Trump inauguration DDoS protest is 'illegal', warn securobods A software engineer is calling on netizens opposed to Donald Trump to visit the Whitehouse.gov site and overload it with traffic tomorrow. The call to mark inauguration day by "occupying" whitehouse.gov as a form of protest against Donald Trump’s presidency is likely to succeed only in getting participants into trouble, …
I'm just astonished at how obvious the vested powers have been in throwing scorn upon the post of the President of the US of A.
He was voted in, once he is the president and objections are against the 'office', not the man, and shows a complete disregard for the will of the voting public and the democratic process.
We all knew they were slimy bribe taking, nest feathering, lying bastards, but I never thought to see the day when they advertised that fact!
I'm just astonished at how obvious the vested powers have been in throwing scorn upon the post of the President of the US of A.He was voted in, once he is the president and objections are against the 'office', not the man, and shows a complete disregard for the will of the voting public and the democratic process.
We all knew they were slimy bribe taking, nest feathering, lying bastards, but I never thought to see the day when they advertised that fact!
What?
I'm going to make an assumption here, as your post is not particularly legible. I assume you are saying that;
a) All the bad things said about Trump are made up,
b) When someone holds office, you are automatically attacking the office if you say anything bad about the person,
c) If you say you dislike a politician or say bad things about them, you are disregarding "the will of the voting public and the democratic process", and
d) All the people who are saying bad things about Trump are corrupt.
If I am mistaken, feel free to correct me.
I would counter a & c by saying it's extremely unlikely that all are made up, and some are demonstrably true. His attitude towards women, demonstrated by public behaviour, is disgusting. His treatment of anyone who disagrees with him does not demonstrate any ability to articulate a defence of his own position, and relies on shouting people down rather than a reasoned debate. He refused to show his tax records, something convention has required of presidential candidates in the US for many years, on very spurious grounds. He has refused to divest himself of business assets or put them out of his own reach, leaving a strong potential for conflicts of interest. All in all, he comes across as untrustworthy and potentially corrupt himself, in my own personal opinion.
As to b, that's complete poppycock! Someone can be a great person but crap at their jobs, and vice versa. Even so, by saying you dislike Trump as President, you are not saying that the office is bad, you are saying that the current holder of that office is.
As for c, again that's BS. Even ignoring the fact that Clinton got a higher proportion of the vote than Trump, just because someone was elected doesn't mean you have to like it, agree with it, or stay silent. Protest is part of the democratic process, too, as is a free press and freedom of speech. You sound like you just want to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you, because your side won, "ner ner na ner ner". Much the same approach is taken by Leave voters here in the UK, and it's just as wrong.
I wouldn't agree with breaking the law in protest (except in extreme circumstances, the USA's independence came from breaking the law, for instance), but engaging in peaceful protest is perfectly reasonable. And where, exactly, is the harm is someone wants to sit hitting refresh on the Whitehouse website? At worst, if the site goes down, they are hanging a curtain over a poster put up by the govt, which the govt just have to take down when they give up. It's not like it's a vital system or anything.
> "His attitude towards women, demonstrated by public behaviour, is disgusting"
I don't recall any such public behavior. Okay, that private conversation with one other guy, that was caught on tape and then leaked by media partisans years later was a tad off-colour, but everything else is merely controversial, not disgusting. If you think it is, that's your opinion not mine.
In fact there are quite a few women who have known and worked with Trump who call him a gentleman. Oh, there was a Mexican beauty pageant winner who claims he called her "Miss Piggy" because he thought she'd gotten too fat, but that's just Trump. He does that sort of thing to a lot of people. He can be abrasive. It's not particularly aimed at women, no matter what the Democrats and their faked-up "Republican war on women" meme says. The Left needs to hang up that line until they start confronting Islam about how they treat women. Until then, they're not only liars but huge hypocrites.
"The Left needs to hang up that line until they start confronting Islam about how they treat women. Until then, they're not only liars but huge hypocrites."
