OK...... I will spell it out for you.

We cannot allow or support a banned organisation to carry out illegal unlawful hacks regardless of the good nature or well intentions they may have.

We have laws in this country for a reason otherwise anybody would do anything if they thought there was a good motive behind it.

Like Vigilantism we cannot take the law into our own hands because there are people who are trained and equipped and experienced to do this, and after that there is due process , a court of law etc...

Encouraging criminals to do our work for us is never a good idea....

Clear enough for you now.....!!!!

OK Let me spell this out for you......
THIS IS NOT AN ORGANISATION NOR IS IT BANNED.
They arent a group of people they are just people....
Anything done previously under the banner of Anonymous bears no relation to what they are doing now.

Do they appear in Public wearing Masks ?? Yes/No ???

Enough said.................





.

:joker::joker::joker:
Bless.

I don't know if my thinking or logic on this is right or wrong, but I am with Kizzy and BobNot on this one. Maybe there are better ways of going about it, i don't know, but these hackers have not murdered anyone have they? And to expose something that needs exposing can only be seen as a good thing surely? especially when it concerns vulnerable children. Yes these hackers do things that are not acceptable really, however I see this as a good thing to expose those who need exposing for their crimes. That's all I am going to say on the subject.

I am not arguing that what they are doing is morally wrong, it isn't but it is the thin end of a wedge that could lead to many different groups or individuals taking actions which are illegal albeit they are being taken for the the right reasons.

Let's say this group exposes a weakness in a Paedo ring and exposes possible paedophiles, what does the law do next ?

What if this group using unlawful or legally inadmissable practices to obtain this info and as a result these people escape prosecution.

Or even worse , what if they succeed only in alearting this group or groups like them that there is a weakness in their encryption software. and they evade the authorities thanks to these well meaning but amateur sleuths.

They are not trained, would almost certainly not have the resources the authorities have nor the experience in hunting down these types of sickos. So in my view they should offer their assistance to the professionals but not try and wade into an area where the authorities are already fully involved in.

And what if they expose someone completely innocent by mistake, their reputation will be seriously undermined, I think these types of investigations need to be carried out with the full range of resources the appropriate authorities have at their disposal.





.

I dont think we can trust the authorities to hunt down these sickos tbh, look at all the coverups. If this is the way they are going to be exposed, so be it.

Well that certainly changes the argument if the authorities are complicit in a cover up of these people.

That's quite an allegation however..........





.

And one thats been proved a few times over recently dont you think...all these huge scale jimmy savile type things ;)

Unlawfully hacking is neither moral nor ethical and it is against the law. Great if they expose paedophiles... not so great if they expose someone who's innocent. They're not going to build a case on evidence, are they. I'm sure everyone's going to applaud what they're doing - this time. Until a paediatrician gets beaten to death by an angry mob or some similar travesty of justice.

These aren't ethical, moral fighters for the truth, they're a bunch of geeks who name their operations after Harry Potter characters.

I feel it's a stretch to assume that everyone who works in the law is working hard to protect paedophiles when the reverse is true. There is nowhere to hide for these people now and I'm glad. But we don't need amateurs outing who they consider guilty and thus jeopardising any case that might be brought against them.

:clap1::clap1: Yes, correct. If the law is the law, then we can't 'cherry pick' which to ignore no matter how justified we feel because of our motives.

What the issue here clearly is, is setting a precedent. As you say Nedusa, if one group can commit the illegal act of hacking because they believe their motives are right (which they are) why shouldn't any other group feel justified in replicating the action elsewhere because they too believe their motive is right?

What would be the public reaction if some masked group of Right Wing extremists announced that they were going to hack the computers of every mosque in the UK to out Islamic terrorist sympathisers and activists because they believed their illegal actions were justified because what they were planning was 'in the public interest' (which it would be)?

Where does it end?

What's to stop some nut hacking personal bank accounts of people he knows because he believes they are involved in some form of criminal activity?

These vile bastards need exposing, but that is the job of our police service, and while ever the law precludes the illegal actions needed to out them - it is certainly not the job of any group or individual.

