As I'd mentioned on an earlier submission about W3C's site being inaccessible:
A cool thing about Aaron's activism was that it involved building things, circumventing censorship, and spreading information, rather than sabotage and denial-of-service.
Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes MIT to have better Ethics and Leadership as a result then its well worth the discomfort. If theres a bug in your system you sometimes have to replace some lines of code to make it better, this isn't destruction its just change.
True but Aaron's activism resulted in him being bullied until he took his own life.
It's a difficult topic.
If you assume that ddos from a collective is similar to blocking a road by a collective during a strike or manifestation then I must say that some people won't be able to get to work that day and in general nobody would get hurt.
This sort of pacific interruption raises awareness, which by itself is very important for a functioning democracy.
Yeah, well, people who aren't Aaron are kind of mad at MIT right now.
That said, MIT has some smart people, surely they can put their noggins together to figure out a way to stem the attack. Maybe once and for all, and for the good of the internet, they can contribute this tool for unilaterally turning off DDOSes to the public.
DDoSes are far, far easier to carry out. The low barrier to entry means that far more people can engage in that kind of "activism" than would be able even to write the python script Aaron used to download the JSTOR articles.
To me this feels a bit like a lunch counter cook complaining all these black people showing up in his restaurant are causing him extra work.
The whole point of a protest is to put pressure on the system your trying to change. Start a walkout/go on strike if you dont want to deal with the problems the organization you're working for caused.
The school only gets power from its students. Without the students there is no school. You have more power then you think. Take a stand, make a difference.
The other great protest is that any HS senior (or grad student applicant) who has an offer from MIT and from another comparable school (Stanford, CMU, etc.), tell MIT no, and tell them why you're saying no.
I suspect if 5-10 people who got MIT "yes" did this, MIT admissions and the MIT President would go batshit.
(You can do this even if you were on the fence about MIT, or even if you intended to go somewhere else anyway.)
Anon should promote this plan to HS seniors on the admissions boards and other forums likely to be frequented by top school applying seniors.
Given how many applicants MIT gets I do not think that 5-10 people would be enough to seriously upset them. Don't forget they can just get a couple more students with perfect SATs if they want. Furthermore, like the author said, it wasn't MIT as a community that went after Aaron, it was the administration.
Unless you were planning to not attend MIT in the first place, I would absolutely not recommend this. Its not worth compromising your future to send a message.
My guess is someone wants to "send a message" to MIT and so they're attacking the most vulnerable, most exploitable part of MIT's infrastructure: a non-critical system run by student volunteers. I doubt it's anything personal against Alex or other MIT students.
Imagine if a thousand members of Anonymous staged a non-violent protest at MIT, marching across campus. This would inconvenience some students, possibly even prevent them from attending class. Should this protest be condemned as an unconscionable attack on students? Of course not. It's a perfectly acceptable form of civil disobedience. Why shouldn't this extend to online protests via DDoS?
Why is it perfectly acceptable to inconvenience people from their studies? Man, this kind of attitude makes me want to encourage harsher penalties on people who pull this bullshit. You do your movement no favours when you inconvenience the same people you want on your side.
> My guess is someone wants to "send a message" to MIT and so they're attacking the most vulnerable, most exploitable part of MIT's infrastructure: a non-critical system run by student volunteers. I doubt it's anything personal against Alex or other MIT students.
But they're not sending a message to MIT, because the systems they are attacking don't matter to the faculty or administration. They're just creating a mess for the student volunteers.
I do not condone the attacks that may be occurring. However, if you are trying to get someone's attention- it makes more sense to get the attention of the students rather than the administration. Today's MIT students are tomorrow's death-ray designers, robot-maintainers, and policy makers. They are tomorrow's administration- and they may not have made up their minds yet about ethical issues of intellectual property or the nature of doing and sharing science. It doesnt make sense to target the administration of today. They have already made up their minds.
As a first guess, MIT students are very unlikely to react to someone causing them trouble by become more sympathetic with the people causing them trouble.
Especially if the message of the attackers is "people who break into the network shouldn't have the cops called on them." (Although we should wait for Hal Abelson's report to find out what happened behind the scenes.)
If you're trying to simply "get the attention" of the student body, congratulations you have it.
If you're trying to get the student body on your side, you're doing the exact opposite. If I pay $X/year to attend an institution, and someone wants to fuck with my ability to learn to further their own political goals (no matter how noble) you're not winning me over.
