in reply to (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?

There's a German word for what you want to do, and http://dict.leo.org/ translates it as "vigilantism", "arbitrary law" or "self-administered justice". My English isn't good enough to judge if that's what you really want to do, but it sounds like it.

Prosecuting people who violate the law is a matter of the state, not your own business, and IMHO with good reason. It's one of the defining attributes of a constitutional state.

That aside, I doubt that you can retaliate in any way that really makes a difference without committing a crime yourself (unless you happen to own a company that has considerable power over a sector of a market that your "victim" is involved in).

  • Comment on Re: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?
by tantarbobus (Hermit) on Jul 17, 2008 at 01:30 UTC

    Not that I agree with the what the poster is suggesting; however, it could also be seen an attempt at enforcement of a social norm. More akin to laughing at the kid(=child) who wears funny cloths, then to burning the witch down the street who put a hex on the neighborhood cat. And, to me, spamming (still) feels more like a violation of a social norm than "Doing something wrong"

    To continue with the tailgating analogy used in some of the other posts: tailgating is one of those things that is more on the 'not being polite' side of the coin than on the illegal side -- how many people get pulled over just for tailgating... So, sometimes a person will slow down to punish a tailgater even though it will take the person longer to get to h(is|er) destination. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16090318

[reply]

In Section Meditations