4 ms·
There's many circumstances in which one party breaking the law allows another party to _legally_ perform actions which are typically not allowed. For example,
by Yen 9y ago
There's many circumstances in which one party breaking the law allows another party to _legally_ perform actions which are typically not allowed.
For example, it is illegal to kill another human being. However, nearly all jurisdictions recognize "killing in self-defense" as permissible, if unfortunate.
I can't say if the same argument applies in this situation, but I _could_ see some parallels. If a malicious party is willing to cause you financial harm for their own gain, and you can reasonably prevent this financial harm by quickly inflicting equal-or-less harm on them, perhaps that's justifiable.
- 3pt14159 9y agoThis isn't an academic argument. There are many cases where company leadership knows the people and computers behind the botnet / ransomers and has to just sit there taking a beating. Not everyone can farm this shit out to Cloudflare.
- jessriedel 9y agoThese situations exist but they are actually pretty rare. As lawyer can tell you, in the modern legal system attempts at "self-help" are generally bad for the plaintiff.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoSeems like these days, the expected strategy is to let things happen and delegate making you whole to insurance and the legal system. I can see how this is better - especially for society in general - than taking things into your own hands, but then insurance sometimes will try to screw you (is there insurance for insurance?), and lawyers are prohibitively expensive for many.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]