[PeterWhittaker]

This got downvoted, and I can understand why, but I have to admit the idea has a certain dark appeal.

Well, I snorted appreciatively when I read it, at least.

(This is why I dislike downvoting. Ignore ideas you dislike, flag abuse, but downvote "honest opinions"? Hmm. Sure, that begs the question of abuse Vs honest opinions, but that is the purpose of discussion and reason: To sort the abuse from the honest opinions, to accept and improve upon the latter.)

[jacquesm]

At the risk of getting downvoted myself, we turned tables on a bunch of stalkers in the past and have gotten medium to good return on that. That said, it should be reserved only for the hardest cases and when law enforcement refuses to act even after they've been given all the relevant information.

Some people just won't give up until they get a taste of their own medicine, and on the internet it is all fun and games until your name and address are out in the open.

The fun bit is that once that happened we (usually, we do have a couple of hold-outs) could conclude those cases swiftly.

[S4M]

I just downvoted the GP, and not because I disagree with his opinion, but because I think his advice is a dangerous one to follow. For example, the stalker could be using someone else's computer, and hacking him back would only harm that other person.

[jacquesm]

Stalkers typically use their own computer and do so through a variety of layers of deception. Recall that 'push to allow people from TOR on websites' earlier today right here on HN? That's what you get for your troubles.

As for the GGP comment, he advised to get the help of a 'hacker to hunt him down' not to hack him back. That's a world of a difference.

[Jayd2014]

"Stalkers typically use their own computer and do so through a variety of layers of deception". In this specific case, the stalker is in Egypt and there is a very high chance he is using a "cybercafe" to access the internet rather than his personal PC/Internet connection.

[PeterWhittaker]

All good points!

I'm curious why you chose to downvote rather than reply and advise?

I'm not trying to bait you, just trying to understand.

(Full disclosure: I think this is another flaw in the whole downvote concept - it provides us a way to make us feel we have registered a contrary opinion without requiring that we take the time to offer - and, if necessarily, defend - the counter thought. There have been quite a few times I've started a reply only to abandon it when I realized what I was signing on for. My thoughts are not so important I feel the need to register them at any cost. Of course, there have been a few times when I have blazed along righteously only to regret a few minutes later, and have been noticeable in my absence from subsequent discussion. But those aren't quite as frequent. I hope.)

[S4M]

Well, I downvoted him after reading your comment, so I thought I might as well explain it in your response.

Now, jacquesm's reply is making me regret my downvote.

Also, I agree with what you think about downvotes. I think HN should have a detector of potentially stupid comments (e.g "u re a fag") that could be downvoted without giving a reason, and the rest (comments similar to skidoo's comment) could be downvoted only after giving an explanation.

[PeterWhittaker]

You know what's ironic? I gained downvote privileges today.

Partly as a result of this discussion.

MOi ha ha ha... uh oh.

;-P

(A quick search reveals no FF extensions to disable downvoting. I guess I could put rotate180 in user.js....)