Personally, I do, but I also respect their culture. Also, only where it actually happens. Most I have met have a perfectly acceptable attitude toward women, including those in Muslim countries. The Right's current obsession with Muslims often blinds them to the fact that they are stereotyping, and not all are how they describe.
American culture does not endorse denigration of women, so an American leader who does so is worse than a leader of a Muslim country (or person in a Muslim country) who does.
And saying "that's just Trump" is not acceptable either. You are basically saying he's a complete dick, but we don't care who he offends. He's not a comedian, he's going to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and going around offending everyone will come back to bite, not only him, but the whole country.
And the comments about the fox debate host.. the public comments about Carly's face, the public tweets about Rosie O'Donnell. Those were things he said not in private.
And the article is not about Islam, or Dominionist Christians who treat women almost as bad as the Muslims either.
> I don't recall any such public behavior. Okay, that private conversation with one other guy, that
> was caught on tape and then leaked by media partisans years later was a tad off-colour, but
> everything else is merely controversial, not disgusting.
It wasn't so much "off-colour" as an admission of sexual assault. And there are numerous other examples, such as him going to the changing rooms during Miss World so he could ogle the 16-year-olds naked. Here's a public quote from Trump: "You know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that." He said that on the Howard Stern show. It's been confirmed by women in the dressing rooms, and even his daughter.
Given that, it is entirely reasonable that women not want to perform at his inauguration. That's not undermining the Office of President, that being worried he might go backstage while they are changing again.
Ok, my post was rather hastily written, but I'm not going to defend points that you have attributed to me by assumption!
The main point I would like to make is that, once you have elected someone, for the good of *everyone* it is important to not set out to completely undermine everything they might try and accomplish.
Sure, doing so will probably result in all your negative predictions coming true, but they might not have come true had people not been setting out to undermine all the time.
For the record, I am not saying that you have to agree with the man, or even like him, but base your reactions on policy, not personality. It isn't like Obama is drowning in positive results as far as the whole country is concerned.
The US elected a black president, partially in the hope of healing racial tensions. However, in his farewell speech he admitted racial issues in America were worse than ever!
I have no idea what Trump will bring - salvation or disaster, but I can make some pretty safe bets on what would have improved for the general electorate had Hilary won.
"he main point I would like to make is that, once you have elected someone, for the good of *everyone* it is important to not set out to completely undermine everything they might try and accomplish."
Isn't that what Congress has been doing to Obama for the past 8 years?
(Comment made as someone from the outside looking in)
"Ok, my post was rather hastily written, but I'm not going to defend points that you have attributed to me by assumption!"
As I said, I couldn't understand the post, so I stated my assumptions first based on what I could understand from your post and asked you to correct me if I was wrong in them. Thank you for explaining.
However, on this explanation, I believe this is not correct in itself. I think it's perfectly acceptable to try to undermine policies you disagree with. The election was fought with radically polarised views. If someone disagrees with one of Trump's policies, why should they not try to undermine it? Congress certainly did with most of Obama's policies over the last 8 years.
Trump's success or failure will be judged by the results of his time. However, to discount a public figure's personality in judgement of him is a mistake. He will be in the world's view, and how he comes across is important. If he goes round offending people, especially other world leaders, this will be damaging for America.
As to racial issues, I'm not American, but the view I get from outside is that these were made worse by the Trump campaign. His attacks on different races, nationalities, and religions were heard throughout the world, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. I do know that it's been widely reported that race-related incidents surged on his election. I know that doesn't automatically mean they had improved with Obama in power, but the feeling I get is that they would have been better without Trump's campaign.
There is a time for undermining, should it become necessary, and that time is not just previous to and during the Presidential Inauguration. Doing so is equivalent to declaring war, when it includes many Congressional Democrats joining public protest boycotts, and at least one respected senator declaring that the President Elect is not legitimate.
And if it is to be war, then Trump is freed to exercise all his well-honed public manipulation techniques and feel justified in doing so, once he is the Oval Occupant. Don't sound too cool, do it?
