What Do You Think of Online Vigilantes?

gwoodrow asks: "I'm a member of the (primarily) Mac community Spymac. I originally joined for the 1 gb of email, but eventually found myself joining in on discussions in the forum. Today, I received an email from a supposedly anonymous Spymac member ("supposedly" because the smart guy didn't mask his IP). Basically, it said that he or she had harvested 10,000 member screen names/email addresses from Spymac's pages and that this, paired with the ability to view individual member's profiles, created a major problem because of the extent of information so readily available. The email this person sent out and the forum discussion that follow are available here. All cracks and personal opinion about Spymac aside, what do Slashdot members think of online 'vigilante' justice?" "Some viruses are released with little notes within that say things like - 'this is why you need to do X or Y to fix your software' Some hackers have also gained infamy by hacking a major system allegedly to help. Do you support such actions and why? Are virus/trojan writers, hackers, and spammers doing a noble deed or going about things in the wrong way? If you don't agree generally, are there exceptions when online vigilantes are fully in the right? Is the accessibility of vulnerabilities a good excuse to partake in such actions, or should there be ethical bounds regardless?"

Comments

Predictable

[maximilln]

There are 100 people in society.
2 people are brilliant.
20 people are greedy.
20 people are gullible.
10 people are opposed.
48 people are sacked with taxes.

5 greedy people beat up 2 brilliant people to keep them quiet.
5 greedy people convince 20 gullible people.
20 gullible people make noise.
48 people sacked by taxes are distracted.
48 working people convince 10 who are opposed to appease the 20 gullible people.
5 greedy people, 20 gullible people, 20 working people, and 2 who are opposed go to the polls and vote.

5 greedy people sit back, enjoy the show, and profit.

This guy compiling databases of online user info without the express written consent of the user falls into the 20 gullible people category. Or he falls into the 5 greedy people convincing the 20 gullible people.

anti-slash is doing a great job

[Chuck Bucket]

I give shout outs and props to Anti-slash for all of their work. Special props to faker, he says things like I would.

CB

comissioner

[geekoid]

are servers of been compremised!
Time to turn on the hackerman signal!
Shines light of a diet coke and twinkies
[90 minutes alter]
I..puff...came..wheeaze..as fast...cough..as I could. Where's ..the twinkie?

ahhh, hackermenr, thats just the the signal.
WHat! no twinkie? stupid users...NI!

[Commisioner turns to police chief]
Damn, thats annoying.

Every Vigilante needs a catchy tune.

[geekoid]

In brightest day, against the blackest hat,
no evil shall escape my hack.
Let those who worship evil's might,
beware my power,
GREEN SCREEN'S LIGHT!

Re:Vigilantes, I support you!

[Sigma 7]

Nice try buddy, except the earth was created 6000 years ago.

That's very nice to hear, but there was never a claim that the Earth was created otherwise.

Not only that, but he also managed to debunk your claim before you even made it, by mentioning the term "dinosaurs". Unless you want to try and claim that dinosaurs never existed and begin to look like a silly lunatic in the meantime...

cover all yer bases

[samjam]

[Off topic, but the grandparent started it]

The reason the regilious/anti-religious arguments are still going on is that neither side bothers to learn the other sides arguments, because - hey - they're wrong and its a waste of time.

Each side only learns enough of the other to see that the other side must be wrong.

So now the subject cropped up, lets take a look:

1) Just to cover the 6,000 year lark from the bible; its supposed to be 6,000 years since Adam and Eve left the harden of Eden after eating the fruit. No-one knows how long they were in there before they ate it, or what was outside the garden keeping the eco-system going.

2) And if good old Noah's flood did happen it might have screwed up the climate something rotton so there goes the basis for carbon dating (carbon ratios in the atmopshere).

Thats what you get when your theory damages someone elses premise.

So lets not fight about it; most people don't bother to learn "their sides doctrine" well enough to make a case anyway, or even enough to know if they actually believe it, so for both sides its not even a matter of belief but ignorant and partisan faith.

There's a difference between wanting truth and wanting to be right.

Sam

Re:cover all yer bases

[arkane1234]

It boils down to a certain religious site (and a great many relgious individuals) believing that the earth was populated 5,000 years ago and there being living documented proof of it being populated longer. Nothing more, no need to harp on it.

The grandparent was obviously designed as a tongue-in-cheek joke, none the less.

Re:cover all yer bases

[CharlesClarkson]

"Care to explain why exactly that would have made it invalid, or skew results significantly enough to produce multiple magnitudes of order discrepancies?"

Hello! We are talking Omnipotent Being here. It created day, night, and photosynthesizing plants before it created the Sun. It flooded and then drained the entire Earth with more water than is available on Earth. Surely it could diddle with carbon dating a little.