(re-posting because I accidentally posted as AC)

Personally, I'd be tempted to find out everything I could about who hacked into my system and how they did it.

Would that be wise? I'm not sure. My guess is that you couldn't do such investigative work after calling the police, that it might help if you did it before calling the police, and that if you were in the middle of doing it and the police came knocking, you'd be in even more trouble.

I couldn't just delete it and not try to help - I'd feel guilty the rest of my life and wonder if I could have made a difference for some child. I'd have to call the police.

What would you do?

Normally /. is up in arms over any attempt to censor developers. Now somebody is saying "we won't censor developers, but we will make it easy for users to self-select" and they're getting trashed for it.

Seems a little hypocritical.

Published in June 2011: A Vaccine Strategy that Induces Protective Immunity against Heroin.

And a subsequent press release entitled Successful lab tests on a potential vaccine for heroin addiction

When I think of nonviolent protest, I think first of convincing the broad public and getting the weight of public opinion on your side. Second, I think about refusing to do something which the law requires you to do, but which you believe is immoral. Third, I think about directly disobeying laws which restrict you from doing something which you believe is your moral right. I think about Gandhi making salt or the freedom riders as an example of the latter and conscientious objectors or tax protestors as an example of the former.

I think that collecting video could help the group convince the broad public and could be a tool in non-violent protest, but it is not clear to me from their video that their target is changing the law. Instead, their target seems to be "those people" at Broxton.

Context: Personally, I fully support regulated hunting for food, don't like hunting for trophy, and don't like the use of raised birds in a pigeon shoot (which seems to be the practice under scrutiny here).

After watching the video, I think there are two main issues - one (dealt with at length here) is about whether or not it was right and/or legal to shoot down the drone. The second one is whether or not it is right and/or legal for Hindi's group to be harassing the Broxton Bridge Plantation. His tone throughout and his words at the end of the video are clearly harassment - "we have a lot of plans for those people, that much I can guarantee."

If the shoot is legal, then the harassment should be illegal and the goal of Hindi's group should be to change the law through non violent protest and engaging the public (potentially with video).

If the shoot is illegal, then law enforcement should handle it. If they do not, the goal of Hindi's group should be to change the actions of law enforcement officials through non violent protest and engaging the public (potentially with video). The harassment should still be illegal.

I think this group has confused non violent protest against immoral laws with harassment of groups doing things you don't like.

Oh boy, are you ever wrong. At the time of the free trade talks, I obtained a copy of the agreement. It is a fairly hefty book.

"Free Trade" is a marketing slogan to sell a trade agreement to liberty loving people. In reality, it is a set of rules that groups try to influence to their advantage.

Your post only points out how effective that marketing has been.