Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:20PM   Printer-friendly

The "Daily Stormer", a neo-Nazi website that has been having trouble staying online since Charlottesville, has once again been shutdown.

According to The Verge:

The neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer briefly returned to the web today, using a new URL and a string of new hosts to dodge the bans that took it off the internet last week. The site reappeared this morning at the address Punished-stormer.com, apparently using Dreamhost as both a host and DNS provider.

[note: url modified]

Shortly after the new site became public, Anonymous groups began a denial-of-service attack against it, targeting the Dreamhost DNS infrastructure that makes the site accessible to the rest of the web. The result was nearly two hours of intermittent downtime for the countless sites using Dreamhost's DNS infrastructure.

In WWII, things like this were called "collateral damage", where innocent casualties were necessary in order to get at the Nazis themselves. But is this sort of action legitimate on the internet? Especially by non-governmental organizations?

Also reported at https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/08/dreamhost-ddos-attack/
Related story: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:36PM (59 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:36PM (#559505) Journal

    In WWII, things like this were called "collateral damage", where innocent casualties were necessary in order to get at the Nazis themselves. But is this sort of action legitimate on the internet? Especially by non-governmental organizations?

    Speaking from the USA: No. People who try to shut down speech are missing the point. Several points. Badly. And I say that as no fan of the alt-right or any of its manifestations.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:02PM (33 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:02PM (#559516)

    One small detail: RAF Bomber Command specifically and intentionally targeted civilian areas, because they were big enough not to miss (the RAF had trouble hitting the right continent) and, you know, break the will of the populace to resist.

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:06PM (23 children)

      by mhajicek (51) on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:06PM (#559517)

      One small detail: those civilians were producing resources for the war effort.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 4, TouchĂ©) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:18PM (#559519)

        Unless it's the very young or the very old, civilians always produce resources for the war effort.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:04PM (21 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:04PM (#559533) Journal

        That argument legitimizes every terrorist bombing/crowd plowing incident ever committed.

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by mhajicek on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:56PM (6 children)

          by mhajicek (51) on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:56PM (#559560)

          One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:23PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:23PM (#559604)

            So the Nazis were freedom fighters? They bombed the crap out of Coventry and London.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:41AM

              by mhajicek (51) on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:41AM (#559745)

              Many of them did indeed believe that what they were doing was right. That's kind of how the world works; everyone thinks they're the good guy and all their enemies are evil.

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:25AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:25AM (#559671)

            Using bombs on children is ALWAYS murder.

            Firebombing children by the tens of thousands is simply evil.

            You are a sociopath.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:39AM (2 children)

              by mhajicek (51) on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:39AM (#559744)

              Then the USA is an evil terrorist organization. Our government sends drones to bomb thousands of innocent women and children, yet every one gets all huffy if one of their surviving relatives kills a couple of our people in retaliation.

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:03AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:03AM (#559770)

                I seriously doubt that OriginalOwner would take issue with calling the US (Government) an evil terrorist organization. Not sure how one could really argue against that, other than "They aren't evil against me(yet)".

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:08PM (13 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:08PM (#559566) Journal

          That argument legitimizes every terrorist bombing/crowd plowing incident ever committed.

          Because those peoples' labor was essential to the war effort against the freedom fighters? I don't think you quite get what the argument is.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:34PM (12 children)

            by JNCF (4317) on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:34PM (#559576) Journal

            I don't think you quite get what the argument is.

            I think he does. I think that's backed up by mhajicek's response, just above you. Their disagreement seems, to me, to be over whether the ends can justify the means. Where mhajicek is ready to push the red button, hemocyanin blinks.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:01PM (11 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:01PM (#559596) Journal

              The Just War Tradition made a distinction between combatants and non-combatants even when it come to material support. An armorer or swordsmith might be considered as directly contributing to the combat effectiveness of a soldier, but the farmer or tailor who only supplied to the soldier what was necessary to him as a human being was not taken to be materially supporting the war effort. So, in modern industrial warfare, ball-bearing plants, OK. Powdered milk factory? Off-limits. Don't trust khallow on matters like these. His thinking seems both dangerously twisted and naively ignorant.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:54PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:54PM (#559618)

                Don't trust khallow on matters like these. His thinking seems both dangerously twisted and naively ignorant.

