> and harassed some other sites, it's not good, but it's not specifically breaking laws

I'm sure it would be considered a breach of the UK's Computer Misuse Act, and there are no doubt statues elsewhere that are relevant too.

Once is an accident. Twice is incompetence. Three+ is, at best, pushing your luck to see what you can get away with.

▲

bluegatty an hour ago | parent [-]

If they broke laws then they would be investigated.

And I totally support that.

But I don't think they did.

They could get sued, mind you.

▲

ykonstant an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>If they broke laws then they would be investigated.

Ah, I love your optimism.

	▲	bluegatty 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		tell us what laws they broke.

▲

esseph 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/09/29/congress/de...

▲

IAmBroom 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> If they broke laws then they would be investigated.

Not a fact but a hope. Most lawbreaking is never investigated. It has to be discovered, the authorities have to be alerted, and then they have to choose to investigate. See the recent Cornell University gangrapes for proof that authorities can choose to simply not investigate.

> They could get sued, mind you.

If they didn't break laws, as you imply, the lawsuit should be tossed out as frivolous. (Spoiler: they did break laws.)