This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
"First and foremost, DDoSing is an act of peaceful protest on the Internet. The activity is no different than sitting peacefully in front of a shop denying entry…" – Anonymous (the group of hacker-criminals)
"What outside party could possibly want to make online gaming impossible on a PS3? The most likely culprits are activist group 'Anonymous'." – Brian Crecente, Editor-In-Chief of Kotaku
"The hacker-activist group Anonymous retaliated against the Spanish police over the weekend after three of its members were arrested by denying Web surfers access to the law agency's website." – L.A. Times
Consider what this kind of capitulation represents. In the simple act of characterizing these criminals as activists, the media endorses and excuses their activity. The term "activist," as it is commonly used, is an anti-concept. An anti-concept is, according to Ayn Rand, basically a term that is explicitly defined by non-essential characteristics.
Take "activism" as an example. What does the concept designate? It is claimed to designate some kind of approximation of "acting in service to an idea." There are two starkly different ways of acting to promulgate an idea, however.
The first is by using one's mind and property to fight for an idea intellectually and without using the force. The second is to use fraud or physical strength to force acceptance of one's idea, though this "acceptance" can only ever be outward obedience, not conscious agreement.
"Activism" subsumes both of these types of activities under single a concept, and there exists no other concept that isolates non-forceful expression. This is what Ayn Rand called a "package-deal," that is, two essentially different attributes subsumed under one overly wide concept.
By forming concepts through approximation (à la Wittgenstein), one makes it impossible to think or communicate about reality. When no terms exist that objectively refer to reality, how is one to discuss the subject? He cannot.
The motive behind integrating these attributes beyond necessity is egalitarian nihilism. By raising the brute to the level of the thinker, these people want to destroy the knowledge of what makes the thinker good. By equating good and evil (egalitarianism), they want to destroy the former (nihilism).
As for their concrete claim that a denial-of-service attack is just like a sit-in, they are right, but sit-ins are immoral and illegitimate. A sit-in is the physical occupancy of a piece of property that does not belong to one for the purpose of preventing its actual owner from disposing of it as he chooses and as is his right.
Denial-of-service attacks are essentially the same, only digitally occupying a space instead of physically occupying it. Such "peaceful protest" and "activism" ought to be illegal, and its perpetrators punished severely.
Most importantly, be ready and able to defend yourself when someone accuses you of being against "peaceful protest." The accuser can only get away with this if you accept his premise of murky, blurred concepts. Don't.