                That's unfair. It never happens with khallow, for the simple reason he's not thinking, he's reflex arching.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:17AM (7 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:17AM (#559702) Journal

                Don't trust khallow on matters like these.

                And yet you don't actually disagree on what little I wrote here. These frivolous games are tiresome, aristarchus.

                but the farmer or tailor who only supplied to the soldier what was necessary to him as a human being was not taken to be materially supporting the war effort.

                Who only supplied the soldier what was necessary for the soldier to continue to wage war. Clothes and food have long been as necessary to an army as its weapons. Wars have been lost over the inability to provide these (a key example is Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia in 1812 which was the decisive turning point in the Napoleonic wars, both lack of food and winter clothing were key contributors to the destruction of the French army).

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:35AM (6 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:35AM (#559758) Journal

                  Historically ignorant as usual, khallow! Why do not you just go back to school and study something beside math? A little history, some literature, legal theory, god forbid even art? You are a crippled man, your vision is too constricted by your lack of learning. What I said is true of the Just War Tradition, which ended more or less with the Religious wars of the 16th Century, particularly the Thirty Years War, ending with the Treaty of Westphalia. If you were not so ignorant, you would know that.
                          The regime of the ius gentium took over after that, but preserved many of the same principles. Not until WWI did the idea of Totalen Krieg [archive.org] come to the fore, courtesy of several corporations, and fore shadowed by the Great Conflict in America, which did indeed provide a template. So now, Nazis? Spouting Confederate ideology? And this does not make sense to you? As has been said before here on SN:

                  "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." was allegedly spoken by Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at BĂ©ziers, the first major military action of the Albigensian Crusade.

                  And chance you are related to this Arnaud, [wikipedia.org] khallow?

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:27PM (5 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:27PM (#559810) Journal

                    What I said is true of the Just War Tradition, which ended more or less with the Religious wars of the 16th Century, particularly the Thirty Years War, ending with the Treaty of Westphalia.

                    And yet we see the continuation of the "Just War" ideal with the Geneva Conventions. Those came well after the 16th Century.

                    Not until WWI did the idea of Totalen Krieg [archive.org] come to the fore, courtesy of several corporations, and fore shadowed by the Great Conflict in America, which did indeed provide a template.

                    Corporations like the French Third Republic or the German Empire which actually implemented said idea of total war. And your link is to a speech by Joseph Goebbels in 1943. At that time, he represented no private corporation, but instead was the Reich Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany during the whole of its existence. This is cluelessness at its most refined.

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:25PM (4 children)

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:25PM (#559823) Journal

                      This is cluelessness at its most refined.

                      Well, you are a Connoisseur. Enjoy! But do check your history. Nothing of Just War in Geneva. Perogative of nation-states, and all that.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 28 2017, @12:24AM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 28 2017, @12:24AM (#559977) Journal

                        Nothing of Just War in Geneva.

                        Words without meaning. We can instead look at the characteristics of Just War and see the following [wikipedia.org]:

                        Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

                        Distinction

                        Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no legitimate military targets, committing acts of terrorism and reprisal against civilians, and attacking neutral targets (e.g., the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor). Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat or who are parachuting from disabled aircraft (except airborne forces) or who are shipwrecked.

                        Proportionality

                        Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.

                        Military necessity

                        Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

                        Fair treatment of prisoners of war

                        Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.

                        No means malum in se

                        Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., nuclear/biological weapons).

                        Every single item on this list found its way into the Geneva Conventions in some form.

