'Anonymous' Targets U.S. Chamber of Commerce Website (DDoS Attack Threat Over PROTECT IP Bill)

Source: Thinq.co.UK

Anonymous targets US Chamber of Commerce website
DDoS attack threat over PROTECT IP bill

3 hours ago, 23 May 2011 by Paul Hales

Online mischief makers Anonymous are set to launch a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on the website of the US Chamber of Commerce later today, in retaliation for the organisation's support for the draft PROTECT IP Act.

The 'hacktivist' collective announced it would launch the DDoS attack at 20:00 Eastern Standard Time.

If passed, the 'Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property' Act - 'PROTECT IP', for short - will allow US Justice Department officials to force ISPs and search engines to block access to web sites it believes to be infringing US copyright laws, and would require other companies such as advertising network providers and payment processors to cease doing business with them.

- snip -

"Times are changing," says hacking hive-mind Anonymous, which accuses industries such as Hollywood - which the group says will still make billions regardless of what gets distributed on the Internet - of doing everything in its power to maintain the status quo, "moulding legislation to increase profits rather than protect civil liberties. The collective issued the following call to arms yesterday:

Read more: http://m.thinq.co.uk/2011/5/23/anonymous-targets-us-chamber-commerce-websit/

Du would be gone.

right to download otherwise copyrighted music and video isn't one of them.

I bet if I were to read the whole thing and understand all the legalese- and I really do NOT have the time for that monumental task- I'd find a provision that allows the sites to be taken down until it can be proven that no infringement has taken place. I hope I'm wrong about that, but.... I'm too cynical by half these days.

It's happened before. Not in the DU v. Righthaven case, but in others.

I usually support them, but can't quite see anything wrong with saying people can't steal shit and put it online.

Between having copyright infringement be illegal and having a internet blacklist that sites can be put on on a whim.

Clearly those sites are illegal, but also exist. Are you saying it should be up to the search engines if they link to it or not? Would this also create a legal issue in that search engines would now be profiting from these illegal websites?

and the people running them, as well as anyone who downloaded images from them, are already prosecuted. This law would have no effect on those sites.

But thanks for playing "think of the children" where it wasn't really helpful to begin with.

"unintended consequences"

"stealth agenda"

"corporate favoritism"

"copyright law abuse"

Nice people they were and how very amazingly humane they were, all I can do is say: "Oh Chamber of Commerce, my heart bleeds for you!"

:patriot:

Still, I don't know if this will have the intended effect.

Talk about brave.