This is true if by "get the attention of" you mean "shoot yourself in the foot".
People who are sympathetic to political action tend to become significantly less sympathetic when they are personally inconvenienced by said political action. And their ire tends to be directed at whoever they see as being most directly responsible for their inconvenience.
I am someone who broadly agrees with Aaron's goals. I agree with the principle of the protests. And it is for exactly THAT reason that I am squarely against this DDoS attack.
MIT politics is, and has long been, that the students of today hate the administration of today. This might be correlated to the number of folks in the MIT administration who are not MIT alums, incidentally. Fix that, and everything else follows.
I'd say it's even more counterproductive then. No one at mit hadn't heard of the scandal at this point, but a few people's minds might get changed on hacktivists in general.
Putting up the messages on those department sites won't inconvenience a bunch of people, but this might.
Really? I browse with NoScript and JS turned off, and it worked just fine for me. (Which is more than can be said for most blogspot posts, e.g., by Google, which I always find frustrating.)
Please let me read relevant discussion without having to scroll through a two page meta-debate. If you have an issue with the blog's presentation, kindly send it to the author directly.
I feel like this guy could not miss the point by much more distance. How much of a shell do you have to live in to think "well sure, someone died after fighting for the rights of millions of people, but jesus, you people are going to inconvenience us for a few hours? this is just ridiculous!"
As I read it, the point of the post is that the student workers are the only ones being inconvenienced and that Anonymous should be targeting the administration directly.
In particular, note this part:
"Scripts is MIT's largest web host but it's run entirely by student volunteers. Any and all attacks that are supposed to get the attention of the administration are instead being handled by SIPB members."
Presumably, the author would feel differently if the ones actually affected were those responsible for Aaron's death, even if the author was personally inconvenienced.
I don't go to MIT, but a commenter on a previous article about this said that MIT's network had been having trouble for weeks. That is, before the Aaron Swartz tragedy. Is there some other reason why someone would be DDOS'ing MIT?
why should they stop? MIT has blood on its hands. maybe you should email your schools president for an apology? maybe all the students should? Why are you the victim? why are students of MIT the victim? there is only 1 victim here and its nor you or the students of MIT.
Yep, totally blank page. JS enabled, no plugins, no caching, Chrome Beta 24 from New Zealand. All HTML loads fine.
There's an uncaught TypeError in common.js:40 (looks like jQuery.browser isn't getting defined?) which seems to cause the blogger object to not be created, breaking classic.js and gadgets.js nearly immediately.
I think it is B.S. when hackers take down an easy target for no apparently good reason.
I respect those that take chances to risk their freedom for the good of humanity. For example, if a government were lying to its people about something that was negatively impacting them or their future, and only bad was coming from that information being restricted, then I could not argue with those that took on risk to release that information. I could not support doing anything illegal, but I would at least respect it. But, busting on MIT has no value I can see, and in-general attack-oriented hacking is just as bad as the Cobra Kai.
Can we just all calm down? there isn't proof(I haven't seen one yet) that proves that it was DDoS'd, nor do I believe that anyone has come forward to claim it. So why jump to assumptions. When you say,RIP it means to let a friend rest in peace. If any problems are faced by MIT, it shouldn't be blamed on well-wishers of Aaron. Posting it on YC, seems ridiculous to me, as if its a clear accusation, and if its posted here, anyone who did it would just stop.
Indeed it does raises eyebrows, the timing of this, but lets not jump to conclusions without solid facts.
-1 for this article. Sorry Sweettea, No offence meant.
Would there be any legal problem with essentially "hellbanning" those responsible from any online service you operate (with the possible exception of E911, etc.)? If we find out who at MIT was responsible, as well as Ortiz and Heymann, refusing to allow them to create accounts, or putting their accounts into a horrible tarpit with no outside connectivity, would seem like a much better form of protest than DDoSing MIT.
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
A cool thing about Aaron's activism was that it involved building things, circumventing censorship, and spreading information, rather than sabotage and denial-of-service.
[+] [-] wavesounds|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrokenPipe|13 years ago|reply
If you assume that ddos from a collective is similar to blocking a road by a collective during a strike or manifestation then I must say that some people won't be able to get to work that day and in general nobody would get hurt.
This sort of pacific interruption raises awareness, which by itself is very important for a functioning democracy.
