• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle


  • And I self-host precisely because of the money I save using surplussed hardware. I have a symmetrical 1Gb SOHO fibre connection from my ISP, so I can host whatever the hell I want, I just need to stand it up. And a beefy older system with oodles of RAM is perfect for spinning up VMs of various platforms for various tasks. This saves me craploads of money over even a single VM on cloud platforms like Vultr. Plus, even if I were to support a “heavy” service sufficiently in demand to warrant its own iron, it still costs me less than a year’s worth of hosting to obtain a decent platform for that service to run on all by it’s lonesome.

    My only cloud costs end up being those services which are distributed for redundancy and geographical distance, such as DNS and caching CDNs.



  • Sometimes criminals also shoot back at the police that come after them with guns.

    In the heat of the moment, the only difference between a vigilante and a cop is the level of training, the assigned equipment, and the choice for the cop to follow well-established procedural rules. It’s only when you zoom out do you see the legal system supporting the cop. But when zoomed in and examining the individual incidents, nothing says the cop can’t come away with added lead, either.


  • Vigelanty justice only works when target deserved like the dead CEO, otherwise it just crime.

    You clearly see the world in black-and-white, when it really is made up of shades of grey.

    Which means that since you haven’t already gotten the point, all the crayons and construction paper in the world isn’t going to help.


  • rekabis@lemmy.catoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The point I was making… Is that the article brought a red herring fact that has nothing to do with anything

    Why did they bring it up?

    It was not a red herring in the least, and it struck to the very core of my own criticisms: while some vigilantes may be very stringent about their own investigations and targets, others may not.

    In this example, these vigilantes artificially engineered a target where none was likely to ever exist. They drew the target in using the profile of a perfectly legal 18yo woman, but then turned around and claimed that the target was actually chasing the profile of an 17yo - and illegally young - girl, when he was in fact not doing so.

    This was a very clear situation of entrapment by false pretenses.



  • rekabis@lemmy.catoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t have a problem with actual pedophiles that are caught in these dragnets.

    My problem arises from the lack of rigorous and well-documented investigation into the target before shite starts popping off. As the article pointed out, there is nothing wrong with a 22yo dating an 18yo. And the problem here is a sense of vindictiveness trying to manufacture targets where not all targets are guilty of pedophilia.

    So: you want to take a pipe wrench to warm over a pedophile? Make sure there is oodles of evidence that clearly and unambiguously makes the person a pedophile, and sure as shite I will look the other way. But the problem is that there is no self-reinforcing framework in place within the vigilante system to ensure and enforce this threshold of evidence. And without this system, innocent people are going to get hurt or killed.