|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
andrel wrote:
>
> No it was retaliation against an owner of a system that was used in a
> hacking attempt. There is no proof at all that the owner had anything to
> do with it. I'd guess 85% percent that the owned was innocent but is now
> missing some months or years of work, let's hope there is a backup.
> Some indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running
> again, if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.
>
Misdirected, but his justification is still retaliation. The likely
innocent system was collateral damage. And yep. not legal here in the U.S.
> In short: I am not happy with this.
I agree.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |