Comment

TotallyHumanPinkySwear@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Again, no. Fundamentally, there is no difference in you refreshing a page over and over, the strength comes from the distributed aspect of this attack. There’s no limit on the use of bandwidth and this is no base, by any means, to end a contract.

Of course, you are free to do as you please, but I am aware of how this works and happy to contribute.

source

Sort:hotnew top

theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
That’s not how laws work at all.

I am aware of how this works

No, your absolutely not.

source
- TotallyHumanPinkySwear@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I think there is a misunderstanding: I am not the one carrying out the attack in this instance, I only lend some CPU cycles to a coordinated attack. The bandwidth I contribute is insignificant (I mean… a RPi and the impact to my own services is not noticeable). The attack is only effective with lots of people with the same ideals.
  
  I think the gun analogy does not really work here: you cannot be held accountable for creating any part of a gun, in case of a murder.
  
  source
  - slazer2au@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    I am not the one carrying out the attack in this instance, I only lend some ~~CPU cycles~~ firearms to a coordinated attack.
    
    Intent is the thing you are missing. You know the end result of your actions. That is why this action is illegal in civilised countries.
    
    I think the gun analogy does not really work here: you cannot be held accountable for creating any part of a gun, in case of a murder.
    
    It absolutely applies, but you are not making the gun are you? You are handing a working firearm with ammo to someone you know will do something illegal.
    If I borrowed my friends firearm and said I’m going to the range, that is a normal thing. If I said I’m going to Bondi Beach with it, that is a cause for concern and why people get caught up in accessories charges.
    
    source
  - theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    I think the gun analogy does not really work here: you cannot be held accountable for creating any part of a gun, in case of a murder.
    
    You’re not making the gun, the programmers that wrote the DDoS program did. You’re firing it.
    
    It’s more like, you and a bunch of your friends murder by getting together and flinging the victim with rubber bands until the victim actually dies. Just because all you did was fling a small percentage of the rubber bands and that wouldn’t have killed the victim on your own doesn’t change the fact that you participated in and committed a murder. Legal systems do not have loopholes that allow you to commit crimes like this. They only have loopholes for the ultra wealthy.
    
    source