The point is, this kind of noisy and inappropriate protest plays directly into Trump's hands as a persuader, and he will take full advantage of it. I say this as one of his supporters.
Like it was important that the Republicans did not set out to completely undetermined everything Obama might have accomplished? He didn't even get a hearing for his nomination to the supreme court.
You are a hypocrite, sir and a stupid one at that. A non-stupid hypocrite hides his hypocrisy better.
"The main point I would like to make is that, once you have elected someone, for the good of *everyone* it is important to not set out to completely undermine everything they might try and accomplish."
But that's exactly what the Republican's have done over the last eight years, and during the Clinton era.
So basically just because someone has made a call for a large number of people to visit the site anyone who does so, if its in response to that call or not, could be potentially breaking the law?
Or to put it another way anyone visiting Whitehouse.gov on the day of the inauguration could be prosecuted if identified.
Trying to break something as a form of protest isn't exactly a legal form of protest unless it is something you own. Feel free to rip the heads off your dolls if you wish.
Rosa Parks didn't throw bricks at the buses making it so nobody could use them nor did she bar the door to prevent other people from getting on or off. Taking down a public service denies other people the use of that service just like poking a hole in the fuel tank of a bus would. That is not protest that is vandalism.
Rosa parks was breaking a system! That was the whole point. DDOS does not destroy the servers any more than her but destroyed the bus. She brought the bus to a stop and denied people their customary service. She did the right thing. This protest will not forever break whitehouse.gov.
She didn't stop the* bus, the driver did and had her arrested. Bus service was uninterrupted as only one bus out of many was merely delayed slightly and it inconvenienced only those people on that particular bus. Even given that, what actually got things changed was the boycott of the bus system which followed as ~75% of the ridership was black. She didn't break the system, she brought attention to the injustice in the system.
So tell me, how do you perform a DDOS that does not impact service of the entire system? There's a difference between ever so slightly delaying a single bus and hobbling every bus in the nation until someone's little temper tantrum blows over.
* as in single, lone, one, sole.
There's a difference between ever so slightly delaying a single bus and hobbling every bus in the nation until someone's little temper tantrum blows over.
So, it's like a protest march where thousands of people gather, blocking roads and access to buildings? That sounds like many peaceful protests to me.
Trying to break something as a form of protest isn't exactly a legal form of protest
A DoS doesn't break anything. It's the equivalent of getting a load of people to ring a phone number to clog it up. Or getting a load of people to gather outside a building to make it difficult for others to get in or out.
DoS is, IMHO, a legitimate form of protest.
So you won't mind having the police there during your DoS to ensure order and prevent violence. You're conflating riot with protest. DoS is a riot. If your protest blocks streets and access to buildings, it isn't a protest. The protest marches that close off streets or other access are handled properly with permits and advance warning so people who wish to avoid it can. How does that compare to your DoS? Where are you going to go to get your permit?
I think what's important here, is the childishness of the "protestors". Their chosen candidate didn't win, so they just throw their toys out of the pram and have a hizzy fit.
That's the nature of a democracy (yes, I know the US is a representative democracy, but meh) - the best candidate (as far as you are concerned) doesn't always win. You get another chance to vote in four years time, until then suck it up and stop behaving like a spoilt child.
i might agree with you if it wasnt trump. who is not fit to be president.
The world is ignoring a wealth of evidence that if levied against any normal citizen would see them locked up for the majority of the rest of his life.
So no - its not whinging, its refusing to treat this monster as normal - which is completely valid.
"So no - its not whinging, its refusing to treat this monster as normal - which is completely valid."
Guess that depends on your point of view. The winning candidate of a national vote who has yet to do anything is a monster but where are the cries against Obama for his actions? It is fine to dislike trump, I am not convinced he has much support. I am guessing he got in because people are sick of the alternative. How did a 'monster' win against the existing establishment if they are not monsters?
