to rid the (domain) of a much greater, more harmful
evil?"... and each of us will answer that in his own way, based on those
"soft" variables like individual belief, experience, and moral flexibility
or lack thereof.

The legal questions may or may not find hard answers based on philosophy and
ethics... but so far, this particular ethical/legal question has not been
fought in any legal system, so there's no information there.

Someone will eventually say "if this offends you, don't participate in the
Lycos plan".  That's not necessarily an answer either... since it cuts off
discussion about how best to approach the DDoS system.  I think there's a
group of us that agree that if such a system is executed carefully, with
good controls in place, there's a place for it on the Internet, and a chance
that it could really force spammers to go get real jobs, since they cannot
actually execute dollar sales as a result of their spam.  There's another
group that feels the ends don't justify the means, no matter how effective
and carefully controlled.  The first group will not be able to identify with
the second group's position, probably not ever.  But if the debate and
discussion is kept carefully in check, both groups can continue to respect
the position of the other, which could render an even better DDoS-type
solution in the future, because all parties are still talking.

Boy, I've wandered...



To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/

Reply via email to