Rich Kulawiec to me:
> > I'm not so sure why (some) folks are upset by the idea of "regulating"
> > the Internet via "vigilantism".
>
> Because either (a) they don't their history or (b) they're concerned
> that they're going to be next.
<<snip much good stuff I entirely agree with>>
Ahhh, yes -- it was rather rhetorical, I thought...
> Now, in re the term "vigilante": I'll assert that it's impossible for
> any defensive measure to be any kind of "vigilantism". If I refuse
> email, or packets, that's not vigilantism -- it's merely self-defense,
> or to put it another way, the end of active cooperation with abuse and
> the beginning of passive resistance.
>
> We need to smack down -- hard -- anyone using this term in re actions
> like the recent cutoff of Atrivo. Nobody did anything *to* them, it's
> just that folks stopped doing things *for* them.
Again, I agree with you entirely and would note that I scare-quoted
"vigilante" in its various forms in every usage in my message. That was
because I agree that what we just saw was _not_ vigilantism as it is
classically defined.
You, however, did a much better job of explaining why. It was not a
posse of self-appointed judge, jury and executioner-types riding out into
the wilderness to hunt down and string up an alleged scum bag, but rather
a well-publicized case of more or less coordinated withdrawal of
cooperation.
By definition a vigilante is someone who "takes the law into their own
hands", usually with a strong connotation of "with the intention of
seeing ('real') justice done". I seriously doubt that any of those
involved in the recent Intercage/Atrivo machinations believe that Emil
and his cronies have even begun to experience a just result for the ills
they have either directly wrought or knowingly enabled over the years...
Regards,
Nick FitzGerald
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
