Humanity has been torturing and executing criminals for thousands of years, most likely for ten's of thousand's of year, and quite possibly for more than 100,000 years. No matter how just, torture and execution as a means of crime prevention is a complete failure!

If parents, teachers, leaders, and governments engaged our world with more compassion and taught the hackers to have more love for all people, then perhaps the hackers would have placed a greater value on our right to privacy. Even if more love and compassion failed to stop the hackers, I would rather live in a world that has more love and less rage.

Well, it's certainly your privilege to be naive, to wish upon a star and to make unprovable assumptions.  Since we don't have the ability to conduct a double-blind controlled clinical trial on whether 'compassion' trumps an equitable justice system in producing a 'better world', we'll probably never know.  This sort of deflection of responsibility away from the perpetrators is just as likely to be responsible for such behavior as a lack of compassion.  Until there is evidence one way or the other (and it ain't comin'), we have to choose between them based on logic, the principal of individual autonomy and the history of human behavior.

I'm not sure which planet you wish to live on, chuckve4, but I don't consider expecting others to be held accountable for their actions to be 'rage' here on this one.  Who's to say those hackers weren't taught to have 'more love for all people'?  And I strongly suspect that any 'punishment' meted out will fall somewhat short of 'torture and execution'.  It is certainly possible that one or more of these perps will see the error of their ways and begin acting responsibly as a result of being forced to confront the real-world consequences of what they've done.  However, given the arrogance necessary to do what they did, their apparent conviction that they knew what was best for the rest of us, I'm not holding my breath.

When you find that world you'd rather live in, buy a ticket pronto.

Absolutely. No question. "The lion shall lie down with the lamb..... they shall beat their swords into plough shares and the voice of the turtle shall be heard throughout the land." (mix and match). Actually, it's not an either/or.

As long as there are laws, there will be criminals... So the solution is simple: Burn the law books, close the courts and find the lawyers other jobs. Let's institute universal love and start singing (Joan will give you the words):

*edit... while hunting up the vid, Daiwa made his post.

I suppose at the end of the day it may just be differences due to how we view responsibility on a national level.  Where I'm from we do (in more ways than not) accept responsibility for one another (even if it's begrudgingly).  Something which I suppose might be difficult to understand if you've not been exposed to/immersed in that sort of thinking or way of life.  I'm sure we are looked at around the world as fairly socialist  as a result (and I don't want this comment to derail the thread I'm simply agreeing that there may in fact be truth to the "fundamental disagreement" you allude to) but with some minor quibbles it does seem to work for us. 

It's easy to arm-chair quarterback but unless people come together (determine the future of their society is worth it) and create those programs I talked about in earlier posts etc. and thereby effect change (change the course of society......or to use your own words.....change the way the chips fall) things will continue on in the same manner.  While inaction towards the former doesn't necessarily suggest "apathy", it doesn't take much to see that that is the prevailing attitude of most people towards almost everything they don't have express interest in these days.  

Not at all.  Free will goes to action.  Yes we are all responsible for our own individual actions.  Actions which make up the sum of the greater whole.  The whole (sum of our individual contributions) which represents something to someone somewhere (locally or worldwide).  That "something" (whether definable as an image/preception or other resulting product) is something we all have responsibility towards.  Changing that whole (sum of our individual parts) does start with each of us individuals, but if we say we don't feel responsiblity towards or culpability for the whole this allows us to simply forego directing any real effort towards change.

For instance, the actions of the rioters after the Stanley Cup game (a select few individuals) have tarnished the reputation of Vancouver (not just the few who did it).  The entire city is feeling the fallout of those actions and the entire city will need to work to change that tarnished reputation.  I'm sure some in the city would love not to accept responsibility for making the reputation better again, but at the end of the day success or failure will depend on how many people (even people with next to zero connection to the incident or its location) accept responsibility and make change happen. 

EDIT:  By the way Daiwa, I just want you to know I've thoroughly enjoyed having this discussion with you and have found your posts intellectually stimulating and a nice change of pace from the usual forum exchange.  Thank you for sharing your views with me.

I think you've found the Achilles heel of that plan.  I'd say Shakespeare's approach is the only answer.

every village needs an idiot. It prolly don't pay well, but the hours are good.

WOW!  You were being kind to lulzSec compared to that article! (And I like Neowin as a source of news and tech stuff).

I am Dyslexic of Borg.  Your ass is malted.

the_Monk and Diawa have made some real good points, very thoughtful debate. Thank you.

While I agree with points both of you I agree more with the_Monk. Let's take a few posters in this thread calling for vigilante justice. If these comments are found to be acceptable and perpetuate in other general discussions and then reflected by the media and fiction stories heros, do the people that voice these opinions publicly have any responsibility when an innocent man is beaten and burned to death by some mob who are constantly exposed to such opinions?

