So... two days ago some polish workers started a strike that costed company 4mln PLN. To jail with motherfuckers! Striking is one form of protesting, and clearly showing that protesting usually does some damage. If you were allowed to protest only without causing any damage or disturbance, your protests would be always ignored.

How many dollars you think Occupy Wall Street costed the city and companies having their business here? Should we lock them all up too? Blocking a website and blocking a street isn't any different

As far as I recall, PayPal refused their services to julian assange because of political pressure and because they want to shut him up. I think that kind of protest is justified in this case. And I don't say they shouldn't be punished in any way. Like Gandhi said - "Do your shit, but if you have to go to jail for it, go"

btw. they arrested two people. Out of few dozen thousands. I'm sure they all scared now :D UK govt wasn't even able to catch people responsible for London riots, so yeah "there is no anonimity" claims are rather dull.

Not to mention, 3.5 mil for PayPal is like stealing a candy from a baby. It should be recognized relatively - how much 3,5mil is for PayPal company? Nothing. So punishment shouldn't be severe.

Especially, when it works both ways, and when huge companies have to pay for example 50mil fine for abusing their market position, it's like they were not punished at all.

But think what you want. US law is known for protecting corporations, not people :P

And in short, saying that you have right to protest only if you don't cause any damage means you don't have right to protest.

I have seen OWS up close and personal. They are... nevermind.

I do hope they keep fighting the cops. I do hope that. Because that would mean those wiseass pricks and the cops would have to leave all of the rest of us alone, which would kinda be like having the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo in a cage match. :)

As far as protests go in general: I'm afraid I did not understand your position. It definitely doesn't make it OK to smash things JUST b/c you claim to be 'protesting' or because they 'belong' to a corp. Where do you draw the line?

It's hard to draw a line. For example, if ecologists are occupying some terrain, should we lock them up for 1,5 year because that costed company money? Should we lock up people striking for bigger wages, because not working that day caused major damage to the company?

Also, as I've said, people who delibaretely and directly cause damage to the companies should expect to be punished by law. The law should protect private owners and their stuff, so I have no problem with that. What I do have problem with, is how severe punishment is aimed at people for minor behaviour (like said 3.5 mil for PayPal) compared to how riddiculously silly are punishments for companies for even destroying people's lives or entire competitive businesses.

As someone who at times manages servers (including my own VPS), ok, don't go to jail, but I reserve the right to dickpunch you till you can't have kids if you DDoS my stuff. Is that acceptable?

I have nothing against protests as long as they're legal; almost every country has provisions as to what makes a protest legal (which means the police can't come and disperse and beat the shit out of you if you don't comply).

Same with the fuckers who blocked entrance to the subway some time ago during a "protest"; OK, you can protest, but accept that you can get beaten down by the police and I'll cheer because some of us have actual schedules to respect.

So, if protesting for Tibet in China are illegal, it means they deserve being thrown to jail / work camps, because the protest was illegal.

IMHO, state laws are not ready yet for handling online protests. They don't cover it at all. I would like to see some "Online protesting act" or something like that.

Yeah, I think we can agree on that. Unless the consequences are work camps :P

I just want to mention two things really quickly:
Firstly: you may not like what stoicsentry says but, throughout this entire thread, he not only has a POINT, he almost sounds like the sole voice of reason.
Secondly - neither of two extremes sounds like a sustainable approach. Constant DDoSes and protests solve nothing by themselves, getting rid of them altogether would be sweeping things under the rug.
Solutions need to be found. The initial outcry only signals that something wrong is happening but neither makes it stop nor explains what should be done about the problem.

Why not? I'd put the bitches on bicycles to power the servers on which my stuff is running for as long as the downtime they caused lasted.

kidding... somewhat...

What he's trying to get across is that when protesting starts to block streets, access to public transit and buildings it's not protesting anymore, it's civil unrest.

And I quote to show the difference in terms:

"A protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations. Protests can take many different forms, from individual statements to mass demonstrations. Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy, or they may undertake direct action in an attempt to directly enact desired changes themselves.[1] Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest and may be better described as cases of civil resistance or nonviolent resistance.[2]"

"Civil disorder, also known as civil unrest or civil strife, is a broad term that is typically used by law enforcement to describe one or more forms of unrest caused by a group of people.[1] Civil disturbance is typically a symptom of, and a form of protest against, major socio-political problems; the severity of the action coincides with public expression(s) of displeasure. Examples of civil disorder include, but are not necessarily limited to: illegal parades; sit-ins and other forms of obstructions; riots; sabotage; and other forms of crime. It is intended to be a demonstration to the public and the government, but can escalate into general chaos.[2]"

Call it whatever you want, the ideology and laws are pretty clear on this subject.

Yeah, I think I'm gonna call it what it historically has been for a very long time in the US: effective protest that has usually been upheld by the US Courts. Aside from looting and destruction of property none of that other shit is a crime on anything but a local level.

Now that the Utah Data Center got the "ok-go-ahead" to flip there on switch from the renewal of FISA no one can hide. There will never be enough exit points and all chokes will be monitored, everything they do will be tracked cataloged and archived. Even this message as I've said key words already.

Its a double edged sword, the bad guys get caught but the good guys lose privacy.

Sorry, but you have no idea. Poland got out of communism about two decades ago and it certainly didn't go away because my dad's generation yelled "you guys suck".

Just chiming in, from the side, but corporations, under law, have the same rights as an individual.

If someone impeded your ability to conduct your affairs, you would expect the law to aid you in the exercise of your rights, and corporations have the right to expect the same.

It matters little who the rights belong to, if you truly believe in the rule of law and the rights of an entity under it, and that is why they must all be protected with the same zeal; to do otherwise is to discriminate, and place one group under another. We protect all, or we protect none.

Hippy? 1962 and Fox News are both calling, and they both want their memes back.