[zombio]

Mandatory relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

[znowi]

True. However, it's the what people hear part that is the goal. Hence, from a PR standpoint, it's quite effective.

[evanlivingston]

The comic, while one of the more notable ones to me, dismissed the issue that the act is subversive, and that's what is important in the case of hackers taking down a website. Furthermore, it downplays the significance somewhat. Graffiti on the white house or pentagon would likely make it to the news.

[krapp]

> Graffiti on the white house or pentagon would likely make it to the news.

Still not in the same league. Tagging the white house or pentagon would mean breaching a secure perimeter, whereas this was probably just a minor inconvenience to a sysadmin somewhere for a couple of hours. Nobody would have to assure the public that the President's life was never in danger because someone took down the white house's website. Sneak close enough to touch the windows and survive and it's a different story.

[GhotiFish]

I never understood that comic. You would think preventing traffic reaching a website would be harder than tearing down a poster.

edit: Wrong direction.

[8ig8]

Hacking the NSA website is not hacking the NSA. Hacking a website is relatively easy and not that interesting to people who deal with servers day-to-day.

[krapp]

The point is that the "poster" (or website) is an irrelevance and "tearing it down" amounts to minor vandalism.

[phaus]

The point isn't whether its easier or harder to deface a website. The point is that a public facing website is a more or less static advertisement for an organization (like a poster), thus taking it or even the server that hosts it down doesn't impact the operations of the organization in any meaningful way.