Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don't drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can't fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren't entitled to those same rights.
Laws are supposed to be just and equal, it is a common mistake in believing that they should be equitable or that they will be implemented justly or equally.
I agreed with another comment that this is probably not cyber terrorism, because definitions of cyber terrorism indicate a wide spread impact on people while this only impacts a relatively small group. Your definition isn't quite right either as one potential goal for cyber terrorism is to cause disruption or fear. Terrorism as a general term may be politically motivated but it doesn't have to have the goal of influencing policy directly. Technically revenge can be a goal of terrorism.
You're probably right, I went back and double checked the definition of cyber terrorism and the main difference is scale of impact. To be cyber terrorism it would probably have to impact a larger group of people.
Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn't exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.
That’s literally the risk we all face.
No it's not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Look, I'm against putting people in concentration camps but this isn't the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren't committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn't right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don't go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you're an American or famous. Likewise you don't go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.
If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it's ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you're truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn't want to wear veils, so it's ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.
I’m also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit.
Functionally there is no difference
They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.
So, as long as you believe it's ethical then it's okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.
Yet you live in a world where laws and nation states exist. Just because you divorce yourself from these rules or think they do not apply to your beliefs does not make it so. You're commenting like a Sovereign Citizen in the US, but the laws and legal frameworks exist whether you believe in them. To a point you must frame your discussion in their context and if you do not then your opinion doesn't matter until you change that very framework.
If your argument hinges on ignoring the legal framework then you have to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber, anything less is meaningless.
Nothing you are saying makes sense in the framework of legal functionality. You're basically advocating for non-gun castle doctrine in which you have the right to do whatever you want against people who you disagree with and who have the potential to do something against you. We live in a society where rules apply, when you say these things you should take a second to think how these decisions would apply if they were turned against you.
I'm not certain on much, but what I do know is that I believe in law. I like rules and I like order. Even more so I want rules and order to apply universally. You are arguing on the side of chaos against others with the privilege of law to protect you. That's all well and good until those same standards are applied against you.
I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can't agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can't bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can't unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.
This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.
It's a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.
Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can't in good conscious call it something it isn't. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it's ok despite it being bad. It's justice vs righteousness, it's lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it's against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that's dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.
At it's core this person probably committed a crime, but people don't care because it's against a bad ideologue. It's like if we said it's ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it's against.
I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn't matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn't be a crime.
I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.
My understanding is that honey bees are dying in farmed environments in the USA. Basically farmers will pay these large bee hive companies to bring bees in tractor trailers to their farm and let them out for a period of time to help pollutant their fields. These bees are the ones having record die offs, but from what I understand the die offs are less than the number of new bees being made.
Basically the efficiency of the corporate farming operation is decreasing, but the captive bee population is fine.
If someone out there knows better and has source information I would love to be corrected.
That's the thing, looking at the company they don't work "normal labor" jobs. Infosys is into info tech, consulting, and outsourcing services and looking at their acquisition history I get the impression they buy up smaller companies and consolidate their work into their product. Basically they make websites and tools that your company buys for $100k to analyze and optimize workflow, but the site doesn't work well and they never fix it. After 2 years enough time has passed that the higher ups don't feel embarrassed retiring the software and buying something else. Also, rather than just coding themselves they code with AI or buy other companies that already wrote the code and put it into their own product.
At the end of the day they aren't "working," they are being available. They are the shitty guy who is answering a work call on a Saturday while they are supposed to be watching their kid's ball game. They are the person who has to step out of the movie theater because they are getting an urgent work call at 10 pm on Friday. They are the person who flies back from their vacation two days early because the boss wants to ask about sales numbers. This is how Executive suite types say they work 16 hour days 7 days a week, they count every hour of the day as work because they are available, not because they were being productive that entire time.
I was thinking that this was a relatively bullshit example, but the movie "The One" featuring Jet Li makes this an awesome example. On it's face the impacts of one person likely aren't even enough for one person to notice, but if you had someone with the knowledge and means to take advantage of this they could be incredibly powerful.
Here is Obama's stated daily schedule in his first year as president. Take it with a grain of salt since it is a self report, but it's probably not miles away from the truth.
Quick Summary:
Routinely only got 5-7 hours of sleep
Woke up 7 am and would straight away exercise for 45 minutes
Into the office between 8:30-9:00 am
Work until 6:30 pm
Dinner and family time until 8:30 pm
Review briefings and do paperwork until 11:30 pm
Read in bed for 30 min before going to be at 12:30 am
Maybe Obama is just built differently, I know some people have genetic differences that mean they need less sleep, but that's a hell of a schedule for your baseline everyday schedule. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the White House had a doctor that prescribed/administered some sort of stimulant.
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don't drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can't fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren't entitled to those same rights.