The 40 minutes of the presentation before the hack gives a lot more context: there are 2 journalists in addition to this anonymous pink Power Ranger, and they investigated the Nazi network, which is international. And Martha Root (the pink power ranger) was trolling them by creating an account and using LLM. The LLM didn't work properly, the account was blocked for suspicions of being a bot (and maybe for having "= 1 OR 1" as eg. gender), she talked her way out of it, and incredibly the admin that unblocked her asked if she wanted to meet up with him, and the site's founder. She said yes, didn't show up, but used that opportunity to covertly follow them and uncover the founder's identity - the journalists found that it's a 57-year old lady who's never been known in the scene, who was married to a French banker whose parents survived the holocaust, but in the last decade fell into the rabbit hole of white-victimization-theory.
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.
Only one side of the political spectrum routinely resorts to malicious/vexatious behaviour as their modus operandi.
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.
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.
If "Their Side" did the same to innocent people who hadn't declared they are everyone's enemies its a completely different scenario.
Considering that she, the act, and the targeted site are in Germany, that's a fair bet.
> And then people wonder why the global right is rejecting the idea of the rule of law...
Ah, you did the cartoon. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-Y...
Just to clarify, she fell into the rabbit hole, not him. He divorced her. Your comment can easily be read both ways.
From what I can tell your comment about: You are talking about paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
There are many obvious historical counterexamples to laws being neutral, or good.
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...
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?