                        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 28 2017, @12:37AM (2 children)

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday August 28 2017, @12:37AM (#559981) Journal

                          Very good, khallow! Now, can you do the same for ius ad bellum and relate it all to DDOS attacks on a computer network? That would be very helpful.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 28 2017, @02:02AM (1 child)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 28 2017, @02:02AM (#560012) Journal
                            I see no need to. I'm done with this conversation.
                            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 28 2017, @04:42AM

                              by aristarchus (2645) on Monday August 28 2017, @04:42AM (#560052) Journal

                              No, you're not! Get back here, khallow! We are not done with your education yet! Oh, crap, where did callow run off to? I hope he's not hanging with the Nazis and white supremes again.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:43PM (#559528)

      the RAF had trouble hitting the right continent

      So I guess OP was right: Speaking from the USA: No.

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:24PM (2 children)

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:24PM (#559569)

      It's not just the RAF that were inaccurate. A (moderate) number of bombs were dropped on Anglesey and Snowdonia during the Second World War, by German pilots that got lost on their way to Liverpool and decided they didn't want to take the bombs back home again.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by qzm on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:49AM (2 children)

      by qzm (3260) on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:49AM (#559685)

      Almost exactly the opposite of this.
      The RAF generally used low altitude 'surgical' strikes.

      The USAF (which later organised most of the raids) were in favour of high altitude 'area saturation' raids.
      Compare for example the Dam Busters raise versus the Dresden firebombing..
      So no, the RAF could hit what they aimed at, the USAF was in favour of maximising collateral damage.

      This generally continued until the emergence of guided/smart weapons.
      Even in Iraq it was the RAF called in for low level accurate bombing purposes where smart/guided weapons would not work.

      And, WTF is it with this BS summary anyway? Since when was WW2 comparible with these idiotic arseholes playing dick-size competitions in the streets and getting out of their depth?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:22AM (#559690)

        Are you deliberately trying to re-write history, or incredibly misinformed?

        The Dam Buster raid was a one-off. Arthur Harris's 1000-bomber fire raids were the SOP.

        The fire-bombings of Hamburg, Cologne, and Dresden were RAF night operations, with USAAF cooperation.

      • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday August 28 2017, @05:28AM

        by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 28 2017, @05:28AM (#560064)

        Alternatively: the RAF found their daytime losses were too great to sustain, and concentrated on night time raids. When the USA joined in, the USAF were more than wrlcome to run their raids during the daytime, with the RAF continuing to operate at night. In order to stem losses, the (visible during the day) USAF went as high as they could to avoid AA fire. I doubt dropping bombs from altitude was much more inaccurate than dropping in the dark.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:20AM (1 child)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:20AM (#559726) Journal

      the RAF had trouble hitting the right continent

      Unlike the USAF, whose skills at causing blue-on-blue engagements remain legendary wherever they go. :-)

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:35PM (17 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:35PM (#559525) Journal

    Speaking from the USA: No. People who try to shut down speech are missing the point. Several points. Badly. And I say that as no fan of the alt-right or any of its manifestations.

    They're forgetting that the ends do not justify the means and are thereby getting exploited. Any methods they get into place to suppress speech will in short order be used against additional groups. So while the populous is getting carried away and distracted by the fact that they themselves are coming down on actual Nazis, they are giving the current administration (and all future administrations) the ability to come down on any group of any nature. Given that the current administration is stocked with Nazi supporters and who knows what any future administration might hold, this is not a good thing.

    In fact it is a very shortsighted attack [theatlantic.com] by one faction which weakens the rights that protect marginalized people at the very moment when doing so would help Donald Trump to actually persecute them.

    Cloudflare's CEO, as an example, just made a big mistake [geekwire.com] that he acknowledges will affect both his company by eliminating CDA section 230 protections [eff.org] (or something like that) and a lot of non-Nazi groups by establishing a means and a precident by which to shut them down.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:31PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:31PM (#559543) Journal

      See Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, to see an example of how banning "bad speech" doesn't actually make the bad speech go away. If anything it emboldens the banned as they are now martyrs fighting for their beliefs.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:18PM (15 children)

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:18PM (#559602)

      acknowledges will affect both his company by eliminating CDA section 230 protections and a lot of non-Nazi groups by..

