Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

"Daily Stormer" Changes Hosts and Site Name; Gets DDoSed

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

aristarchus writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
"Daily Stormer" Changes Hosts and Site Name; Gets DDoSed | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 93 comments | Search Discussion
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: 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.