Then he has no case to commit crimes. He was also happy to work there for 12 years and only effectively took action when he was fired. There's no moral stance here.
> ... you think someone with a different opinion than you is contrarian?
No, I can just spot the product of (probably undiagnosed) autism. That is, I made a statement ("it's never worth it") that to some, particularly on the Internet, is like a red rag to a bull. What makes it particularly funny is you complained about "rigid thinking" in another comment.
I was talking about taking revenge against shitty jobs at shitty companies. The more neurotypical among us know this. This is a statement that fit the facts, not some completely different hyperbolic statement like, oh I don't know:
> If I was a citizen of North Korea and I assassinated the great leader technically speaking I just committed a crime too
As an aside, you'd probably be executed if you weren't killed on the spot. Hope it was worth it. Of course, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway.
> ... Because the information is missing you are making a wild guess.
Actually, I just went looking for more info [1], which adds:
1. Forensic information was found on his laptop and a development machine linking him to the attack;
2. He admitted it to prosecutors (and went to trial anyway, which is crazy); and
3. He gave the malware Chinese and Japanese names, assumedly to lay blame at a foreign actor.
> I don’t know how you can make a claim out of thin air that things are often what they appear to be EVEN when you literally were not given his side of the story.
This is what I mean by contrarian and also what I mean when technical people start making technical arguments to legal issues.
Here's the example I like to use. If the Feds trace something illegal being downloaded to a particular IP address and then find from the ISP the home it belong to, they then investigate then ultimately arrest and charge the resident of that home. "Technical" people will see that and say things like "you can't prove it wasn't someone who hacked his wifi" or similar. That's what I call a "technical argument". But it's not how the law works. Investigators will do things like look at what's on his computer, his search history, whether the activity occurred when he was likely at home and so on. This is a legal standard (eg "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, "preponderance of the evidence" for civil), not a technical standard with absolutely zero room for doubt.
His defense (or lack thereof) at trial is information. His apparent lack of any public statements is information. The nature of the code, being that it only triggered when he no longer worked there, is information.
I strongly advise yourself to be introspective and question why you feel the need to effort-post so hard and imagine a scenario where this was justified, just because someone said "it's never worth it".
> If a child stole food ...
Exactly like this.
My advice to you, and I mean this with all the empathy in the world, is to introspect on why you have this burning need to correct every imagined wrong on the Internet, particularly for something as inocuous as "it's never worth it" about committing crimes. I guarantee you you'll be happier for it.
Lastly, you bring up all these weird exceptions where something is justified but go back and read what I said. I never said it wasn't justified. I said "it's never worth it". It's not about being right, or wrong. It's about the consequences regardless of your moral position.
Think about why you shadow-boxed with something I never said too.
> Then he has no case to commit crimes. He was also happy to work there for 12 years and only effectively took action when he was fired. There's no moral stance here.
Again, evil doesn’t need to be illegal to be evil. What the CIA did of Torturing people through extraordinary rendition was completely evil.
Additionally you’re making a moral judgement call here without hearing the other side of the story. You’re morally stubborn and while I don’t think you’re evil, you’re likely a person to conduct evil through sheer stubbornness and an inability to examine your own moral rules.
> I was talking about taking revenge against shitty jobs at shitty companies.
Depends on what the shitty company did for which you don’t what they did. No autism, just logic.
> As an aside, you'd probably be executed if you weren't killed on the spot. Hope it was worth it. Of course, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway.
So. It’s not a morally wrong action. Basically your point was if it’s a crime then it’s wrong and this example was there to show you that this type of thinking is incorrect even by your own standards.
> Actually, I just went looking for more info [1], which adds
Again. No motive. Nothing about why he did what he did and what was done to him.
> This is what I mean by contrarian and also what I mean when technical people start making technical arguments to legal issues.
The word you’re looking for is overly pedantic. Such level of detail is appropriate here for someone receiving 10 years. But to you it’s too “technical” because it’s a “crime” and let’s ruin his life and likely the lives of his entire family by throwing him in jail?
