Slashdot Mirror
To Hack Back Or Not To Hack Back?
dinscott writes "If you think of cyberspace as a resource for you and your organization, it makes sense to protect your part of it as best you can. You build your defenses and train employees to recognize attacks, and you accept the fact that your government is the one that will pursue and prosecute those who try to hack you. But the challenge arises when you (possibly rightfully so) perceive that your government is not able do so, and you demand to be allowed to 'hack back.'"
Don't be a pussy, go for it mah brother! Fuck'em up!
No, but three lefts do.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
After the flawed warfare analogy of the military, we now have a flawed cowboy analogy. How can these people be that shortsighted, everyone knows that the internet is like cars.
And two Wrights make an airplane.
Replacing one bad analogy with another isn't much better. An "eye for an eye" sought to limit the amount of revenge you were allowed to take. For instance, if someone put your eye out, you weren't entitled to burn down his house with his children it it and rape his wife.
Even in America, that right is reserved for the Feds.
In modern philosophy, the whole concept has been replaced with the idea that you should love the people who are destined to burn in hell forever.
dammit, why can't i ever NOT be sarcastic.