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