DDOS as Civil Disobedience
For a while now, I have been thinking about what civil disobedience looks like in the Internet Age. Certainly DDOS attacks, and politically motivated hacking in general, is a part of that. This is one of the reasons I found Molly Sauter’s recent thesis, “Distributed Denial of Service Actions and the Challenge of Civil Disobedience on the Internet,” so interesting:
Abstract: This thesis examines the history, development, theory, and practice of distributed denial of service actions as a tactic of political activism. DDOS actions have been used in online political activism since the early 1990s, though the tactic has recently attracted significant public attention with the actions of Anonymous and Operation Payback in December 2010. Guiding this work is the overarching question of how civil disobedience and disruptive activism can be practiced in the current online space. The internet acts as a vital arena of communication, self expression, and interpersonal organizing. When there is a message to convey, words to get out, people to organize, many will turn to the internet as the zone of that activity. Online, people sign petitions, investigate stories and rumors, amplify links and videos, donate money, and show their support for causes in a variety of ways. But as familiar and widely accepted activist tools—petitions, fundraisers, mass letter-writing, call-in campaigns and others—find equivalent practices in the online space, is there also room for the tactics of disruption and civil disobedience that are equally familiar from the realm of street marches, occupations, and sit-ins? This thesis grounds activist DDOS historically, focusing on early deployments of the tactic as well as modern instances to trace its development over time, both in theory and in practice. Through that examination, as well as tool design and development, participant identity, and state and corporate responses, this thesis presents an account of the development and current state of activist DDOS actions. It ends by presenting an analytical framework for the analysis of activist DDOS actions.
One of the problems with the legal system is that it doesn’t make any differentiation between civil disobedience and “normal” criminal activity on the Internet, though it does in the real world.
James • May 22, 2013 7:09 AM
DDoS attacks are not like civil disobedience. They cause collateral damage and should be classified as crime.
When activists chain themselves to the front doors of, say, Monsanto’s corporate headquarters, their action is deliberately and specifically targeted to affect only Monsanto and those doing business with Monsanto. This restraint on the effects of action is a crucial element of civil disobedience–third parties must not be affected.
But when activists target Monsanto’s website with a DDoS attack, that not only disrupts Monsanto and those doing business with Monsanto, but also indiscriminately disrupts other customers of the hosting service which hosts Monsanto’s website, regardless of whether or not those other customers have any relationship to Monsanto. So if, say, UNICEF’s website is located in the same hosting facility, UNICEF can also suffer from the DDoS attack’s effects. This negligence disqualifies the DDoS as civil disobedience.