That's what's called "Self-justification". Helping your victim after victimizing them allows you to say "I'm not that bad, I'm helping make sure this doesn't happen again".
This is a terrible person doing bad things to other people. He could donate all the money he makes selling the user name to orphans and it still doesn't really justify the behavior.
If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse?
I don't see any overt attempt at "justification" in these emails. The attacker wanted a very specific thing and, after he got it, he didn't do anything further. He even gave the victim some helpful information. That doesn't justify his actions but his behavior is clearly less reprehensible than it might have been.
You seem to be saying, somewhat paradoxically, that the perpetrator wouldn't have committed the crime at all if he had been more malicious because then he would have had to truly reckon with the consequences of his actions. Maybe. Maybe theft would be less common if all thieves were compelled by some magical force to kill their victims. But that's not realistic and, besides, people commit far more malicious crimes than this without being deterred by the damage they're doing.
>>If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse?
Yes.
What I'm saying is trying to say "well at least he was nice enough to explain the security problems after extorting this man" isn't a helpful comment. It seems to imply that this isn't the worst thing this guy could have done. So what? Who cares? A bad thing was done and pointing out that a worse thing could have been done doesn't help anyone or anything. It's a bad take on the situation.
>>You seem to be saying...
No. IDK what that was, but that wasn't what I was saying at all. I don't think you really seem to be grasping the concept of what self-justification is, and how it's an enabling behavior to allow bad people to do bad things. The whole idea behind it is that the "clearly less reprehensible than it could have been" thought allows you to justify whatever bad things you do.
Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification -- they are already heroes of their own stories, taking what is due to them, punishing the oppressor, harvesting from the marks, what have you.
From society's point of view, allowing some leniency of judgement is probably beneficial on the net -- you don't get much more purses stolen, but you do get more pill bottles returned. (this is an empirical question actually, maybe there are social studies on the topic?)
Consequences and intent matter. First because duh, second because it lets you predict (and therefore influence) the future.
Would love to see some studies on this if someone can pull them on that specific style of law.
>>Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification...
It doesn't work this way. They do need the additional self-justification. It's a constant stream of reinforcement. "Yea, I don't feel bad that I stole this rich asshole's twitter account because I used the money to feed some orphans and told him how to fix these problems in the future" is the self-justification. It's a constant establishment of why you're good in a relative fashion.
It's something everyone does on all sorts of things, it's how everyone builds their worldview, and it's normal but that doesn't mean we should join in on it as outsiders and say things like "well at least he gave the guy some precautions for the future".
>>From society's point of view, allowing some leniency of judgement is probably beneficial on the net...
Maybe? I mean as a general statement, sure. But there are going to be specific situations where it isn't helpful. Also, there's a whole school of thought that says that it's more important that you minimize situations that would encourage criminal behavior rather than providing leniency in punishment after the fact. Better to eliminate the need to steal in order to provide for your family rather than create uneven enforcement by judges deciding where leniency should be exercised.
>> but that doesn't mean we should join in on it as outsiders and say things like "well at least he gave the guy some precautions for the future".
An extreme version of this, where social approval is expected by perpetrators (sometimes justifiably) is vigilantism. It is illegal, and society is worse off for it in a general sense, and yet...
Compare a blackhat who takes over all the routers and sells the botnet to organized crime ring vs a grayhat who does the same but instead patches the vulnerabilities on the devices or uses them to do internet census and puts the data in public domain. Both are illegal acts and both have victims (maybe some devices are bricked in the process), but one is definitely worse. And that is true even if in both scenarios all the devices got bricked so consequences are exactly the same.
>> rather than providing leniency in punishment after the fact
I meant judgement more in social disapproval sense. As for actual judges, they already have some leeway and often use it. There is a reason politicians who want to be seen as being tough on crime like to introduce mandatory minimums.
I agree that crimes are better prevented by reducing a need to commit them, but taking into account intent and mitigating circumstances is one of the ways to do that. Mandatory minimums just make sure criminals leave prisons with a Phd in crime instead of a mere Bachelor's.
Let's wind this back. I can come up with any sort of scenario to justify a philosophical point. But the discussion didn't start there. You've presumably read the article this thread is on, and saw the comment I was responding to.
Your blackhat vs grayhat is a false equivalency. We know that this is a bad actor, and the mitigating factor isn't what why he did what he did or what he did with his ill-gotten gains, it's (according to op) that after he did an objectively bad thing (extortion), he did an objectively good thing(pointed out security flaws). I feel that's cold comfort at best, and problematic thinking at worst.
This whole thread seems to be me misunderstanding people or people misunderstanding me and it isn't fun anymore. Wish you the best, we're not really having the same discussion though.
That's what's called "Self-justification". Helping your victim after victimizing them allows you to say "I'm not that bad, I'm helping make sure this doesn't happen again".
This is a terrible person doing bad things to other people. He could donate all the money he makes selling the user name to orphans and it still doesn't really justify the behavior.