[citation][nom]Jason Bourne[/nom](Ex: majority voted for Hitler)[/citation]
Actually, that's incorrect. While Hitler's NSDAP succeeded in getting a PLURALITY of the votes at 37.8%, this was only enough to get him 230/608 seats in the Riechstag. The response was that the 222 socialist & communist members united with the remaining, generally-centrist members to leave him the minority party. Furthermore, Hitler actually LOST the Presidential election to the more-centrist, Von Hindenburg.
It wasn't until after the Reichstag fire of 1933 that Hitler essentially began a coup, first succeeding in duping everyone into believing his communist conspiracy theory, and hence was able to run a RIGGED election in 1933, where he STILL only got 43.9% of the vote, (even with almost all of the very-popular communists and socialists arrested/murdered) and had to rely on some arm-wrenching and coercion to get a coalition to put him barely over 50%... And even that wasn't cemented until he passed his Enabling Act to allow him to circumvent an all-too-volatile legislature... And no people voted for that.
[citation][nom]mlCaouette[/nom]@nottheking,I believe you missed that fact that stealing is still stealing, regardless of the motives. I have to agree that the public beating comment was a bit extreme, but i still believe that people who end up in prison deserve exactly what they have coming.Becoming what you seek to exploit (identity thief) does not make you any better than the thief who was doing it for more than "the lulz", it only makes you a thief. Under your logic, almost no crimes should be punishable, after all most of the crimes committed are done so by people who think they deserve the money they're taking or the revenge they're seeking is justifiable. Whatever their cause may be they should find a legal method to promote it, one without any collateral damage to innocent civilians! Here's a simple solution, have some morals. Here is a task for you nottheking, I would like ten reasons which make LulzSec's crimes justifiable. On top of that I would like to read five positive products that resulted from your beloved hacker group stealing information and posting it to the internet, giving the criminals that actually intend to steal our hard earned cash easy access to the information they seek. Here's a quote from your freedom fighters (sarcasm intended), "Splendid old chap, yes, yes, quite. In other news, we're loading leak bay #1 with stolen goods. #AntiSec,". Quote taken from this article:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Anonym [...] 11595.html[/citation]
Did I once actually state that their crimes were justifiable? No, I didn't support them at all: there's a distinction between chiding the most virulent opponents of a position, and backing said position. Similarly, I must chide even you for implying that hackers who get violated in prison deserve what they have coming, at least if you're an American... (and the crimes this person is being tried for would almost certainly be in American courts) Does not the 8th Amendment prohibit "cruel and unusual punishment?" I think that being subjected to the random violation of one's own body by fellow inmates to be something that almost all of us would agree upon as "cruel," much as I think most of us would agree that murdering or stealing is wrong.
I never presented logic that it's not right to punish someone for doing what they think is right... Or, in fact, that it lends any sort of positive quality to their actions: otherwise we'd have to think anything but ill of the actions of, for example, Andrea Yates. (who in 2001 drowned her five children in a bathtub, and later claimed she was saving them from posession by the devil)
However, I did suggest that it "wasn't as bad as it could've been." The Internet is ripe full of plenty of shady figures that, if given the chance, will steal your identity for their own monetary gain: abusing your credit score to tap it out, then vanish, leaving you the victim.
As of yet, I'm not sure if any actual theft has taken place: unless a siezure proves posession, or a future action demonstrates that passwords or credit card numbers were taken, (i.e, actions that would require having them) one cannot ascertain that such claims of "stolen goods" are anything more than braggadocio. Certainly the big companies would prefer the media to portray as if theft had taken place, but they have a vested interest in villifying their attackers as someone far more vile than random hackers or even kiddies who just managed to discover the gaping holes in their computer security.
Similarly, I was also taking clear note of the effective "blamelessness" that people are holding for Sony: they're a company that held the data for millions upon millions of users with an incredible lack of security. Sure, the attackers are criminals for taking anything, but certainly blame should also be held by Sony for putting their customers' data at risk: you'd not find a bank blameless for losing your money just because they sent it all in a conspicuous, unarmored vehicle through a crime-infested ghetto, now would you?
In the Information age, personal, sensitive information is just as valuable as money, so it seems only rightful to demand the companies you do business with to treat it with every bit as much care and security... And hold them accountable when they fail to do so. Case-in-point: the U.S. Congress has grilled Sony and expressed their disapproval over Sony's handling of this quite a bit. Certainly if we're talking about the laws and opinions passed by the government, that has to mean something too.