Honestly, I think Trump wants the existing political establishment screaming at him to keep the "why bother voting, all politicians are the same" crowd onside with the impression that he's different, worth voting for and that the existing political establishment hates him.
Only an idiot would assume that a billionaire spends his time on Twitter etc or could keep in the media the way he is doing by chance, so he certainly has a PR agency with deliberate instructions to keep him in the media. This won him the election, and he shows no sign of firing his PR people. So, he's twitter account is going to keep up with outspoken comments etc which keep him in the news and keep his supporters onside.
Even more impressively, he's managed to dupe his opponents to promote him being an evil Hitlerish dictator. The positive of this for him is twofold. Firstly, people who believe everything they see in the media actually believe this, and if he changes tack in two years to "look at what I'm actually doing" then he's going to make the media look absurdly stupid and more biased than they manage on their own. By doing this he stands to win some percentage of the opposition over come voting time while keeping his existing support base. Secondly, whatever he does is going to look sweetly reasonable compared to the fears that have been whipped up in the media.
I'm not convinced he's an idiot. That he could end up with a second term with a larger majority than he has at the moment seems far from unlikely.
The winning candidate of a national vote who has yet to do anything is a monster but where are the cries against Obama for his actions?
1) No, Trump is NOT the winner of a national vote. He's the winner of 50 simultaneous state elections. I recall his opponent having millions more votes.
2) Trump's already done a lot of tweeting that reflects his true personality.
His campaign was partially based on hatred and a lot on fear. Most of what he says is demonstrably false. He also seems to admire autocrats and dictators.
3) You're NOT saying that people claimed Obama was a monster, I notice.
There were plenty of cries against Obama's actions from Republicans, who told us nonsense like the Affordable Care Act would establish "death panels".
3) Let's look at Trump's ACTIONS then - He's nominated a Secretary of Education who wants to destroy public education, he's nominated an Energy Secretary who wanted to abolish the department, he's picked an EPA chief who's made a career out of suing the EPA on behalf of Oil & Gas.
Let's also mention how he failed to avoid conflict of interest
@AC
"1) No, Trump is NOT the winner of a national vote. He's the winner of 50 simultaneous state elections. I recall his opponent having millions more votes."
So yes he won the national vote. The national vote being taken in the 50 simultaneous state elections. Not the head count but the national vote. A system supported by the republicans and democrats so far.
"2) Trump's already done a lot of tweeting that reflects his true personality.
His campaign was partially based on hatred and a lot on fear. Most of what he says is demonstrably false. He also seems to admire autocrats and dictators."
Interestingly a lot of things spouted from all of the candidates was demonstrably false. And fine he posts things you dont like, yet he still won. How bad must the opposition have been? Remember his opposition was democrats and then even the republicans!
"3) You're NOT saying that people claimed Obama was a monster, I notice.
There were plenty of cries against Obama's actions from Republicans, who told us nonsense like the Affordable Care Act would establish "death panels"."
He did take some flak for invading countries and being a weak actor on the world stage but I see him as a continuation of Bush but with intent (Bush didnt seem too smart). After years of Bush and Obama the people could elect Hillary to continue with Obama's way or Trump who was opposed by both main parties and very much non-PC. And Obamacare is a success or failure depending on ideology it seems but economically not considered a good thing for the patient.
"4) Let's look at Trump's ACTIONS then - He's nominated a Secretary of Education who wants to destroy public education, he's nominated an Energy Secretary who wanted to abolish the department, he's picked an EPA chief who's made a career out of suing the EPA on behalf of Oil & Gas."
(think you ment 4 so edited). Obama cuddled up to Google. One of the amusing observations I read was that Trump is corrupt he just doesnt lie about it. I was quite happy for Trump to win, not because I think he will be good but because he may correct the failing highlighted most by the democratic choice (no choice just vote as your told and shut up). Hopefully this will cause more choice in US politics. Maybe even giving someone like Bernie a chance to be heard next time.
"The world is ignoring a wealth of evidence that if levied against any normal citizen would see them locked up for the majority of the rest of his life."