Just in case anyone decides to misconstrue what i am saying; I am all for these bastards being found and arrested and dealt with under due process of the law, so I am not defending them, sympathising with them, or condoning what they do, I am saying that we either have laws and respect them, or if we do not like certain laws - as 'Let-Me-In' said, we change them by lawful process, but we do not break them.

It is impossible to secure 'justice' at the cost of 'justice', and it is impossible to secure 'justice' by breaking the law.

:clap1::clap1: Well put.

sounds like yet another kangaroo court in chavland uk where every MAN is called guilty before proven innocent

Oh I doubt it will be all men somehow. Though the nature of whats apparently going to be exposed kind of says its chance to be mostly men...either not as many female paedophiles exist, or they do a better job of controlling it...one of the two

My initial reaction was “good for them” but after reading the article and several posts written on here, I join those amongst us who are against this hacking. If these vigilantes accidentally mess up an undercover investigation then they must take responsibility for putting more children in danger and that is a real possibility.

That said, I do think America has got it right when it comes to their police force working hand in hand with vigilantes. Remember that recent programme, “To catch a Predator”? This would be considered illegal in the UK because of our coercion laws.

:clap1::clap1: Exactly the path which I took too Dem. I was all for it then I thought about Livia's post and did a 'U' turn.

You are right about the American initiative, and there's an excellent program on Sky Chanel 'Living' on Friday at 3.30 am (I record it ) called "Inside Predator Task Force" which follows the cops as they snare online paedo's by using young looking 20 something girls as bait. It's brilliant. Last week one of the paedo's caught was a cop! A Deputy Sheriff.

its time the false accusers who abuse harass and terrorise people will now be viewed as serious criminals and get locked up for years....we cant have mob rule in this country...usually the mob that tries to rule are a bunch of law breaking bullies themselves....innocent till prove guilty is the backbone of a civilised society

Should be, I agree. Never works like that though. Ask Chris Jeoffries :o

I have always said false accusers should get the same sentence the person would have got if they had been found guilty.

glad we agree....not only do liars and false accusers destroy the lives of the falsely accused but also their families and friends have their lives disrupted and ruined and on top of all this it costs the tax man 100s of thousands of pounds and wastes crucial police/detective/courts time...the trouble is the false accusers have nothing to lose everything to gain...that's the trouble with bent biased laws designed to appease femi-nazis

You then have to prove that they are false accusers, though. The vast majority of sexual crime cases where the accused walks free is because of lack of evidence - "not proven" rather than "not guilty". In many of those cases the victim will have been telling the truth. How horrific if those victims are then sent to jail while their abuser walks free? It's bad enough that so many people guilty of sex crimes walk free as it is. But that's the nature of these offenses. Often comes down to one persons word versus the other, and if there's little or no corroborating evidence, the accused will walk.

I agree with you on principle if it CAN be proven though, e.g. There might be video footage indisputably showing consent, or the accused might have a rock solid alibi proving they weren't even near the accuser at the time of the alleged attack. In those cases, yes, something should be done.

These are the cases I mean, not just those where guilty can't be proven, that would be ridiculous :p

No... Sorry it isn't, I'll never get my head around the fact that this is not applauded.
If our law makers and enforcers can't protect our children I'm happy for someone else to, do I feel there is a reason why the establishment haven't used the technology available to do this themselves?... Yes.

You simply fail to understand that these people (call them what you want to demean them its cheap and easy) are not going to convict they will simply lay evidence of paedophilia on the table. What the law does with that evidence is up to them.
When your average joe can find evidence of people touching kids that the law have failed to look at then it becomes an ethical and moral responsibility to put it on the table.
Protecting kiddy fiddlers isnt something to be proud of.

Indeed

But the problem then would be if the Govt is protecting Kiddy Fiddlers to use your phrase and this group finds evidence that the Govt agencies couldn't find or decided not to find, the people implicated will face trial by Media not law. and then we are back into the same grey area as before.

Without the full weight of the law backing this group or investigating their findings, their findings alone will not be proof af anything and will not be taken seriously.

Also in the time these findings are made before any official investigation can start the groups or individuals implicated will be furiously covering their tracks and destroying all/any evidence or trails.

The bigger scandal in this if proved true is the fact that wealthy privileged people can bend the law to suit their own evil habits.





.