Anonymous Petition to get DDoS Reclassified as Lawful Protest

Recently, the hacker collective/activist group/thing known as Anonymous launched a petition on the White House's We The People website to have distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) reclassified as a lawful form of protest. The petition analogizes between DDoS and the occupy movement, arguing that

Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.

Moreover, the petition calls for anyone who has been jailed for a DDoS to be immediately released and have their "record" cleared.

While interesting and thought-provoking, my gut reaction is that the analogy the petition calls for is fundamentally untenable. There are simply too many differences between the contexts for the comparison to work, and it relies on an unsophisticated understanding of the Internet in order to succeed.

To say that one is "occupying" a website by visiting it and/or refreshing the page from a browser is to ignore the actual ways in which the Internet operates. There was a time when legal/political minds looked at the Internet like a space (as it's often conceived in fiction or theory), but such views have long since been replaced by more literal appreciations of the Internet as a series of connections between users and data. As a result, the notion that one is "occupying" a web page by visiting it is not really accurate since you don't go anywhere on the Internet so much as you request and are sent data from elsewhere.

However, even if such a spatial conception of the Internet succeeded, there are (good) reasons why the comparison is still unjustifiable. Forgive me if I reveal my lack of technological sophistication with this explanation, but as I understand it DDoS attacks/protests/whatever-you-want-to-call-them are regularly orchestrated using various technological multiplication methods whereby targeted servers are hit with more requests than there are participating individuals. This can happen if those involved use rented/owned servers, create botnets, use something called DC++, or whatever, the point is that the usual approach is to create more requests to a server than there are actual people making the requests. This is important because in order for DDoS to succeed it has to overwhelm the receiving server with requests such that it can't fulfill them all and ends up shutting down/failing. In order to overcome the kinds of servers typically employed by the types of sophisticated websites often targeted (i.e. those of VISA, Amazon, or PayPal), DDoS necessarily requires many more requests than there are people involved.

To use the physical occupation metaphor, in order to bring the targeted space (website) to a halt there need to be an unbelievably large number of people (server requests) involved, to the point where access/movement becomes impossible. Imagine Grand Central Terminal in New York: in order for an occupy movement to shut that place down you'd need a huge number of protesters to fill the entire hall so that no one could effectively use the space. In the context of the Internet, the kinds of halls being "occupied" are exponentially larger and so they require many more "people." So many people that it's -- practically speaking -- impossible to succeed without using technology to simulate the existence of many more people than are actually involved. Although you could theoretically go out and hire a huge number of people to occupy a space with you, limiting factors like money, timing, and peoples' availability would necessarily limit your ability to essentially buy an occupy movement.

You'd need a whole lot of people to bring this place to a halt

These differences/reasons why the metaphor isn't realistic aside, the comparison is interesting from an intellectual standpoint. For one thing I like the comparison between visiting a web page and visiting a physical space, as using the Internet does feel like travelling to different (notably privately-owned) places from the comfort of your computer screen. But I just don't see it flying in a legal or political sense since the idea of the Internet as a place is kind of antiquated, and again it ignores the reality of how the Internet works. In terms of redefining DDoS as a form of protest, while I like the notion in terms of how it re-situates power back into the hands of Internet users I can also see how the technological methods described above make it potentially dangerous: DDoS can/must be carried out by a small number of people in such a way that it mimics the existence of a large number of people. This necessarily limits our ability to look at it as a form of politicized speech, and so while I believe that DDoS probably is a form of protest in its most widely publicized instances I don't think we can effectively redefine it as such.

All that said, the idea is interesting in how it reflects back on the actual occupy movement on the theoretical level. When we "visit" a website we don't actually travel to it so much as make a request for it to give us its information, and so how does this exchange compare to physically occupying a privately-owned space? Does going to Grand Central Terminal constitute more than just a physical act but also a request for information from that place? Given the assumptions underlying most advertising and the related fact that we live in a capitalist society, I'm inclined to believe that there is some truth to the comparison: when we go somewhere like Grand Central Terminal we are inundated with information about the services offered there and by its advertisers, which is not unlike what happens when you the place's website. I say this all to draw out the fact that Anonymous' comparison, while perhaps not effective or practical for the aforementioned reasons, may in fact be illustrative in changing our perceptions about how we interact with physical spaces. While "visiting" a website might not be analogous to occupying a physical space, there's more going on when you go to privately owned locations than merely being in that place. DDoS might not be more appropriately conceived of as a form of protest, but maybe the physical occupation of space needs to be reconceptualized in order to realize the kinds of relationships thereby established.

What say you, Internet?

