4 ms·

There's a very substantial difference between legal self defense and "hacking back". Self defense is an immediate response and an innate human instinct. Hacking

There's a very substantial difference between legal self defense and "hacking back". Self defense is an immediate response and an innate human instinct. Hacking back is more like tracking down an assailant attacked you or your family member in the past, breaking into their home, and killing them. Another analogy: if a store owner saw someone steal $100 worth of goods, would it be legal for that store owner to hire someone to break into the thief's house and steal $100 worth of the thief's property?

cm2187 9y ago
Where your analogy breaks is that there is an alternative, semi functioning legal system in the case of a crime committed locally in the US that the police will investigate. In the case of a US victim from a hacker based in Russia or China, there is no realistic legal option, unless you are a large corporation with a massive legal budget and political connections. It’s really the alternative between do nothing or hack back. [edit] an alternative analogy is that a store caught a masked man robbing it and holds him and forces him to remove his mask while they call the police. Shops have no right to hold someone against their will nor to remove any piece of clothes from their customer by force, but it is acceptable in the context of being victim of a crime. Self defence is not the justification (once the robber has been neutralised he is no longer a threat). I’d argue that hacking into the attacking server to uncover its identity while the attacker is still online is very similar to removing an attacker’s mask by force after he has been caught.
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  Let's modify his analogy a bit then... The thief that shoplifted $100 of goods from his store was identified, but flew back to Russia the next day. Your alternative analogy would be considered kidnapping (as you say it is acceptable under the circumstances, but a jury might wind up deciding that).
  - cm2187 9y ago
    It actually happened in the past, and as you mentioned with sympathy of the jury [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinka_Bamberski_case#Abduction_to_France,_conviction_of_Krombach_and_further_proceedings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinka_Bamberski_case#Abducti...

cm2187 9y ago

Where your analogy breaks is that there is an alternative, semi functioning legal system in the case of a crime committed locally in the US that the police will investigate. In the case of a US victim from a hacker based in Russia or China, there is no realistic legal option, unless you are a large corporation with a massive legal budget and political connections. It’s really the alternative between do nothing or hack back. [edit] an alternative analogy is that a store caught a masked man robbing it and holds him and forces him to remove his mask while they call the police. Shops have no right to hold someone against their will nor to remove any piece of clothes from their customer by force, but it is acceptable in the context of being victim of a crime. Self defence is not the justification (once the robber has been neutralised he is no longer a threat). I’d argue that hacking into the attacking server to uncover its identity while the attacker is still online is very similar to removing an attacker’s mask by force after he has been caught.

gm-conspiracy 9y ago
Let's modify his analogy a bit then... The thief that shoplifted $100 of goods from his store was identified, but flew back to Russia the next day. Your alternative analogy would be considered kidnapping (as you say it is acceptable under the circumstances, but a jury might wind up deciding that).
- cm2187 9y ago
  It actually happened in the past, and as you mentioned with sympathy of the jury [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinka_Bamberski_case#Abduction_to_France,_conviction_of_Krombach_and_further_proceedings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinka_Bamberski_case#Abducti...