Comment by randomNumber7
7 hours ago
It probably depends on what people think about the laws that define what a "real crime" is.
E.g. in germany it was a real crime to grow some weed. Now it's legal, but even before a lot of reasonable people didn't want someone go to jail over weed.
If we'd follow your line of thinking prosecution of those responsible for MH17 were also to remain anonymous. Which is obviously ridiculous.
If growing weed is illegal in Germany, and someone unknown grew a lot of weed in Germany, they end up being sought, and (eventually) their name and other details could end up in a police warrant.
The comparison is moot though since growing weed in Germany requires physical presence in Germany. The alleged cybercrimes could've originated from anywhere in the world due to the nature of the internet.
It just isn't doxing unless you don't see legal merit in the German police and German authorities. Which is obviously rhetoric the Russians want others to follow.
No, it doesn't, at least not to me. I can disagree with a law while also agreeing to obey it and that those who break it should have consequences. I can hold these two opposing ideas because that is the basis by which governments function. If everybody gets to decide for themselves what should be/not be a crime, then we don't have a society. Society is about compromise. What I'm seeing is not compromise. What I'm seeing is people dismissing the whole of law because there's one they don't agree with, or an application or even abuse of the law that offends them. It's an abandonment of balance and a dismissing of rational conversation.
You've got quite a black and white viewpoint, which is fine and is exactly how 'the law' works, hence: "the law is an ass". Many people have a bit of grey where it comes to the less obviously socially costly kind of crimes, often based on their own lifestyle and dependencies, therefore probably on the 'wrongly' side of rightly or wrongly. Usually, I would think the 'grey areas' are on the fringes where the social-effects of the law-breaking are more hidden or second/third order. This is all quite normal and won't change amongst society as a general rule.
What I notice as different, and I'll try to keep this as minimally political as possible but, as you say, it seems to be an increasing irrational tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. De-fund the police as an example. I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this example, by a fair margin, but people react to what they're exposed to and the focus on outrage-bait-for-engagement in the current media environment has this an an outcome.
Additionally, the decreasing respect for the rule of law by the leaders of countries only leads their populace into the same kind of thinking. Leading a country backwards from the civilisation that is borne from the application of rules around behaviour and into the chaos that preceded said civilisation (this is a long term process and can be turned around, I'm not saying to start panicking just yet).
Some grey area is OK, and is almost necessary, for the sake of the ability to have the conversation about moving the law to be more in line with societal expectations, but too much grey area leads back to societal breakdown and chaos.
Sure, but do you consider this specific case a real crime?
> largely going after >organizations with more than >$100 million in annual revenues >and fat new cyber insurance >policies that were known to >payout
No people were harmed so I am leaning towards no crime committed.
Insurance money doesn't grow on trees. The economy is highly connected, so increased costs impact most consumers.
Ransomware is a scourge enabled by crypto. We should do whatever we can to eliminate it.
Wrong. "No people I agree with were harmed," perhaps. This is no different than cronyism.
4 replies →