Do we really want a group to model how to destroy a politician using data mining and potentially nefarious hacking, when it's an issue that WE support that they're being targeted for?
You seem to be assuming three things:
1. Industry does not know how to destroy a politician.
2. (And therefore) All politicians who have had their career destroyed (or marginalized) had it done fairly and as a natural consequence of their actions. Not because of Industry involvement.
Fair enough; I would say that I actually agree with you on all counts.
I would suggest instead that there's an armistice of sorts that keeps the damage to a minimum. If the gloves come off and everyone starts doing it, then there will be a (virtual) bloodbath.
It's also worth pointing out that if politicians started getting trashed by "vigilante groups" on a regular basis, it would further the current (stated) Tea Party agenda of discrediting government (in an effort to shrink the federal government to a point where it can be "drowned in a bathtub"). I KNOW there are supporters of this concept on HN; I don't really care to debate it, and I'm neither looking for a show of support or protest of the idea. I just want to make sure that it's an understood side-effect of discrediting politicians.
You seem to be assuming three things:
1. Industry does not know how to destroy a politician.
2. (And therefore) All politicians who have had their career destroyed (or marginalized) had it done fairly and as a natural consequence of their actions. Not because of Industry involvement.
3. Politicians are not also Industry players.
I believe you are wrong on all three counts.