You are throwing this way out of context and need to understand community. The U.S. can be described as a community with a general set of values and rules which do not apply to some bushman half way around the world that has never been exposed to them. However children in the U.S. are exposed every day to these values and rules and are shaped by them from day 1. Children that are outside of the "norm" are ostrasized and have to learn to join in the way everyone else thinks and acts or is doomed to fail in society. Young people are shaped by their society so their society should take responsibility for there actions.

Canadians and Americans are very similar with these values accept for one major difference is that American society was founded on revolution while Canadians still suckle on the queen. I have great respect for the American founding fathers, the constitution and the bill of rights while not near as much for my own fathers of federation. 50 years ago for an American to discuss revolting again against the government and/or tyranny was almost unheard of and if they did they were seen as extremist and wack jobs but not any more. It is becoming more and more prevalent in discussions and even mentioned in the media without that stigma attached to it. So is it really that hard to understand that young people start to rebel or revolt against corporations or government when all they are exposed to is discussions and media that tell them they have no say whatsoever in a system that is badly broken and there is no hope in hell they will be better off than their parents were which is the basic rule of capitalism.

Give people a forum where they can be heard and more power in the governments decisions (which only rich lobby groups have now) and a prospect of prosperity and it will return to where when people talk about rebelling are seen as extremists.

EDIT: 

Herd behavior in human societies

The philosophers Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche were among the first to criticise what they referred to as "the crowd" (Kierkegaard) and "herd morality" and the "herd instinct" (Nietzsche) in human society. Modern psychological and economic research has identified herd behavior in humans to explain the phenomena of large numbers of people acting in the same way at the same time. The British surgeon Wilfred Trotter popularized the "herd behavior" phrase in his book, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War (1914). In The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen explained economic behavior in terms of social influences such as "emulation," where some members of a group mimic other members of higher status. In "The Metropolis and Mental Life" (1903), early sociologistGeorge Simmel referred to the "impulse to sociability in man", and sought to describe "the forms of association by which a mere sum of separate individuals are made into a 'society' ". Other social scientists explored behaviors related to herding, such as Freud (crowd psychology), Carl Jung (collective unconscious), and Gustave Le Bon (the popular mind). Swarm theory observed in non-human societies is a related concept and is being explored as it occurs in human society.

the_Monk, Diawa and myfist0 have all provided enlightening arguments for social responsibility, and yes, I do believe that we as a society (US) have a responsibility to provide an environment to raise our children to be respectful and responsible. We're not doing this, we've done nothing to alter the cycle of piss poor parenting. The current solution is to leave it up to the individuals or allow each state to mandate what is acceptable. We need a standardized set of "something" and the necessary funding to make that happen. Even then it would take a couple of generations to notice any positive changes. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a priority here. Our corrective action process does not attack the root cause but deals out punishment for the incidents.

Then we have some posters who choose to ridicule others for their comments. Their sanctimonious attitudes permeate their responses that leave no room for discussion or debate. My way or the highway, with us or against us, etc.

When one takes the time to study human societies and civilizations and their laws or rules for being a part of them you will soon realize that all spices that inhabit this planet are more alike then different.  Probably the reason humans study other spices so much, just trying to figure out why we do the things we do.  Hmmmm. 

I don't think all the research has come up with a valid explanation.

[almost] all topics are seen as acceptable discussion.

We will let you know when one is not....

 This is the fuel of the fire that makes the existence of Mephistopheles burn brighter. 
inert evil laugh

Public school is a "huge social engineering scheme". Not just the 3 Rs. Do you not remember hearing "Sit up straight", Raise your hand to ask a question, school bells designed like factories, uniforms, social studies?

 Not to bad of a system but it is still social engineering. As well as that taboo subject.

EDIT

Keeping the Rabble in Line; Noam Chomsky; dives into somewhat.

EDIT 2 Rieview

From Publishers Weekly

Barsamian, the founder of Alternative Radio, and Chomsky, allegedly the most quoted author in the modern era, have forged a symbiotic relationship that manages to distill Chomsky's political philosophies and make them accessible. Barsamian's historically grounded, well-informed and probing questions prompt Chomsky to deconstruct concepts of class, media and economics. Chomsky deftly addresses domestic and foreign conundrums including health care, the recent crime bill and NAFTA. While these interviews span a two-year period and end early in 1994, they remain provocative and timely, with Chomsky's insights on Haiti, Northern Ireland and the Middle East proving especially resonant. Ultimately, Rabble serves as a Chomsky primer that is without condescension, and the question-and-answer format shows him at his most concise and adroit. His criticism exposes democracies as business-run societies that render the general population isolated from politics, persuasively suggesting that we are on the verge of a social breakdown. What sets this work apart from other reluctant messiahs who simply intellectualize suffering, is that Barsamian and Chomsky discuss avenues for activism-strengthening unions, following grassroots organizations or simply reading between the lines. Together they act as a lens, enabling the reader to see what has been there, hidden in plain sight.