[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/02/2004 04:00:54 PM: > While most of your arguments make sense, the last sentence is questionable. > Vigilanteism is no more or less moral than having representatives apply a > policy democratically. It's only a problem if the vigilante is unqualified > to objectively identify the criminal and apply the policy. If Lycos is > unqualified, then who is? (Note that those running the screensaver are just > its agents, like deputies.)
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Guess who gets eaten. > The problem is not the "who", just the "how". > > (Every one of us is a vigilante when we run MD, protecting our users > without the aid of organized law enforcement.) No, we're not vigilantes when we filter spam. We're security guards only patrolling our property and not leaving the premises. Returning a failure code is like locking the door a putting up a closed sign. Now if we go out in the streets and beat up some one that tries to break in, then we are vigilantes. Sending traffic to a server not on our network is being a vigilante. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
