[Wolves] I'm back!

Old Dan wolves at mailman.lug.org.uk
Mon Aug 11 12:36:00 2003

Jono Bacon wrote:
> Hi,
>>If you think they're criminals then you think I'm a
> In what sense?
In the sense that in the same situation I'd do the same thing, in an 

>>The way I see this case is simple:  If you condemn
>>them then you condone 
>>genocide.  You also condemn the likes of the
>>suffragettes in this 
>>country and the civil rights movement in the US who
>>broke many laws in 
>>their fight for liberation.
> This is wrong. I think it is absurd to see the
> condemnation of illigal activity as condoning genocide
> - I do not condone genocide, I never will and I find
> the whole point of condoning it ridiculous.
You're condemning some people who have had the guts to stand up to the 
system in order to try and stop genocide from taking place.  I didn't 
mean you were directly condoning genocide, I meant it was implicit.

Maybe I should have been clearer, however I was het up.  This subject is 
one I really do feel strongly about.
> The problem I have is with the concept of breaking the
> law. I sympathise with the case of making a mark to
> stop genocide, but I cannot condone this activity.
Have you ever heard of self-defence?  Well, I think this instance should 
fall under that category.  The fact that the people being defended are 
thousands of miles away shouldn't come into it.

> What happens for example if a group see Linux as being
> a bad thing - because they view it as bad, does that
> mean they can resort to criminal bhaviour against us.
What if Linux were being sold by, say, Red Hat, with pre-configured 
k1dd13 h4x0r t00lz to a known DDoS hacker who had this charming fixation 
with targetting hospitals to try to hurt and kill people, and you knew 
where this 'Red Hat Hurt & Kill Linux v9.0' was being stored?

Remember no actual *people* were hurt during this action, and it was the 
women themselves who called the police when they'd finished.

> What I am saying is that there is no definition as to
> what makes the use of criminal behaviour acceptable -
> although many view a violation of human rights as
> acceptable. Although I support the condemnation of
> genocide, human rights breaches, racism, sexism and
> other nasty aspects of human nature - where do you
> draw the line?
Well I'd like to think I'd be able to draw the line quite easily - I 
have no objection to someone breaking the law in order to try to prevent 
an even greater crime from being committed.  So just as if someone kills 
a knife-wielding homicidal maniac who was about to kill them or others, 
it should be okay to take direct action on things which you know for 
sure are destined for and/or complicit in acts of genocide or whatever.

Of course, as always YMMV.