      I think he is, too late, realizing he has destroyed not only his company but that the history of the Internet will in the future be defined as pre and post Cloudflare Incident. The weaponized autists of 4chan / reddit have already been beavering away compiling extensive lists of websites cloudflare apparently has no problems hosting, Godaddy has no problem maintaining DNS registration services for, etc.

      We all know there is a hell of a lot of stuff on the Internet more vile than weev's troll operations at dailystormer making tasteless jokes about fat communists and now every registrar, hosting provider, etc. is going to have to answer for enabling it. No more hiding behind "free speech" since every damned DNS registrar on the planet went on record as refusing to take the money, that some speech was "too vile"... especially if a twitter hate rage was going on. So now that everyone is in total agreement that free speech is an outdated American concept of no use in the Post American era, what now? Ok, so what about NAMBLA.org? And worse. Far worse. What are the new rules? While history is being rubbed out, a lot of the present is about to also vanish. Once the banning frenzy gets started it won't stop anytime soon and when it finally burns out the Internet will be an entirely different place.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:01PM (10 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:01PM (#559622) Journal

        No more hiding behind "free speech" since every damned DNS registrar on the planet went on record as refusing to take the money, that some speech was "too vile"[...] So [...] what now?

        Now, as engineers do, we sit and start thinking to a solution for a distributed DNS, with byzantine fault tolerance [google.com]

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:47PM (9 children)

          by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:47PM (#559640)

          You have only demonstrated that you do not understand the problem. DDoS against DNS is of course a solvable problem. But the central control point of DNS where a site can simply be forbidden to register ANY name isn't fixable unless DNS itself is redesigned from scratch. The current system won't even permit a TLD to be registered, say ".banned" since wrong thinkers are simply not permitted to register any domainname anywhere and the efforts to launch a registrar will fail for the reason those who control the root server simply will not permit it. Still think giving ICANN away to people who reject the idea of a 1st Amendment was a good idea?

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:58AM (1 child)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:58AM (#559688) Journal

            I interpreted his comment as a means of creating a DNS system that is not owned by any particular entity or person -- more or less a distributed or peer-to-peer type system where anyone could add domain name (provided it doesn't already exist) and point it at a particular server. It would be tricky figuring out how to handle changes or deletions of a domain but perhaps this could be accomplished with a public/private key pair so that changes could only be made by the private key holder.

            The current DNS system could remain intact and an un-owned uncontrolled system could exist in parallel, accessible by a browser plugin or something along those lines. Maybe it already works this way with Tor, though having never fooled around out there, I don't really know.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:59PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:59PM (#562314)

              Yes, it does work that way with Tor. [torproject.org]

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:44AM (6 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:44AM (#559795) Journal

            You have only demonstrated that you do not understand what "decentralized, byzantine fault tolerant" actually implies.
            Take "decentralized" - how is one able to deny the registration of a "name/IP" pair?
            Read about Byzantine fault tolerance [wikipedia.org] then tell me how anyone can be banned once ownership is established?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:21PM (5 children)

              by jmorris (4844) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:21PM (#559821)

              Stop sperging. Math can't fix this problem, stop and rethink until you understand the actual problem. Any attempt along your lines only works if domain names could look like .onion names, (i.e. mostly arbitrary hashes) which defeats the primary purpose of DNS. Short recognizable names requires a centralized registrar to avoid namespace collisions, even if only for the TLDs, and they must be apolitical to be universally accepted. That has now been demonstrated to require a level of civilized behavior beyond our current social tech. All that remains is to enjoy the decline.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:29PM (4 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:29PM (#559828) Journal

                Short recognizable names requires a centralized registrar to avoid namespace collisions

                Bu the decree of whom?

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:36PM (3 children)

                  by jmorris (4844) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:36PM (#559833)

                  Users. I know, alien concept right?

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:53PM (2 children)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:53PM (#559843) Journal

                    You say the users decreed the namespace collision can only be solved by a central authority?
                    Stupid users, even more stupid the engineers to listen to their solutions.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:29AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:29AM (#560089)

                      Namespace collision can be worked-around with money. To prevent people squatting on zillions of names for free, you'd start charging money for them. Then those with enough monero/equivalent will own all the best names. And they'll be happy to lease them to others, subject to Terms & Conditions.

