Sabotaging law enforcement is a bad idea, even in the name of “social justice.” To live in a lawful society means that we aren’t supposed to undermine the system or the people whose job it is to protect us. We have to have faith that the system will achieve justice on behalf of injured or wronged parties, even if the wrongdoers are law enforcement.
What this hacker group intends to do is become the judge, jury and punisher for the apparent bad behavior of the police. It’s not up to them to declare the police department guilty.
“Social justice” is a term that can mean different things to different people and depends on one’s perspective. It is too often used as an excuse for bad or unlawful behavior.
Ditto many "lawful" organizations, corporations, and government entities: they may or may not portray themselves as accountable, but often are not, IMHO.
It’s true that while some of these may not be accountable, there are vehicles and methods in the legal system to address shortcomings. Are you arguing that because other societal entities cross the line and get away with it, we should assume that the police will get away with it, so the hackers are justified in their actions? That’s a poor argument and just allows for any rogue group with an agenda to act on it’s own, regardless of the law.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I value the ability (both my own and other's) to express oneself.
I think that you give me too much credit in your question quoted above. I had not thought of that, maybe it was in the back of my mind. My (poor) reasoning was more along the lines of since we tolerate other socially accepted groups with questionable or no accountability, then why not Anonymous? Silly, I know, but --to some degree-- I was looking to be "corrected" by someone with logic.
~Anyway~ no, I have been thinking that a cyber attack (denial of service or shutdown website, shutdown email system, etc) on a law enforcement agency is different from an attack on a corporate or non-profit organization. But not by much. Especially since it is temporary and does not interfere -- at least, not very much -- with the basic functions of law enforcement, and what if a corrupt organization is made better by it?
Argh.
I just can't get past the fact that so many societal ills are accepted as normal and tolerable because they are conducted by the proper "authorities":
* * "rolling brownouts" decided by Public Utilities commission,
* * downsizing or reduction in services of state, county or local govts due to budget cuts,
* * poor EMS / Police response times to 911 calls,
* * polling "irregularities"
* * a legal system which varies due to wealth or lack thereof...
And I have not even BEGUN to touch on the waste, fraud and abuse of the last couple of years.
Aw, crud I could go on and on. I realize that this is more of the same (because this guy does it then its okay if that guy does it ... or the famous "2 wrongs make a right"). And I cannot say that I buy my own arguments (fallacies).
I just wonder in this day and age when so much of the liberal leadership in the US operates on the assumption that the end justifies the means, why fighting fair has to always be the best way to respond?
[signed]
Frustrated.
This is a good answer to my entire last post. In spirit I agree, but there is a lawlessness about the internet. And it seems we are entering a lawless age in our world. However, I recognize the potent and accurate truth that (even if the "barbarians are at the gate") we must not lower ourselves to their standards, for the rule of law sets us apart from them.