DoS should be legalized IMO... If a company cannot mitigate a DoS or DDoS attack and stay profitable, it's their own fault. Their fault for not designing their software properly and their fault for accumulating too many enemies. Probably it would bring down the whole DNS system but it's about time we replaced it with something better and more decentralized anyway.
DDoS is just freedom of speech. Just some people have louder voices than others which is not a foreign concept to the rest of us. So long as the VPN (or whatever) operator mentions it in their terms of service (e.g. if they rely on user resources), it's fine IMO.
There needs to be an incentive for companies to implement good quality software and to not be evil (not to make enemies) and legalizing DDoS might help create such an incentive.
> DoS should be legalized IMO... If a company cannot mitigate a DoS or DDoS attack and stay profitable, it's their own fault. Their fault for not designing their software properly and their fault for accumulating too many enemies.
Getting DoS-ed is sufficient "punishment" for not being able to mitigate a DoS. "their fault for accumulating too many enemies" is dubious considering that one "enemy" is enough for a DoS and that the DoS-er might not actually have something personal against the target.
> DDoS is just freedom of speech. Just some people have louder voices than others which is not a foreign concept to the rest of us.
I wouldn't characterize a DoS-er as "the one with the louder voice". I hope you don't think doxxing and revenge porn should be legal too. Anyway, there's the saying "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
I see it differently and I have gained a different understanding of "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
I used to think like that but in reality, the way the world really works is that anyone can punch you in the nose if they really want to... Whether or not the assailant will be punished for that depends on who got punched and who did the punching.
Access to the justice system is asymmetrical. Big corporations or organizations are often not held liable for many of their 'crimes' on a per-infraction basis because their victims have a much weaker voice; they can basically do all the crimes they want and then, if they harm enough people and they get caught and there is a class action (a lot of IFs), they MAY pay a lump sum fine at the end.
I prefer the ancient Roman system where some crimes were forgiven based on context (e.g. retaliation was allowed). I think it would bring back the human element to the justice system. People should be allowed to take the law into their own hands provided that their cause can be morally justified in front of a random sample of citizens.
Relying on vigilantism as a system runs the risk of incorrectly, assessing a person’s wrongdoings, which may be disproportionately amplified by outrage or disregarded if the person is popular, and therefore runs the risk of not being able to provide justice at all.
Also, legalizing DDOS would simply enable protection racket type schemes (Mirai/Protraf Solutions) and affect small businesses without the ability to defend against them.
I agree that there would be new issues with such a system but I think it would be fairer and lead to more decentralization overall.
I think vigilantism would better allow human nature to shine through. E.g. you can talk and reason with an extortionist directly but you cannot do that with a corporation or other large organization.
DDoS is just freedom of speech. Just some people have louder voices than others which is not a foreign concept to the rest of us. So long as the VPN (or whatever) operator mentions it in their terms of service (e.g. if they rely on user resources), it's fine IMO.
There needs to be an incentive for companies to implement good quality software and to not be evil (not to make enemies) and legalizing DDoS might help create such an incentive.