                      End effect, not a big difference for the 0.1%.

                      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 28 2017, @10:31AM

                        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 28 2017, @10:31AM (#560144) Journal

                        To prevent people squatting on zillions of names for free, you'd start charging money for them.

                        Or ask them to mine a pseudo-crypto-coin - say, about 30 minutes GPU or 6 hours CPU.
                        The ownership of the coin is synonym with the ownership of the domain.

                        --
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:34PM (3 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:34PM (#559636) Homepage

        Er...4chan receives Cloudflare protection.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:59PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:59PM (#559643)

          Yea, and so did dailystormer and stormfront. They don't exist anymore except as outlaws out on the dark web and TOR is trying like mad to find a way to drive off their new #1 traffic and attention generating .onion site. If TOR actually shuts down to prevent it being used for "hate" it will be so full of win Kek himself will die laughing.

          http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion [dstormer6em3i4km.onion] is what remains, a shadow of the insane asylum it was, no comment system and doubt whether TOR can handle the strain of trying to restore that part. And thousands more sites will soon join it. Since these sites will basically only be using TOR for a substitute name service, wonder if this development will drive .onion support into mainstream browsers since the security lockdown part isn't needed for the more popular parts of the dark web? Which of course will "light" the dark web, creating interesting times.

          That is the future of the Internet. Weep for the future. We had a choice, we chose poorly. We tech types were the guardians of the open Internet. We failed. We have picked intolerance, hate and a closed Internet because some .com snowflakes got sadz over a troll's antics.

          We have been trolled and we have lost.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:29AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:29AM (#559648)
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:34AM (#559780)

            Eh, history [encyclopediadramatica.rs] shows that that scenario to be inaccurate.

  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:40PM (1 child)

    by edIII (791) on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:40PM (#559552)

    That's not exactly what happened though, and it's a little worse. I know Anonymous has announced war against them, but the reality is that they attacked "countless" other innocent people while trying to shut up the Daily Stormer. These are not surgical strikes, but like using the Death Star on a planet to silence the one bigoted asshole in a bar that kept pissing you off.

    I can understand hacking the website, defacing the website, doxxing the operators, deleting backups, etc., but I can't understand why you would attack other unrelated people. It seems like the only way to attack some websites these days is with massive collateral damage. That removes what moral superiority the attackers thought they had, and it devolves into gang bangers doing drive-bys. There is no moral superiority anyways in trying to cripple somebody's ability to speak.

    The Daily Stormer should be able to come back up with a domain and hosting from a home server, but the reality is that they need a very large private entity strong enough to protect them. Nothing makes the big players have to accept them as a customer, but they should. If only to prevent the chilling of free speech everywhere. Liabilities will make them want to charge them a shitload, or just let them go. That happened with some security researcher who was under the largest DDOS attack ever.

    Today it's the Daily Stormer, but tomorrow it could be a protest site that you or I might agree with and support. That's why they're not just missing the point, but shooting themselves and the rest of us in the foot.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:10PM (#559599)

      TL:DL WAH WAH WAH

      The only problem with trying to compare cyber warfare to actual warfare is that no one has (yet) died because of a cyber attack. All this crying about DDOS, hacking and defacement, (notice I omitted doxing on purpose, that one broaches into the real world) but no one is directly affected by this 'attack' other than long hours for the administrative team. I know it's fun to frame everything in violence (war on drugs, war on cancer, war on libruls and immagrunts etc), but how about we stop using fighting words and talk about this again like knowledgeable adults.

      Anyone connected to the public internet is potentially a target for DDOS, hacking or defacement. It's been a risk since the beginning of the Internet. It was never a newsworthy occurrence before because we rely on the Internet more no one had connections as fast as some do now. It was an illusion that the Internet was ever a 'safe' place in the first place. It's always been about who's a bigger and/or better target. Popular websites are targeted more often because the chance of actually finding something useful or being seen by more people is larger than hacking your cultural expression blog. FB, Google, and MS all have to deal with large scale clandestine hacking attempts all the time. They can afford to either implement or pay to implement the technology that's required to mitigate such attacks. Can your 'friends'?

