When McColo was stopped in its tracks last week, most of the online world cheered. The rhyme and reason behind the development mattered little in light of seeing less spam. Only now, there’s at least some question of whether or not things went through the right channels.
 |
| McColo Takedown = Street Justice? |
 |
No official ruling against McColo was involved, after all. Law enforcement officials weren’t even in figurative sight, since a tip from The Washington Post was what spurred McColo’s service providers to take action. McColo didn’t get a chance to respond, and it might have just been oblivious to all the spammy activity.
There’s also a concern over what could be considered collateral damage. If not all of McColo’s customers were involved in “bad” stuff, some of them must rightly view the situation they’ve been placed in as being rather unfair.
Individuals participating in a Slashdot discussion tended to agree that what happened to McColo is not a case of vigilantism, however, since McColo’s service providers were just informed of TOS violations.
And even if what happened last week can be called vigilantism, we should all remember that movie audiences tended to side with the Charles Bronson-type characters in “Death Wish” and similar movies.