Rob Ford Granted Stay of Decision

In a completely unsurprising turn of events, Rob Ford was granted a stay of last week's decision removing him from office. This doesn't mean much besides the fact that all the talk of "Goodbye Rob Ford!" was premature at the very least. It also means that the appeal, which sounds like it'll be heard in January, will be very interesting indeed. I still think Ford's best shot is to challenge Justice Hackland's assessment of his section 4(k) defence under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, but we'll see what happens. I would have bet on Ford winning at trial, but after how things went down at trial... It's hard to say how this will turn out.

Homophobia, Blood Donation, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Earlier this week Madam Justice Catherine Aitkin of the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of Canadian Blood Services (CBS) in their suit again Torontonian Kyle Freeman.

In 2002 Freeman informed CBS via anonymous email that he was a gay man who had donated blood numerous times between 1990 and 2002. The organization traced Freeman's identity and sued him for lying on question 19 of the blood donor questionnaire, which asks, "Male donors: Have you had sex with a man, even one time, since 1977?" Freeman countersued, arguing that the question violates his right not to be discriminated based on his sexual orientation as guaranteed under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Question 19 is meant to identify men who have sex with men (MSM), as many reports indicate an unusually high prevalence of HIV/AIDS among MSM. In Canada CBS indefinitely defers (read: permanently restricts) the donation of blood from men who have had sex with men, even once, since 1977. In his countersuit Freeman also sought to have the ban struck down.

The repercussions of this decision are extensive, as it both sets one bad precedent and maintains another. Aitkin's ruling states that the Charter does not apply to CBS because of its bureaucratic structure and the organization's distance/independence from government. Many fear that this will allow the government to ignore the Charter altogether by creating "independent" bodies to carry out governmental tasks. One Globe and Mail reader commented that the Eldridge case sets a seemingly relevant precedent with regards to the Charter most definitely applying to such organizations, though I don't see any evidence this was considered by Aitkin. It's pretty terrifying to imagine any government operating outside the Charter, but especially so given our current political climate. I would hope to see this ruling get overturned by the Supreme Court, though who knows if it'll get that high or go that way.

Also disturbing is the fact that MSM will continue to be openly discriminated against under this ruling. To my mind this is a significant and easily avoidable failure to promote equality and quash persistant homophobic stereotypes. Admittedly I don't know much/anything about the science behind all this, but it seems obvious that screenings should seek to identify the degree and safety of potential donors' sexual activity. For example, Italy and Spain screen for the level of safety involved in all sexual activity. Similarly Australia, Japan, and Sweden screen based on the number of partners one has had in the last year. These seem like relevant questions to ask in order to identify high risk donors, not questions as to the nature of the sex one is having.

AIDS is not a "gay disease" or some ludicrous punishment for "amoral" activities, it can be and is transmitted among heterosexuals who don't use caution and/or protection. If a man has only been having sex with one male partner for a significant period of time then how is he a high risk? He poses no more threat to the blood supply than any man who has only had sex with one woman for a significant period of time. To discriminate against MSM is archaic, ineffective, and prejudicial, and I am sorry to see it authorized in this fashion in Canada.

Max Rambles: Not Dead, But Different

I'm going to start this post by listing a few of the things I have done since August 5th:

1. Quit my job, thereby eliminating my primary source of funding and free time for blogging
2. Travel extensively for pleasure, including my first trip to New York City
3. Feel guilty about neglecting this blog
4. Ignore many, many emails
5. Pack up all of my worldly possessions and drive them 1,792 km (that's 1,113.5 miles for my American readers) to relocate to Halifax, Nova Scotia
6. Live through a hurricane
7. Begin law school

So yeah, it's been kind of a busy month. There were always things I wanted to blog about, and I felt like I should put up a post explaining my absence, but time just seemed to get away from me. It's really easy to keep up a regular posting schedule when you're getting paid to sit in front of a computer for nine hours a day, most of which you spend doing nothing. But when you suddenly find yourself with a lot free time and the simultaneous need to prepare for a significant life change, blogging fall kind of low on the priority list. Anyway, so that's where I've been. Now lets take a moment to discuss where I'm going.

I'm starting law school. That's kind of a daunting proposition, but I'm really looking forward to it. Despite the fact that everyone tells me how first year law is going to kick my ass, I think I'm going to be able to handle it. That said, I figure it will take up the vast majority of my time and mental energy. So where does that leave Max Rambles?

The short answer is I'm not sure. I want to say I'm going to keep posting, albeit less often than I used to, but I can't make any promises. I can say that I am going to try to post once a week at a minimum, even if that only amounts to a short post linking to something cool I saw on Geekosystem once every seven days. That much I should be able to manage.

