3 ms·

The problem is that that the node.js filesystem deletion "protests" was an indiscriminate digital attack that harmed people who are doing a much better job of a

• Latty 5y ago
  I agree, to some extent. I think it was largely ineffective and poorly targeted protest. The media coverage is not really necessary as it's already highly reported on, and the people harmed have no control over it. With that said, disruptive protest can be (and often is) illegal. I may think it's justified in some cases, but also if I do something illegal I expect to face legal punishment for it. Some people lay down their lives to protest: to some people committing a crime is a cost worth paying. Again, my point isn't that I agree with the action, just that the idea that protest should disrupt no one is counter to the whole point of protest.
  • shkkmo 5y ago
    I think that blocking your software from running on some computers would be very disruptive but should be legal. (Edit: not endorsing this, just trying to clarify where the line lies) Actively trying to harm those computers is simply not OK and goes beyond "disruptive" protest into harmful. To analogize, if your protest blocks traffic, it is disruptive. If you protest goes looking for property owned by Russian speakers to burn down...you have moved beyond disruptive protest an into being a harmful attack. I do not think the latter is anywhere even close to justifiable.
    • Latty 5y ago
      I don't think the line is so simple. I agree that the "any Russian person" aspect of this makes it unjustified, in my eyes, but harming property more generally? Well, denying someone their property is certainly harm of a sort, and if I were asked if it was justified to seize or destroy an oligarch supporting Putin's property or yacht or whatever, then I'd say absolutely. In a similar way, there was a case in the UK recently where a statue of a man who was both a philanthropist and a slave trader was thrown into a river. This was charged as a crime, but the accused were found not guilty (commonly believed to be jury nullification). Was this right? Well, the guy had actively limited his philanthropy where anyone was anti-slavery, people had tried getting a plaque added to the statue to explain context, but this had been blocked. I think this was a reasonable act of protest, and clearly a jury of their peers agreed. More directly, what if they found their software was being used in a Russian weapons factory that was being used to produce munitions killing Ukranian people? In my mind, that would significantly raise the justification to cause damage to that property. Harm, especially when it comes to property rather than people, is tricky. I don't think it can always be ruled out when it comes to justifiable protest.
      • shkkmo 5y ago
        > if I were asked if it was justified to seize or destroy an oligarch supporting Putin's property or yacht or whatever, then I'd say absolutely. Those are targeted actions taken against specific individuals, not an indiscriminate attack. Causing indescriminant harm to random people as an attempt to protest is not acceptable. Targeted harm has to be assessed on a case by case basis.
        • Latty 5y ago
          I mean, as I said, I think that's a core factor in this instance, and culpability increases the justification. I don't think that means that targeting random people in protest is wrong universally. A common example might be blocking roads, which can harm random people disrupted from being able to go to work, for example. I think there are cases that can be justified. I mean, right now the sanctions put in place to try and cripple Russia's ability to wage war are hurting random Russian people. That's essentially state-level protest. It sucks for the Russian people who don't support their government, but I think it's the lesser of two evils rather than funding and enabling a regime that is invading Ukraine. It's a combination of factors, I think trying to draw hard lines universally is just the wrong way to think about it: protest should be proportional and justified, and each case has to be judged on its own merits as to whether it is, something people won't ever agree on universally.
• mannerheim 5y ago
  How many Russian cyberattacks on Americans go unpunished by Russia? I don't see any reason for America to bother prosecuting American attacks on Russia as long as Russia isn't prosecuting Russian attacks on Americans.
  • shkkmo 5y ago
    This wasn't just an attack on Russia and other people's bad behavior doesn't excuse your own.
    • mannerheim 5y ago
      Whether or not they're excused is orthogonal to whether or not America should prosecute. If Russia doesn't prosecute cyberattacks on Americans, then the logical leverage to get them to do so is to not prosecute American cyberattacks on Russians.
      • shkkmo 5y ago
        Again, this wasn't just an attack on Russians.
• ahtihn 5y ago
  > an indiscriminate digital attack I disagree. Users are responsible for the open source software they use. If they want to blindly execute software from the internet without auditing it first, that's their problem.
• ndiddy 5y ago
  An excerpt from node-ipc's license: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.