Also im not asking for 100
Percent proofs on everything or anything. I’m simply saying we literally don’t know his motive. We don’t know why and what was done to him. He wasn’t quoted. That’s reasonable and if you can’t agree with that then you’re just stubborn.
> I strongly advise yourself to be introspective and question why you feel the need to effort-post so hard and imagine a scenario where this was justified, just because someone said "it's never worth it".
When I disagree and overhear something I disagree with I like to talk about it. I’m not busy so this stuff fills my time. When I agree with something I also like to post.
> Lastly, you bring up all these weird exceptions where something is justified but go back and read what I said. I never said it wasn't justified. I said "it's never worth it". It's not about being right, or wrong. It's about the consequences regardless of your moral position.
Right. And these exceptions are the consequences of rigidly following your logic. You even acknowledge my examples are clear exceptions. The point of the exceptions is to show you that THIS case without hearing the employees side of the story MAY also be an exception.
I obviously brought up those examples because you wouldn’t think those examples are morally right. I brought it up because it’s the logical consequence of your reasoning, I quote: “I've never understood this mentality. Your employer might be the absolute worst but this? This is comitting a crime. To knowingly sabotage a company this way is a crime.”
It’s like a crime is full stop wrong.
My advice to you is to ask what pushes people to commit crimes like this and what pushes people to put him behind bars for 10 years.
Then he has no case to commit crimes. He was also happy to work there for 12 years and only effectively took action when he was fired. There's no moral stance here.
> ... you think someone with a different opinion than you is contrarian?
No, I can just spot the product of (probably undiagnosed) autism. That is, I made a statement ("it's never worth it") that to some, particularly on the Internet, is like a red rag to a bull. What makes it particularly funny is you complained about "rigid thinking" in another comment.
I was talking about taking revenge against shitty jobs at shitty companies. The more neurotypical among us know this. This is a statement that fit the facts, not some completely different hyperbolic statement like, oh I don't know:
> If I was a citizen of North Korea and I assassinated the great leader technically speaking I just committed a crime too
As an aside, you'd probably be executed if you weren't killed on the spot. Hope it was worth it. Of course, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway.
> ... Because the information is missing you are making a wild guess.
Actually, I just went looking for more info [1], which adds:
1. Forensic information was found on his laptop and a development machine linking him to the attack;
2. He admitted it to prosecutors (and went to trial anyway, which is crazy); and
3. He gave the malware Chinese and Japanese names, assumedly to lay blame at a foreign actor.
> I don’t know how you can make a claim out of thin air that things are often what they appear to be EVEN when you literally were not given his side of the story.
This is what I mean by contrarian and also what I mean when technical people start making technical arguments to legal issues.
Here's the example I like to use. If the Feds trace something illegal being downloaded to a particular IP address and then find from the ISP the home it belong to, they then investigate then ultimately arrest and charge the resident of that home. "Technical" people will see that and say things like "you can't prove it wasn't someone who hacked his wifi" or similar. That's what I call a "technical argument". But it's not how the law works. Investigators will do things like look at what's on his computer, his search history, whether the activity occurred when he was likely at home and so on. This is a legal standard (eg "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, "preponderance of the evidence" for civil), not a technical standard with absolutely zero room for doubt.
His defense (or lack thereof) at trial is information. His apparent lack of any public statements is information. The nature of the code, being that it only triggered when he no longer worked there, is information.
I strongly advise yourself to be introspective and question why you feel the need to effort-post so hard and imagine a scenario where this was justified, just because someone said "it's never worth it".
> If a child stole food ...
Exactly like this.
My advice to you, and I mean this with all the empathy in the world, is to introspect on why you have this burning need to correct every imagined wrong on the Internet, particularly for something as inocuous as "it's never worth it" about committing crimes. I guarantee you you'll be happier for it.
Lastly, you bring up all these weird exceptions where something is justified but go back and read what I said. I never said it wasn't justified. I said "it's never worth it". It's not about being right, or wrong. It's about the consequences regardless of your moral position.
Think about why you shadow-boxed with something I never said too.
[1]: https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/08/developer_server_kill...