You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem?

Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?

▲

staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think this is a weak framing. Lots of things are moral or immoral under specific circumstances. We should protect people from being murdered. I think murder is usually wrong. But we also likely agree that there are circumstances in which killing someone can be justified. If we can find context for taking a life, I'm quite sure we can find context for a DoS.

▲

ajam1507 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And what’s the context for using the internet traffic of your unsuspecting users to accomplish this?

▲

choo-t 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Using the internet trafic of the persons using your service to protect your anonymity and thus, protecting the service itself.

▲

ajam1507 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So you shouldn’t have to inform your users that their traffic will be used in a cyberattack?

▲

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In most jurisdictions informing them would potentially make them legally liable. The fact they had no knowledge shields them from liability.

	▲	ajam1507 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		So their desire to not be used to commit a cyberattack doesn’t factor in? As long as they aren’t legally liable, it doesn’t matter? Also a checkbox that says something like “I would like to help commit a crime using my internet traffic” would keep people from having their traffic used without consent.

▲

staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't have strong feelings about that one way or the other, honestly.

▲

choo-t 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem?

It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable.

> Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed?

You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ?

>Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?

Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.

▲

psychoslave 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return.

Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.

	▲	ajam1507 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Another basic ethological expectation is that the strong dominate the weak, but maybe we shouldn’t base our moral framework around how things are, and rather on how they should be.

▲

kpcyrd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem?

Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.

	▲	ajam1507 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? I do think it’s a problem. You are the only one excusing bad behavior here.

▲

RobotToaster an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There's an old legal maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis", that is "in a case of mutual fault the position of the defending party is the better one."

	▲	ajam1507 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That works better when there is a defendant.