I would assume that Mitch Wagner is speaking of himself in his post on Blue Security and their solution for dealing with the SPAM problem.
Denial-of-service attacks are illegal. They are, as a matter of fact, criminal acts. Of course, the company says it’s not launching a denial-of-service attack — it’s just complaining. It said so repeatedly, as a matter of fact. However, just saying you’re not doing something doesn’t count if you go ahead and do it — although life would sure be simpler if it worked that way.
It’s quite obvious that Mr. Wagner either didn’t read what Blue Security’s product does or he has never been part of an organized letter writing campaign. Using this logic, organizing a group of like minded individuals to write or fax your local politician would be a Denial-of-Service. Monopolizing the fax line for the purpose of speaking on a single issue sounds like it fits Mr. Wagner’s description of a DoS. Let us not forget that all those angry letters arriving in the mail end up wasting the staffer’s time since they have to read those letters and then deal with all the paper lying around the office. I suppose one solution is to make it illegal to talk to your elected representatives since that would be a Denial-of-Service.
It’s vigilante justice, and vigilante justice is wrong. If the law doesn’t suit you, fix the law. Vigilante justice leads to a breakdown of rule of law.
First you have to have a law and a law enforcement agency in order to have vigilante justice. There is no international law regarding SPAM and there are no international SPAM COPS. Vigilantism is commonly referred to as “Taking the law into your own hands” which if there is no law it makes that quite hard to do. Mr. Wagner also does not take into account situations where the law allows citizens to act. The justified homicide clause in many state laws is one such example. Texas being the most forgiving
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
Now, I’m not advocating that we hunt down spammers and shoot them but the people of internet community are fed up with SPAM. There’s no telling how many states have laws where so called internet vigilante justice may be acceptable under some obscure clause pertaining to some other act. In addition I expect some city, county, or state legislators to begin legalizing some form of retaliation within reason, whatever within reason means to the local voters. Another issue with bringing people to trial for vigilante justice is getting a jury to convict. Even in states other than Texas where it is not legal to shoot someone for stealing or vandalizing your property, many potential jurors believe that you have the right to your property regardless of what state law says and will acquit. Since many people are fed up with SPAM it is not unreasonable to expect a jury to acquit Blue Security and any citizen subscribers to their service of any wrongdoing. Jury nullification is within the rule of law and some states such as Georgia allow jurors to determine fact AND law. . I fail to see how Mr. Wagner’s statement that vigilante justice leads to a breakdown of rule of law” is true in such cases where a jury believes that such action is socially acceptable.