So that sort of gives you all an idea of what I've been up to and what I'm hoping to do with this page in the coming months. For now I guess we'll just see where it goes and hope for the best. Who knows, maybe law school will turn out to be super easy and I'll start blogging like every day again. More realistically I'll probably end up doing my best to get one post up a week, and most of them will be short and to the point. Kind of contradicts my titular propensity to ramble, but hey, I'll do what I can.

Thank you all for reading thus far, and I hope you keep coming back. More than that I hope to post things that keep you coming back. I'm going to aim to post something new every week on, say, Sunday evening. Yeah, that seems like the most realistic proposition. Anything beyond that Sunday evening post (ha!) I'll consider a bonus, and I leave it to you to judge whether or not it actually is one.  Please do let me know.

Google, Verizon, and Net Neutrality

There's a lot of talk going on right now about a possible agreement between Google and Verizon for prioritized data transfer. The New York Times stated that the two companies are negotiating a deal that would allow Verizon clients to access information stored on Google's networks more quickly than other online content. Bloomberg further reports that this agreement applies only to the Verizon mobile network, not to broadband internet. If such an agreement were realized it would stand in direct opposition to the net neutrality principle that Google has repeatedly championed in the past. Both companies have issued statements denying any discussion of priority data transfer, with Google stating that it remains "committed to an open internet."

The details are still quite murky so it's hard to say exactly what is going on here. The Times and Bloomberg could both be completely off their rocker, though that seems somewhat unlikely. They were at least correct in pointing out that Google and Verizon are indeed talking about net neutrality from a business standpoint. But it would be a dramatic change of face for Google to be pursuing any sort of data prioritization policy. As Mashable points out, the two companies are more likely doing just what they say they are: discussing an official agreement on the terms of net neutrality. It is kind of a hot topic right now. Marvin Ammori posting at Balkinization does a great job of outlining how bad it would be if the allegations were 100% correct. I encourage you to give his piece a read, as well as some of his older posts about net neutrality and especially the discussions at the F.C.C.

Rather than jump to apocalyptic conclusions, lets take this as an opportunity to consider the value of net neutrality and the need for government regulations to preserve it. Right now it's easy to take it for granted that the internet is unregulated in terms of our ability to access all content equally, but that could easily change. We are incredibly lucky that companies as powerful as Google (generally/publicly) favour a philosophy so geared towards the consumer, and this event demonstrates how easy it would be for the rug to be pulled out from under us. Unless specific government regulations are set in place the control of internet access will fall on the providers. Net neutrality needs to be government policy, not just philosophy, and this all shows that the F.C.C. negotiations might not be enough to ensure that in the U.S.

Heroes in Law: Judge Barbara Crabb

It's not often that you can hold up someone in the legal system as a shining example of awesomeness, but today I have the pleasure of doing just that. This post is about U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb (on a side note how amazing is it that there's such a thing as Judgepedia?!). Last week Judge Crabb ruled that three characters "created" by Todd McFarlane were actually derived from characters previously created by Neil Gaiman.

The dispute originates with issue #9 of McFarlane's Spawn comic book series. Released in 1993, the issue was guest written by Gaiman and introduced a set of "Medieval Spawn" characters into McFarlane's universe. In 2002 a US federal court found that Gaiman was a co-copyright holder of three of these characters, namely Medieval Spawn, Angela the angel bounty hunter, and Count Nicholas Cogliostro.

Spawn #9, featuring Angela

Gaiman further questioned the origins of three characters in the 1999 series Spawn: The Dark Ages, believing them to be imitations of his Medieval Spawn characters. Judge Crabb ruled in favour of Gaiman, determining that Dark Ages Spawn and a pair of female angels, Domina and Tiffany, were derived from the characters the Gaiman created.

Judge Crabb made it awesomely clear that she had taken the case seriously, describing and utilizing the official mythology and logic of the Spawn universe in her ruling. The decision is available in full here, and is totally read-worthy, but here are the some of the more relevant passages:

Much as defendant tries to distinguish the two knight Hellspawn, he never explains why, of all the universe of possible Hellspawn incarnations, he introduced two knights from the same century. Not only does this break the Hellspawn “rule” that Malebolgia never returns a Hellspawns to Earth more than once every 400 years (or possibly every 100 years, as suggested in Spawn, No. 9, exh. #1, at 4), it suggests that what defendant really wanted to do was exploit the possibilities of the knight introduced in issue no. 9. 

...

