What about net vigilantism reported today in a US national
newspaper, about the volunteers who are helping the fuzz
track down miscreants?
One gang goes after kiddie peds, another virii, another
after "unethical" hackers. In the name of keeping the Net
safe for those who promote it. Smells like W3 Consortium,
or ICANN, quasi-intelligents looking out for the dimwits,
preening for the deep pockets of law and order and natsec.
Pearl Harbor them.
Even the cops and prosecutors are doubtful of these
eager beavers, who, like Shimomura, believe their
technical prowess invest them with the right to be
Typhoid Marys.
Clifford Stoll may have been the first famous vigilante
cyberdick, Mitnick his anti, but now there is a flood of
righteous fencers of the open range.
At 01:08 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Yes, censorship by way of lawsuits is a horrible thing. The unpopular
>ideas in a society are, without exception, the products of the most
>valuable and creative members. I would vote against allowing such a
>thing to happen in our free and open society.
>
>My recommendation in the case of the parents who lost their son (
>apparently to a NAMBLA sickfuck ) is vigilantism. Note : in these days
>of DNA testing full-body Tyvek suits and latex gloves are a key part of
>the vigilante's attire...an improvised, portable incinerator will round
>out the equipment list nicely.
>