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
That said, MIT has some smart people, surely they can put their noggins together to figure out a way to stem the attack. Maybe once and for all, and for the good of the internet, they can contribute this tool for unilaterally turning off DDOSes to the public.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WalterSear|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavesounds|13 years ago|reply
The whole point of a protest is to put pressure on the system your trying to change. Start a walkout/go on strike if you dont want to deal with the problems the organization you're working for caused.
The school only gets power from its students. Without the students there is no school. You have more power then you think. Take a stand, make a difference.
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
I suspect if 5-10 people who got MIT "yes" did this, MIT admissions and the MIT President would go batshit.
(You can do this even if you were on the fence about MIT, or even if you intended to go somewhere else anyway.)
Anon should promote this plan to HS seniors on the admissions boards and other forums likely to be frequented by top school applying seniors.
[+] [-] cwoebker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canttestthis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leepowers|13 years ago|reply
Imagine if a thousand members of Anonymous staged a non-violent protest at MIT, marching across campus. This would inconvenience some students, possibly even prevent them from attending class. Should this protest be condemned as an unconscionable attack on students? Of course not. It's a perfectly acceptable form of civil disobedience. Why shouldn't this extend to online protests via DDoS?
[+] [-] Permit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonster|13 years ago|reply
But they're not sending a message to MIT, because the systems they are attacking don't matter to the faculty or administration. They're just creating a mess for the student volunteers.
[+] [-] latj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
Especially if the message of the attackers is "people who break into the network shouldn't have the cops called on them." (Although we should wait for Hal Abelson's report to find out what happened behind the scenes.)
[+] [-] Permit|13 years ago|reply
If you're trying to get the student body on your side, you're doing the exact opposite. If I pay $X/year to attend an institution, and someone wants to fuck with my ability to learn to further their own political goals (no matter how noble) you're not winning me over.
[+] [-] btilly|13 years ago|reply
People who are sympathetic to political action tend to become significantly less sympathetic when they are personally inconvenienced by said political action. And their ire tends to be directed at whoever they see as being most directly responsible for their inconvenience.
I am someone who broadly agrees with Aaron's goals. I agree with the principle of the protests. And it is for exactly THAT reason that I am squarely against this DDoS attack.
[+] [-] geofft|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mayneack|13 years ago|reply
Putting up the messages on those department sites won't inconvenience a bunch of people, but this might.
[+] [-] darkarmani|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjhoops1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losvedir|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinskii|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnriot|13 years ago|reply
If you're worried about security, run Linux or OSX as your operating system.
[+] [-] charliesome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryguytilidie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alecdbrooks|13 years ago|reply
In particular, note this part: "Scripts is MIT's largest web host but it's run entirely by student volunteers. Any and all attacks that are supposed to get the attention of the administration are instead being handled by SIPB members."
Presumably, the author would feel differently if the ones actually affected were those responsible for Aaron's death, even if the author was personally inconvenienced.
[+] [-] Confusion|13 years ago|reply
Lumping everything connected to 'MIT' together as the same evil thing is shortsighted and counterproductive.
[+] [-] thorum|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
Or is that the goal? To make MIT stop being so open?
[+] [-] Steko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mayneack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3327|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paupino_masano|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VaucGiaps|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mappu|13 years ago|reply
There's an uncaught TypeError in common.js:40 (looks like jQuery.browser isn't getting defined?) which seems to cause the blogger object to not be created, breaking classic.js and gadgets.js nearly immediately.
Ridiculous
[+] [-] thorum|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hakaaak|13 years ago|reply
I respect those that take chances to risk their freedom for the good of humanity. For example, if a government were lying to its people about something that was negatively impacting them or their future, and only bad was coming from that information being restricted, then I could not argue with those that took on risk to release that information. I could not support doing anything illegal, but I would at least respect it. But, busting on MIT has no value I can see, and in-general attack-oriented hacking is just as bad as the Cobra Kai.
[+] [-] rikacomet|13 years ago|reply
Indeed it does raises eyebrows, the timing of this, but lets not jump to conclusions without solid facts.
-1 for this article. Sorry Sweettea, No offence meant.
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|13 years ago|reply
"A few class websites are inaccessible, a few friends' blogs are down, and web development is a bit annoying"
That's the most selfish thing I've seen today.
No argument why this form of protest won't work just it interrupts your current lifestyle.
And IMO it will help, it keep momentum and adds publicity to the other means also going on.
[+] [-] paulhauggis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrokenPipe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luxxx|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tubbo|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RobotCaleb|13 years ago|reply