4 ms·
The post was clear that they did not do this to prove the security flaws. They did it because they believe this information should be made public for the good
by earbitscom 15y ago
The post was clear that they did not do this to prove the security flaws. They did it because they believe this information should be made public for the good of the public.
Nearly everyone in this forum opposes SOPA's attempt to shut down websites without a trial. Effectively subpoenaing private communication between suspected criminals without a court order and making those emails public requires much the same infringement of basic rights.
So you have to ask yourself, "Do I approve of private citizens and organizations taking actions such as these if they believe they're helping fight crime?" And then ask yourself whether you're talking about the release of these emails, or SOPA.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jonhendry 15y ago" "Do I approve of private citizens and organizations taking actions such as these if they believe they're helping fight crime?"" Crime? If every fringe nutcase gets to decide what is crime, and act on that, then it's likely you've committed somebody's idea of a crime, and so has everyone else. So far the accusations of Stratfor's evil have been about as meaningful as the British people who threatened a pediatrician, ignorantly thinking she was a pedophile. I don't see anyone railing against the crimes of Jane's, or the Economist Intelligence Unit. Probably because they know nothing whatsoever about the industry and don't even know those organizations exist.
- jaylevitt 15y agoI think you're in violent agreement, and that this was the point of "if THEY believe they're helping fight crime".