←back to thread

USPS text scammers duped his wife, so he hacked their operation

(blog.smithsecurity.biz)
460 points wglb | 6 comments | 08 Aug 24 23:00 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
Joker_vD ◴[09 Aug 24 08:17 UTC] No.41199837[source]▶
Can you be prosecuted for hacking cybercriminals back? Because I am pretty certain that you, if you had something stolen from you, are not actually allowed to break and enter the thief's house, take your stuff back and leave, and you're definitely not allowed to make a copy of keys for their locks while you're at it.
replies(2): >>41199884 #>>41205962 #
langsoul-com ◴[09 Aug 24 08:24 UTC] No.41199884[source]▶
It's pretty grey, there's the computer abuse act or w/e. But it's quite selectively enforced.

I don't the US gov is gonna go after him for hacking a scam group AND he provided details to the authorities. Now, if he hacked them and used the stolen credit card details? Who knows.

replies(2): >>41199994 #>>41201600 #
Joker_vD ◴[09 Aug 24 08:44 UTC] No.41199994[source]▶
> hacking a scam group AND he provided details to the authorities

So cyber-vigilantism is technically illegal but the authorities will tacitly pretend it is not, when it suits them fine, probably.

replies(2): >>41200819 #>>41201211 #
1. _heimdall ◴[09 Aug 24 11:31 UTC] No.41200819[source]▶
Are you proposing that every law on the books should be enforced every time anyone breaks it?
replies(3): >>41203006 #>>41204489 #>>41204793 #
2. digging ◴[09 Aug 24 15:54 UTC] No.41203006[source]▶
I say no, but I'd also prefer laws that are more written for more specific application. If a human can make the call that "it's not right to apply this law here; doing so would lead to more lawlessness," so can a penal code. And giving much discretion to the humans enforcing law leads, more often, to undesirable outcomes (eg. "by random chance wink wink, this law only seems to get enforced against Black people").
3. kelnos ◴[09 Aug 24 19:05 UTC] No.41204489[source]▶
If not, then why do those laws exist? Either we're ok with those sorts of actions, and we should repeal the laws, or we're not, and we should enforce them, equally and universally. Anything less leads to biased enforcement.
4. dontlikeyoueith ◴[09 Aug 24 19:43 UTC] No.41204793[source]▶
Yes.

If you have a problem with that, maybe it shouldn't be on the books.

replies(1): >>41205514 #
5. _heimdall ◴[09 Aug 24 21:27 UTC] No.41205514[source]▶
Sure, I'd be all for removing a huge chunk of laws that exist today. In the meantime I don't think anyone actually wants every law to be enforced every time it is broken. Our legal system would grind to a halt.
replies(1): >>41257478 #
6. dontlikeyoueith ◴[15 Aug 24 15:57 UTC] No.41257478{3}[source]▶
> Our legal system would grind to a halt.

Because it isn't a system so much as a kafka-esque nightmare.