|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
 |
May 30, 2013, 06:09:23 PM |
|
Any one read the work of Jim Bell, assassination politics?
rather than killing people for money, could there be ddos/hacking that is crowd funded? With the primary purpose of keeping government in check?
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the
core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 30, 2013, 06:23:54 PM |
|
If you have to commit unethical acts to keep an organization in check, maybe it might be wise to seek a different way to provide those services that the organization provides.
|
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 30, 2013, 07:19:22 PM |
|
That would be true if you wanted those products and services in the first place.
However, if the goal was to protect oneself from these dangerous circumstances, then it wouldn't really be unethical.
I'm merely investigating to see if any of the professional ddos/hacking organizations have ever considered crowd sourcing as a source of work and income.
additionally, are there any betting sites that have included digital crimes such as having and ddos?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 30, 2013, 07:30:04 PM |
|
That would be true if you wanted those products and services in the first place.
Governments do indeed provide necessary services. Poorly, inefficiently, and whether their "customers" want to get those services from them or not.... But I'm not going to deny that they do provide services to people. But nobody suggests assassinating the CEO of Apple because the most recent iOS sucked. |
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 30, 2013, 07:44:34 PM |
|
Lol, no one suggested killing anyone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 30, 2013, 09:00:37 PM |
|
Lol, no one suggested killing anyone!
Maybe you need to look up what the word "assassination" means. Nobody's suggested hacking/DDoSing Apple because of a flaw in iOS, either. |
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 30, 2013, 11:08:30 PM |
|
I never meant to imply killing anyone.
I meant to substitute hacking for killing and websites for people.
Same concept in general except no killing involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 30, 2013, 11:23:30 PM |
|
I never meant to imply killing anyone.
I meant to substitute hacking for killing and websites for people.
Same concept in general except no killing involved.
That's my point. You're still committing unethical acts. It's the same, flawed concept, in a vain attempt to fix a flawed system. There's a much better system, that doesn't require assassination, or hacking, or DDoSing to keep agencies from overstepping their bounds, and allows you to get the services you need. The best part is, this system is already in place, and we just need to let it work. |
|
|
|
|
pekv2
|
|
May 30, 2013, 11:24:06 PM |
|
Weird. Phinnaeus Gage mentioned of WWJDBD, then redwitz said > What would James Dalton Bell do?
Are these two people brothers, james and jim bell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 30, 2013, 11:30:52 PM |
|
Weird. Phinnaeus Gage mentioned of WWJDBD, then redwitz said > What would James Dalton Bell do?
Are these two people brothers, james and jim bell? Jim:James::Bob:Robert |
|
|
|
MysteryMiner
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1029
Show middle finger to system and then destroy it!
|
|
May 30, 2013, 11:31:50 PM |
|
DDoS in most instances are only nuisance and there are systems that start to develop resistance. LOIC and similar tools run by volunteers are thing of the distant past (two years ago) because of filtering possibility and other things. Whole different thing is gaining access hacks with sensitive info leaked all over internet. But we don't know how internet will look 5 or 15 years from now and the current hacks are temporary solution to permanent problem - governments run by zionists-freemasons-gayfags.
|
bc1q59y5jp2rrwgxuekc8kjk6s8k2es73uawprre4j
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
May 31, 2013, 01:24:13 AM |
|
Any one read the work of Jim Bell, assassination politics?
rather than killing people for money, could there be ddos/hacking that is crowd funded? With the primary purpose of keeping government in check?
thoughts?
Yes! Hence my WWJDBD posts. EDIT: Just saw that I was mentioned. I've always wondered why somebody would change their last name from Bell.  |
|
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 31, 2013, 01:46:48 AM |
|
So, let's forget about the keeping government in check. Let's say is a business model. All that would be required is that the host of the site would be able to make money. Any one think this would be profitable as a website? crowd funding hacking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 31, 2013, 01:53:39 AM |
|
So, let's forget about the keeping government in check. Let's say is a business model. All that would be required is that the host of the site would be able to make money. Any one think this would be profitable as a website? crowd funding hacking?
So, you're abandoning any pretense of doing this for the betterment of society, and simply asking, "Hey, you think anyone would pay us to fuck shit up?" Well, at least it's honest. |
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 31, 2013, 04:28:12 AM |
|
I'm not looking to fuck shit up. I'm merely interested in a potential business. There are already professional hackers. This would be different. This would be hacking via donation really. If enough people believe is beneficial to donate, then it gets done. That's more ethical than involuntary extraction of resources to provide unwanted and unneeded products and services at artificially inflated prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 31, 2013, 04:36:54 AM |
|
Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.
|
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 31, 2013, 04:44:55 AM |
|
Ok. so other than off topic debates on ethics morality government or whatever, any comments on this idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 31, 2013, 04:53:24 AM |
|
Ok. so other than off topic debates on ethics morality government or whatever, any comments on this idea?
Well, first off, It's illegal. Secondly, you're targeting the very people who have taken it upon themselves to determine and enforce that illegality. Setting aside the immorality of the act itself, it's just plain stupid. I mean, would you take donations to go into a cave and poke a sleeping bear with a stick? |
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks (OP)
|
|
May 31, 2013, 06:14:43 AM |
|
When you say it is illegal, which part are you referring to? hosting the website that offers the betting platform? donating to the cause through betting? hacking the targeted website?
is also possible that this service could be requested of a non governmental organization.
This thread is not intended to address who should or shouldn't determine and/or enforce what is (il)legal
I would argue that something cannot be 'stupid'. Instead, it can only be judged by the risk/reward associated with that action. Are you implying that the risk reward associated with this idea is undesirable? If so, are you saying that for the host of the website offering the service? The hacker who attempts to claim the reward? The individuals that donate to the cause? To the host of the targeted website? For you personally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
May 31, 2013, 06:54:02 AM |
|
When you say it is illegal, which part are you referring to? hosting the website that offers the betting platform? donating to the cause through betting? hacking the targeted website? The hacking of the targeted website. is also possible that this service could be requested of a non governmental organization.
So now it's a service? I thought you were betting which site would get hacked. Offering a hacking service is definitely illegal. This thread is not intended to address who should or shouldn't determine and/or enforce what is (il)legal
Nope, it's to discuss the practicality of offering a "hacking politics" site along the lines of the "assassination politics" of the original article presented by James Bell. Hacking and defacing a site does nothing except annoy your target. And annoying the people who have declared that action to be illegal (and have the willingness to use force to back that up) is, as I said, akin to walking in to a cave and poking a sleeping bear. It's asking for a mauling. I would argue that something cannot be 'stupid'. Instead, it can only be judged by the risk/reward associated with that action. Are you implying that the risk reward associated with this idea is undesirable? If so, are you saying that for the host of the website offering the service? The hacker who attempts to claim the reward? The individuals that donate to the cause? To the host of the targeted website? For you personally? I'm saying that the risk far outweighs the potential gain. Not just to the hacker who actually carries out the deed, but to the site operator. And to the donor, the cost outweighs the gain by a similar amount. All you're doing is paying to annoy an IT guy, and maybe get 5 minutes of news time. The original assassination politics was intended to gain real political change, you're just looking for a few bucks and an excuse to trash a website. It's bad enough if you stoop to their level in an attempt to affect change, but if you do it just for money and thrills, you're no better than the jackass in his mom's basement using a rented botnet to bring down a blog that pissed him off. |
|
|
|
|