If defendant really wanted to differentiate the new Hellspawn, why not make him a Portuguese explorer in the 16th century; an officer of the Royal Navy in the 18th century, an idealistic recruit of Simon Bolivar in the 19th century, a companion of Odysseus on his voyages, a Roman gladiator, a younger brother of Emperor Nakamikado in the early 18th century, a Spanish conquistador, an aristocrat in the Qing dynasty, an American Indian warrior or a member of the court of Queen Elizabeth I? It seems far more than coincidence that Dark Ages (McFarlane) Spawn is a knight from the same century as Medieval (Gaiman) Spawn.

McFarlane has been instructed to provide Gaiman an accounting of money earned from any comic books and other merchandising in which Dark Ages Spawn, Domina, and Tiffany appeared. He has until Setpember 1st to comply.

Spawn: The Dark Ages

It's unfortunate to see artistic disputes like this, especially from people as talented and passionate as Gaiman and McFarlane. McFarlane has tweeted "COMMENT: Neil Gaiman has the absolute right to defend his position. That’s one of the great privileges we all have in this country. TODD." Gaiman described his reaction to the victory on his blog:

I wish I took some kind of joy in this, but I don't.

At this point all I hope is that Todd can do an accounting for all the comics I wrote for which he paid no royalties, and the rest of it; and that he'll settle up and I will make some comics charities very happy; that his comics company will finally come out of bankruptcy; and that I can forget this forever.

Gaiman also provides further reading about the case via Maggie Thompson's blog and his own archives.

Bringing this post back to the positive angle, Judge Crabb clearly did her homework and then some. She dove head first into the incredible universe that McFarlane (and Gaiman) created and took it seriously. More so, it seems, than some of the series' authors. She used logic, evidence, and critical thinking to elucidate exactly why Gaiman deserved copyright interest in the Dark Ages Spawn characters, and even stated it in the terms of the Spawn lore. As someone who is seriously considering a career in law, I can say that Judge Crabb is the kind of legal practitioner that I would hope to be. She made the right call for the right reasons, and what's more she made it awesomely. A true hero in law.

(Via Geekosystem, where you can see some side-by-side character comparisons to judge for yourself)

LOL: ThinkGeek Served Cease and Desist for Fake Product

ThinkGeek, the popular online store for original geek clothing and paraphernalia, was recently served with a cease and desist letter by the National Pork Board. The claim states that the website infringed upon the NPB's trademark on the slogan, "The Other White Meat" (umm, gross). It's true that ThinkGeek used the phrase "the new white meat" in advertising for their product, Canned Unicorn Meat. However it's also true that the Unicorn meat is a fake product launched as an April Fools day prank, and thus protected as a parody.

I'll bet the lawyer(s) at the NPB are really embarrassed right now. I would be too if I outed myself as a humourless moron in such a dramatic fashion. To celebrate this memorable occurrence ThinkGeek is offering $10 off any purchase of $40 or more until June 30, just enter the code PORKBOARD at checkout.

It's days like this that I really love the internet.

Hyperlinking = Publication?

The Montreal Gazette reports that the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case of Wayne Crookes vs. Jon Newton. Crookes, an amusingly named Vancouver businessman, contends that Newton is guilty of libel for linking to "reputation-smearing articles" on his website. Crookes' basic argument is that Newton took on publishing responsibilities for the original articles when he failed to remove links to them in a post about (ironically) freedom of speech. There is no word on whether or not Crookes filed suit against any of the actual articles themselves.

The logic in all this escapes me, but then I'm just a blogger. Linking is clearly not a form of publication, if anything it is more akin to a form of citation. The British Columbia Court of Appeal must have seen things similarly when they ruled against him in 2008. Now, however, the Supreme Court has deemed the case worthy of consideration on a higher level.

It's absurd to think that Crookes might actually win, but it's worth noting that the case has gotten this far. This will represent the Supreme Court of Canada's first pronouncement on freedom of speech on the internet, and it will set an important precedent for how the internet is governed in Canada. Were the unthinkable to happen and the Supreme Court ruled in Crookes' favour it would essentially make Canadian internet users liable for any content they linked to. Thankfully that would only happen in a terrifying fascist parallel universe, like on Sliders. 

The Gazette, perhaps for fear of the Supreme Court's ultimate decision, chose not to link to any of the supposedly libellous articles, but did post the name of Newton's website: www.p2pnet.net. Here's hoping I don't get sued for that.

From Around the Web - 3/8/10

Above: love that Godzilla, love haikus.

A law-minded discussion of the recent split between Activision and the heads of Infinity Ward.

Hey, looks like I will be able to play Portal 2 after all!

Famous movie quotes depicted as pie charts. Awesome.

A tragedy. Lets hope Kotaku is completely off base in their reading of the article.