Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionRed
When a crime is being committed, as we see here; then we often rely on whistle-blowers. Lets take a nursing home scenario where elderly folks with dementia are being abused. Its usually just one person who sees the going on as morally wrong and decides to pull the plug on this criminal activity.
I work in an environment where we are expected to whistle-blow if we see anything we deem to be suspicious.
The person who has pulled the plug on this massive tax evasion has not done so for financial gain or for notoriety, though he/she did ask for protection. They did not personally meet journalists in the flesh or talk to them on the phone. Everything was handed of in encrypted files. If the government had been able to unlock encryption, these files very probably couldn't of been handed over because they would of been immediately blocked and traced back to the sender.
|
So... this kind of action is okay in your books, respectable even. But terrorists can continue to use their cellphones with impunity knowing that the security services can't touch them. And let's face it, you're making up your own story here about the noble hacker doing it for the greater good and what the government can and can't access when you know no more about this story or who is responsible than any of us.
One rule of unlawful whistle-blowers, another for the security services.