      What has happened is that through the actions of their administrators EVERYONE knows who the Daily Stormer is now and can infer contextually what they believe. They have stood out in broad daylight at a gathering that chanted known Nazi slogans while wielding Nazi symbols on flags and banners. They showed the world who they are. By doing so, they have painted a large red target on themselves. Their actions (and words) then speak louder than their feeble bleating now that it was not supposed to be a white supremacist gathering. The appearances said otherwise. Can we expect any other response? Yes there are many online who want to take it on themselves to dispense vigilante justice. I don't condone it, but let's not pretend that this wasn't expected as soon as they opened their big mouths at Charlottesville. You're not free from the consequences of what you say. Sometimes that means being confronted for your bad beliefs by another just as large asshole from the other side of the debate.

  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:40AM (4 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:40AM (#559785) Journal

    Have you heard of the Paradox of tolerance [wikipedia.org]? That raises questions concerning (a.o.) free speech which you seem to dismiss out of hand. Then again, as the article points out: the EU and the USA have quite a different approach how to deal with this paradox practically when it comes to hate speech. And given how the EU != USA, maybe the values of the inhabitants can be allowed to diverge on some points.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:39PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:39PM (#559813) Journal
      Paradox of tolerance isn't relevant here because freedom of speech laws actually outlaw various, very relevant forms of intolerance, particularly attempts to suppress speech critical of those in power.

      That raises questions concerning (a.o.) free speech which you seem to dismiss out of hand.

      And what would those questions be? This is an excuse to crack down on people with the wrong ideas. And let us note here that no one has actually found a problem with free speech due to what speech is tolerated.

      Then again, as the article points out: the EU and the USA have quite a different approach how to deal with this paradox practically when it comes to hate speech. And given how the EU != USA, maybe the values of the inhabitants can be allowed to diverge on some points.

      My view is that an absolute right on free speech is essential to a democracy and the EU will demonstrate the reason why over the next few decades as it veers away from democracy. Intolerance of nasty, unpopular stuff now will evolve into intolerance of anything that threatens the powers-that-be.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:44PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:44PM (#559856)

        The aspects of democracy in the US have been subverted quite heavily, but I guess your fervant patriotism has blinded you. Nine eleven was the excuse that let them hammer the nails into our coffins.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 28 2017, @12:12AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 28 2017, @12:12AM (#559969) Journal

          The aspects of democracy in the US have been subverted quite heavily, but I guess your fervant patriotism has blinded you.

          That's a bizarre argument to make. Democracy is in decline (which apparently is a bad thing, right?). So we need to take away freedom of speech to...?

          Not seeing how this is supposed to reverse the decline of democracy. But I can see plenty of ways it can destroy democracy altogether.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:33PM

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:33PM (#559830) Journal

      [The Paradox of Tolerance] raises questions concerning (a.o.) free speech which you seem to dismiss out of hand.

      I do dismiss them out of hand. From your cite:

      If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

      In the context of free speech, that assumes that allowing speech means we are not prepared to defend a tolerate society from action (this is implicit in the phrase "unlimited tolerance.) Which is nonsensical. Of course we are. Speech will not destroy the tolerant; only action can do that. US society is invested in letting a person speak, and then speaking right back to them in a contrary manner when that is called for, and taking action when that is called for, which is specifically when intolerant action raises its head.

      Having said that, there's no 100% good on either side of the free-speech/repression dichotomy; but the good on the side of free speech far outweighs the goods of repression of same; conversely, the evils of repression far outweigh the evils of free speech.

      the EU and the USA have quite a different approach how to deal with this paradox practically when it comes to hate speech.

      The EU is doing it wrong. Hell, the US is also doing it wrong... but we're doing it a good bit better, anyway.