h a l f b a k e r yIt's the thought that counts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In a nut shell, what I'm proposing is as follows. A software application is written that will access a list of known qaeda sympathetic websites...Repeatedly. This software application is made available on the web for people to use their spare CPU cycles and bandwidth, just like the many other distributed
computing programs out there such as SETI@home. I believe that there are a lot of people, who would be very excited about this idea and would quickly download such an application onto their computers as a way to help fight against extremists. It's your basic DDoS attack, but instead of duping people into downloading a program to attack Walmart, you are asking them to download a program to help attack extremists.
There would need to be a way to update the website list on each of these client computers, to add new sites, and delete others. This would need to be heavily encrypted, as you have quite a weapon here, and anybody that could put a website on "The List" would be harnessing a lot of power. An additional safeguard, perhaps, would be to only give each person running the software perhaps 5 or 10 websites that they would be attacking. You display to the user, this list of sites. That allows the user to know if the list as been hacked and he is now attacking "Bill's Bait and Sushi Emporium".
There would need to be active searching for new qaeda sites to add to the list, and monitor sites that drop off, so bandwidth isn't wasted attacking dead sites. I don't know how to do this, without making somebody "in charge", which will present legal liability to that person.
I think this is something the governments of the world should be doing, but they are hampered by their fear that such an attack, conducted by them, would be perceived as curtailing free speech, etc. Fine. This is something that the people of the world can do for themselves. We don't need a government to do this. An application that was available for download, that would allow any average citizen of the world to do something to make the average extremist of the world's day a little less happy, would be widely downloaded, and would unleash a huge amount of computing power where it will have an effect.
Google Answers: So, how do I find them?
http://answers.goog...hreadview?id=385793
Al Qaeda Websites, that is. Is there an "overbaked" for google answers? [jutta, Sep 28 2006]
Slashdot: Lycos screensaver targets spammers
http://it.slashdot....29238.shtml?tid=111
The roll-out... [jutta, Sep 29 2006]
ZDNet: Lycos anti-spam campaign bites the dust
http://news.zdnet.c...375,39179157,00.htm
... followed a week later by the pull-out. [jutta, Sep 29 2006]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
See link for a very interesting Google Answers discussion about these websites. |
|
| |
You're right - we don't need a government to repress speech we disagree with; we could do it ourselves. It's just less stressful when a government does it, because the brakes that the whole judiciary process applies to all this make it less likely for someone to suffer unexpectedly. At least that's the theory. Various parts of this are always breaking down in practice; to me, the results are still better than mob rule. |
|
| |
Unrelatedly, is this really a new idea in the sense of the halfbakery, given that the weapon exists, and you're just setting a different target?
(You're aware of a very similar plan directed at spammers, right?) |
|
| |
You have a very politically correct attitude. One, however, which I disagree with. Thank you for posting the link. |
|
| |
Your attitude that anybody gets to say anything they want, and "the mob" has no say in the matter, is not born out by history. There are still things you don't get to say without repercussions, and showing video of decapitations, etc., I think qualifies for me. As repercussions go, swamping somebodies website is embarrassingly mild, but alas, it's the idea that I'm promoting here. |
|
| |
No, I'm not aware of a software download that allows a huge group of people to implement a distributed computing DDoS attack on a select list of spammer websites. If such a system exists, that's great. It should be easy to modify to include queda web sites. I would contend that this is a bit more significant, and would get many more people interested in helping out with spare CPU cycles and bandwidth, however. |
|
| |
Your summary doesn't represent my position. I am not taking sides on whether speech should or should not be repressed; I'm arguing in favor of controls on who does the repressing and how. Big fan of "rule of law" here. |
|
| |
Anyway, here, have two articles describing the two endpoints of Lycos's "Make love not spam" campaign in '04. Much "is online vigilante justice OK?" discussion ensued. Since you didn't base your suggestion on this, treat it as proof that your idea is at least technically quite workable! |
|
| |
I think you underestimate government's position on this. We are at war. |
|
| |
I agree. I hate qaedas and all tex mex food. |
|
| |
Can we use your "ignorance is bliss" weapon on the French next? |
|
| |