Is "his" a typo for "hers" there? There are many legitimate criticisms of Trump (and Clinton), but that's not one that the Clinton backers should be rallying behind too loudly.
"Their chosen candidate didn't win, so they just throw their toys out of the pram and have a hizzy fit."
Yes, because the Republicans all accepted Obama as totally legitimate immediately and didn't spend the following 8 years casting aspersions on his place of birth, religious identity, political loyalties, and sexual orientation etc. Some of the demented shit that came out of the Tea Party really removes any opportunity for all these 'suck it up you lost' arguments (along with the Republican base's own support for refusing to accept the election results back in October when Trump thought he was going to lose).
Besides, US citizens have the right to protest. Even though the Tea Party were Koch-funded halfwits incapable of realising their demands were in many cases mutually contradictory or flatly idiotic ("Get your government hands off my Medicare!"), they none the less had the right to protest against Obama and no-one seriously suggested they didn't. Extend the same courtesy to the Democrats when they throw their toys out of the pram over the hated robotic princess being defeated.
Whether crashing whitehouse.gov is a legitimate form of protest is arguable (Most EU countries say yes to DDOS as protest; the US has generally said no), and personally I doubt it'd have much effect anyway. The White House actually probably doesn't have any good anti-DDoS shielding in place (one of the big lessons of the election was that more or less every part of the US government outside the NSA is technically incompetent) but I doubt it has many visitors to disrupt anyway, and Trump will undoubtedly claim the flood of traffic is evidence of how much the people love him rather than an act of cyber-sabotage.
"...they none the less had the right to protest against Obama and no-one seriously suggested they didn't."
No, Obama just set the IRS on them.
If you're talking about IRS investigations into the Tea Party, you have to realize it makes sense.
Are you more likely to investigate (a) a progressive organization or (b) an organization whose core beliefs include not paying taxes?
"Ok, so what you're saying is that both sides are just as bad as each other and they should both grow up and accept that in a democracy you don't always get what you want?"
Let's get out the vote! Let's make our voices heard!
We've been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd.
It's democracy in action! Put your freedom to the test.
A big fat turd or a stupid douche. Which do you like best?
I seriously believe that, if the Democrats had chosen ANYONE other than Clinton, they'd have easily won. Even with HER as the opposition, Trump got fewer votes.
"You get another chance to vote in four years time, until then suck it up and stop behaving like a spoilt child."
tell me about it. getting rid of OBAKA (and his RUINOUS policies) has been unnecessarily difficult. Just having an OPPOSING OPINION got you called a RACIST and a {insert plethora of terms}-phobe by a bunch of howler monkeys, online and offline.
And NOW we are HERE. (I'm looking forward to a LOT of "getting better all the time" over the next few years)
Remind me again, which candidate was constantly asking the "2nd amendment people" to take matters into their own hands in regards to Clinton?
Which side of politics was it that were talking about grabbing their guns and marching on Washington if Clinton won?
Because solving things with guns is so mature. *nods*
I remember when Anonymous was just a term for 4chan inhabitants did nasty and amusing stuff "for the lulz". Habbo Hotel raids and the like. It's a shame that the Scientology protests* brought the group into the mainstream and it was hijacked for boring political activism, without a trace of anything funny left over.
*not that those weren't funny in their own right, look up "Brave Agent Pubeit"
The good old days when the pool had aids and swastigets were all the rage.
Then the new young people came in and they no longer believed in caterday and wendy Wednesday but believed that they were liberals and that affirmative action, deplatforming and oppression of decent were the way of longcat.
It all began to fall apart after Hal Turner. Forever forgetting the term
"Not your personal army"
Since he'll likely slash federal spending on anything he personally doesn't like or accept, regardless of the outcome to actual people, he may well have a few dollars to chuck at the national debt by cutting taxes for the wealthy. And we all know that the profit from the construction of more luxury yachts will quickly trickle down to the people juggling three credit cards just to keep their kids fed...
