4 ms·
The difference is that one of those people could very well return the favor and give you a proper ass kicking, or determine your identity with relative ease and
by fourk 15y ago
The difference is that one of those people could very well return the favor and give you a proper ass kicking, or determine your identity with relative ease and file a complaint with the police.
The disincentives that exist for your example and those that exist for actions similar to those taken by lulzsec are radically different.
The conclusion that people should walk around with full-face helmets is ridiculous because of the existing disincentives for assaulting someone. The conclusion that companies should secure their networks, not such an unreasonable expectation.
- brisance 15y agoI don't think it's that easy to identify the hackers. Even if you could, which legal jurisdiction applies? What are the legal remedies? Securing networks is indeed a noble goal, but are we prepared to pay for the infrastructure? The end result does not justify the means, and we all know how the story goes. More legislation to "prevent" hacking, and everyone suffers under the yoke of over-reaction.
- roel_v 15y agoRight, the problem is that 'digital criminals' are a) not likely enough to get caught, and b) not punished enough if/when they are. What we need are stronger punishments against digital vandalism and profit-oriented digital burglary alike, and more and stronger enforcement. (not being sarcastic, in case anyone's wondering)
- StavrosK 15y agoGood thing our politicians are listening and are prepared to clamp down hard on illegal filesharing.