4 ms·

Such articles prepare a ground for laws which will hurt everyone. Exaggerating trolls influence leads to a cure that is worse then the disease.

• ComputerGuru 18y ago
  Sorry, I don't see anything exaggerated about intentionaly trying to hurt epileptics to "make them aware of the precautions they need to take."
  • d0mine 18y ago
    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither </quote> I don't want a political debate here. My e-mail is in the profile.
    • evgen 18y ago
      If you are going to use the quote, get it right: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (note the words "essential" and "temporary" in there, the interesting discussion is about what qualifies as essential liberty in this debate and whether or not the safety provided would be temporary or have a more lasting effect.)
      • william42 18y ago
        The really interesting discussion is how a quote became an axiom.
        • eru 18y ago
          Don't your believe in authority arguments?
  • noonespecial 18y ago
    I kind of hope the father of an epileptic shoots one of these griefers with a deer rifle in order to "make them aware that they should be wearing ballistic vests".
    • xlnt 18y ago
      I hope no one is shot.
    • tdavis 18y ago
      Oh I'm sorry, it would seem you got confused on your way to YouTube and ended up here. For the record, the solution to every problem or disagreement isn't "shoot the offender." It is a quality YouTube-style comment, however; you've even gotten specific as to the type of rifle, suggesting you've given more than a moment's thought to this punishment. Needs more capital letters and cussing, though.
      • adrianwaj 18y ago
        Actually, for me the comment is so sarcastic to the point of being funny (hunter: do you really think that that vigilante act would bring justice or would it be disproportionate?). But, these trollers are lying when they say "look, because we did this, it shows that you should be more alert to people who can also do it but actually intend harm." Or, "we've hurt your feelings, maybe you need to toughen up cupcakes, next time it could concern something that actually mattered." To me, the serious trollers do intend harm for the most part and they say it in this interview. Their excuses are a lie. They are the practical jokers that go overboard, placing white hats over their black hats when things go bad. I saw a documentary once of a team of people boarding a plane during its refueling and restocking at an airport. They ran down the aisles jumping around. Their message of "look what we can do and no one can stop us" should be taken seriously, and they had then intent to help. If someone wants to do some white-hat cracking for real benefit, why not announce it before the act has taken place and do it in a way where the recipient can at least first respond and say, "no, we'll do it ourselves" or thanks go ahead. If they ignore such a warning, the cracker can go ahead and at least have some form of recourse. I can't see many crackers doing that anyway, and the whole area's shady. White-hat crackers are usually treated like criminals.
• cdr 18y ago
  How is the article exaggerating? It's publicizing (and arguably somewhat glorifying), but I don't see where it's inaccurate.