Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZebusJesus | Hacker News Reader

This is how it is done, the hacker ‘Martha Root’ dressed as the pink power ranger and hacked white supremacist dating sites, stole their data, took down their sites and then proceeded to DOX members by making a map with members locations and information around the world.

View on HN

While no one likes racists:

A crime against someone you disagree with is still a crime.

A crime against someone you despise is still a crime.

A crime against someone who commits a crime is still a crime.

So good intent, very, very bad execution, IMO.

Here we see an example of the law-and-order personality type, where the most important thing is to follow the law.

That is kind of the point of a law, to be impartial. Without it we might as well go back to the stone age.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Sometimes laws are bad - but people in Kohlberg stage 4 don't think so.

There are many obvious historical counterexamples to laws being neutral, or good.

I am simply not for vigilante justice

Yeah and DnD has lawful evil as an alignment for a reason!

A act against someone random may be a crime. The same against someone committing a crime, may not be a crime.

Well, in your own personal version of justice

law in my country

What country?

In the UK Vigilante justice is punished extremely hard.

If you commit a crime in the commission of preventing crime you will go to jail. There's a couple of things that are permitted and they're outlined as "detainment without excessive force" - for citizens arrest, and then it's only for the duration until a relevant authority can be called... with a maximum term of time that authority must be called.. It's extremely limited.

And one of the offences specifically not permissible for citizens arrest is inciting racial hatred.

https://www.westminstersecurity.co.uk/news/citizens-arrest-u...

Germany

So, self-defence laws in Germany apply to property also.

But it seems like they're also very restrictive on what you're permitted to do. Hacking has no justification in law.

in 2021 there was new laws added to help security researchers, but that goes out of the window as soon as you release private information (which has no justification in German law and may get you 2 years of prison time).

So, at least in the context of this thread; committing a crime in the comission of stopping a crime is not legal.

Or were you referencing something else?

You do understand that if their side does the same, you won't have any kind of moral high ground to stand on because you have already condoned stooping to their level?

> won't have any kind of moral high ground

You're exaggerating. Yes, it gives up the "doxxing not OK", but there will often remain a large moral difference between "Alice was accurately doxxed as KKK/Nazi" versus "Bob was accurately doxxed as $X."

There are very few $X which are both worse, plausible, and "the other side."

We also need to ask who is going to care or be convinced. Orwell's The Party does not care about ethical or moral consistency, only power.

right, because being a anti-white supremacists is the same as being a white supremacist....

something something, "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them," something something

Wow, this comment was so hard to read with the something something which made me think it was condescending

From what I can tell your comment about: You are talking about paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

That's correct. They are talking about the paradox of tolerance.

Do you imagine white supremacists don't currently dox people?

I can imagine that white supremacists do a great deal of things I would never condone.

"Their side" absolutely does this continuously, and is one of the reasons early facebook allowed people to use pseudonyms etc.

Only one side of the political spectrum routinely resorts to malicious/vexatious behaviour as their modus operandi.

What do you mean "if"? I've had multiple friends driven off the internet by right-wing doxxers.

How dare the US government, which executes people, tell me that I don't get to murder at will? Where is their moral high ground? /s

Weird moral equivocation. Nazis declare themselves enemies of mankind. They otherise themselves with their beliefs. It should be legal to stone them in the streets as non humans.

If "Their Side" did the same to innocent people who hadn't declared they are everyone's enemies its a completely different scenario.

Define doing the same?

Exposing racism? Where is the moral problem?

This isn’t exposing people for being white but for being supremacists.

If they also expose something of the same kund of wrong I see no problem, everything I wouldn’t call doing the same.

That’s like comparing police arresting people with criminals kidnapping people, both do kind of the same: imprison people.

I think the side that isn’t full of white supremacists would have the moral high ground by default.

I'm not sure how much that would mean swinging from the rafters of [insert intolerant country]. The white supremacists will maybe lose their jobs or reputation, but the consequences could be much more dire in retaliation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46515191

When Batman corners the Joker it's good. When the Joker corners Batman it's bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com