Hacking Back Makes a Comeback, But Is Still a Bad Idea

Re:Hacking Back Makes a Comeback, But Is Still a Bad Idea by Yen on Monday December 04, 2017 @02:19PM (#15846592)

There's many circumstances in which one party breaking the law allows another party to _legally_ perform actions which are typically not allowed.

For example, it is illegal to kill another human being. However, nearly all jurisdictions recognize "killing in self-defense" as permissible, if unfortunate.

I can't say if the same argument applies in this situation, but I _could_ see some parallels. If a malicious party is willing to cause you financial harm for their own gain, and you can reasonably prevent this financial harm by quickly inflicting equal-or-less harm on them, perhaps that's justifiable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Back Makes a Comeback, But Is Still a Bad Idea by jessriedel on Monday December 04, 2017 @05:48PM (#15848279)

These situations exist but they are actually pretty rare. As lawyer can tell you, in the modern legal system attempts at "self-help" are generally bad for the plaintiff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Back Makes a Comeback, But Is Still a Bad Idea by TeMPOraL on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @01:00AM (#15850062)

Seems like these days, the expected strategy is to let things happen and delegate making you whole to insurance and the legal system.

I can see how this is better - especially for society in general - than taking things into your own hands, but then insurance sometimes will try to screw you (is there insurance for insurance?), and lawyers are prohibitively expensive for many.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Back Makes a Comeback, But Is Still a Bad Idea by 3pt14159 on Monday December 04, 2017 @03:05PM (#15846919)

This isn't an academic argument. There are many cases where company leadership knows the people and computers behind the botnet / ransomers and has to just sit there taking a beating. Not everyone can farm this shit out to Cloudflare.

[ Parent | on HN ]