"I don't think that they'll be seeing a pension."
Meh. Pensions are overrated, ESPECIALLY publically-funded ones. Just work until you die, or set up your OWN fund. Nobody owes anyone else a pension. Pay people NOT to work, and you get what you pay for.
It's a better world when everyone carries his own weight. It's not the job of a gummint (funded by the people) to bail out those who make bad decisions in life.
Where's _MY_ reward money for making GOOD decisions? *crickets*
I'll be looking forward to 4+ years of Trump at the helm. This should be a LOT better. Not ideal, just better.
Meh. Pensions are overrated, ESPECIALLY publically-funded ones. Just work until you die, or set up your OWN fund. Nobody owes anyone else a pension. Pay people NOT to work, and you get what you pay for.
Ahh.. but that's it. I've been PAYING Social Security taxes for decades, I would like to have some of that back if I ever get to retire.
Much in the same way I'm paying Medicare taxes - I would like Medicare to still be around when I'm older, not some "here's a $10 off coupon" handed out by Republicans.
It's a better world when everyone carries his own weight.
Yes, let's Make America Great again like it was in the 18th century, before child labor laws were in effect.
It's a better world when everyone carries his own weight. It's not the job of a gummint (funded by the people) to bail out those who make bad decisions in life.
So what about those barely getting by, who make just enough to live in a low paid job. They have no money to put into a pension, or savings, but are working their arses off to keep a roof over the heads of themselves and their families. Have they just "made bad decisions in life"? If they loose their job, is it OK to let them starve because they "made bad decisions"?
In this world, there are some who really can't make more of themselves. This may be down to intelligence, their abilities, or just the job market. Not everyone in low pay is the lazy idiot many Americans (and others) seem to think they are.
Your reward for "making good decisions" (and having advantages) is a better job, more money (even after taxes and benefits are taken into account), and an overall better quality of life. Be thankful for that, and stop demonising people who don't have the luxuries you take for granted (like being able to afford to pay into a pension, or being able to afford medical insurance and actually have life-saving surgery if they need it).
Not even in office yet, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands like obomber has, has already motivated companies to make more jobs in the US. called CNN fake news (I loved that) Dollar is up. and he's not even in office yet.
I didn't vote for him, but I'm starting to like him. I don't mind him running his mouth, it's like he has turrets, it just comes out, good and bad. Which is better than the lies the last one said (label GMOs, lock up bankers, public option on insurance, decriminalize weed) Those were all campaign promises that turned out to be lies. Not to mention the last president also put doubled our national debt. The use is the most in debt country in the world by far, and guess what, it's not trumps fault, yet.
The [USA] is the most in debt country in the world by far, and guess what, it's not trumps fault, yet.
The USA is also the largest economy in the world. In relation to GDP, it's been around the 100% mark for the last 4 years, growing slightly.
I have a sneaking suspicion that ANY president would have left office with the debt being higher. The past 8 years have been terrible, and most countries around the world (no matter how much they cut spending) are suffering from a deficit.
If the debt does come down over Trump's time in office, I reckon it'll have more to do with economic conditions than anything else.
I am from the UK. I don't care that much about who won... but it really annoys when people say "Trump got less votes" due to the system in America.
Fine, that may be true, but the voting system was the same for the previous Presidents. If its not right then why not be protesting about a change in the voting system.
Whinging that the system is broken is a bad workman blaming his tools.
First off, don't try to DDoS Trump. It's illegal. Although it isn't exactly hard to go find booters and stressers for sale dirt cheap.
And yet in Trump's rambling press conference he single handedly prevented the DNC hack:
"Regardless, if you look at the RNC, we had a very strong, at my suggestion, and I give Reince great credit for this. At my suggestion, because I know something about this world, I said I want a very strong defensive mechanism.
I don't want to be hacked. And we did that. And you have seen that they tried to hack us and failed.
The DNC did not do that. If they did it, they could not have been hacked. They were hacked."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
