3 ms·

It probably depends on what people think about the laws that define what a "real crime" is. E.g. in germany it was a real crime to grow some weed. Now it's leg

• signatoremo 6mo ago
  Sure, but do you consider this specific case a real crime?
  • Computer0 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    • twodave 6mo ago
      Wrong. "No people I agree with were harmed," perhaps. This is no different than cronyism.
      • Computer0 6mo ago
        businesses are not people
        • DFHippie 6mo ago
          If a business is destroyed by ransomware, all its employees lose their jobs. The business's customers lose the services the business was providing. The families supported by these jobs are now all at risk. All that money goes somewhere. Much of it goes towards clothing, feeding, and housing people. Also, in most places it's a crime to rob anyone, even selfish assholes.
          • Computer0 6mo ago
            What if it is of my belief that businesses should not exist, and a job should not be a requirement for basic needs.
            • bigfishrunning 6mo ago
              So you suppose we should go back to foraging for berries and sheltering in caves?
              • Computer0 6mo ago
                it would be more human of an experience than this hell i endure everyday
                • DFHippie 6mo ago
                  I agree that our economic system is cold, transactional, and cruel. The problem kinder systems always face is that the people indifferent to the cruelty of capitalism, exemplified by these extortionists, are still there in the alternative system. The alternative must develop countermeasures or fail. The countermeasures replicate the cold transactional cruelty of capitalism. This isn't to say all countries are doing equally well or poorly, just that countries that came closest to eliminating what we call businesses were not generally regarded as kind, compassionate paradises by the people who lived there. You sound depressed. I wish you well. I wish the world were kinder to idealists. May you find a supportive community within the indifferent wider world.
            • twodave 6mo ago
              You are entitled to your own beliefs, no matter how crazy they are. Society doesn’t have to be held hostage by them, though.
              • Computer0 6mo ago
                Show me the social contract I signed.
            • 6mo ago
    • wstrange 6mo ago
      Insurance money doesn't grow on trees. The economy is highly connected, so increased costs impact most consumers. Ransomware is a scourge enabled by crypto. We should do whatever we can to eliminate it.
• twodave 6mo ago
  No, it doesn't, at least not to me. I can disagree with a law while also agreeing to obey it and that those who break it should have consequences. I can hold these two opposing ideas because that is the basis by which governments function. If everybody gets to decide for themselves what should be/not be a crime, then we don't have a society. Society is about compromise. What I'm seeing is not compromise. What I'm seeing is people dismissing the whole of law because there's one they don't agree with, or an application or even abuse of the law that offends them. It's an abandonment of balance and a dismissing of rational conversation.
  • BLKNSLVR 6mo ago
    You've got quite a black and white viewpoint, which is fine and is exactly how 'the law' works, hence: "the law is an ass". Many people have a bit of grey where it comes to the less obviously socially costly kind of crimes, often based on their own lifestyle and dependencies, therefore probably on the 'wrongly' side of rightly or wrongly. Usually, I would think the 'grey areas' are on the fringes where the social-effects of the law-breaking are more hidden or second/third order. This is all quite normal and won't change amongst society as a general rule. What I notice as different, and I'll try to keep this as minimally political as possible but, as you say, it seems to be an increasing irrational tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. De-fund the police as an example. I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this example, by a fair margin, but people react to what they're exposed to and the focus on outrage-bait-for-engagement in the current media environment has this an an outcome. Additionally, the decreasing respect for the rule of law by the leaders of countries only leads their populace into the same kind of thinking. Leading a country backwards from the civilisation that is borne from the application of rules around behaviour and into the chaos that preceded said civilisation (this is a long term process and can be turned around, I'm not saying to start panicking just yet). Some grey area is OK, and is almost necessary, for the sake of the ability to have the conversation about moving the law to be more in line with societal expectations, but too much grey area leads back to societal breakdown and chaos.
    • twodave 6mo ago
      Yes, I almost totally agree with all of this. And I do believe in gray areas, but I don’t expect law enforcement to. I think that leaves room for worse things like corruption/favoritism. I don’t deny that those things happen too, but those are also crimes that should be brought to justice.
• Fnoord 6mo ago
  If we'd follow your line of thinking prosecution of those responsible for MH17 were also to remain anonymous. Which is obviously ridiculous. If growing weed is illegal in Germany, and someone unknown grew a lot of weed in Germany, they end up being sought, and (eventually) their name and other details could end up in a police warrant. The comparison is moot though since growing weed in Germany requires physical presence in Germany. The alleged cybercrimes could've originated from anywhere in the world due to the nature of the internet. It just isn't doxing unless you don't see legal merit in the German police and German authorities. Which is obviously rhetoric the Russians want others to follow.