Re: As an aside
I was just thinking the same. Doesn't Greenpeace regularly practice "interfering with [the] activity" of companies they consider morally reprehensible?
Greenpeace are a legitimate protest group who publish a clear agenda. On occasions I personally agree with their actions and other times not. That aside they are prepared to ‘stand up and be counted’, as such achieve results and also get my respect.
Greenpeace are not a couple of emotionally retarded wonks who arbitrarily decide to hack a legitimate business. A decision based on the arrogant believe they won’t get caught ..... I think the phrase is ‘do the crime do the time’.
How about government regulators? Oh I see, no danger there of interfering with corporate activities...
How about the work and factories acts. This is a piece of legislation that stops the evil machinations of the big corporations? No doubt the judge involved in this case would have no qualms about convicting a company for this one, same as he has convicted these hackers.
Just out of interest what government regulator would need to regulate PayPal?
What the judge seemed to mean was (FTFY) "It's intolerable that where an individual or a group disagrees with a company they should be able to interfere with its questionable economic activities"
What questionable activities?
Anyway Paypal supports scams - I have first hand experience of being scammed through Paypal - as far as I'm concerned Anonymous didn't do enough damage.
I too have had fraudulent experiences with PayPal, and some others, it doesn’t mean that I agree with hackers committing further criminal activities against those organisations. Just for you, putting it simply, ‘two wrongs do not make a right’.