.gov war on hackers

[poptab]

I probably agree with most:
America Must End Its Paranoid War on Hackers | WIRED

 

[MCgrease08]

Yeah. Why should the government be the only ones hacking into my computer?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There's an easy way to avoid this...don't hack.

 

[actaeon277]

Sorry, hacking, same as vandalism, breaking and entering.

 

[Twangbanger]

Sorry, hacking, same as vandalism, breaking and entering.

There's an easy way to avoid this...don't hack.

Oh, c'mon, guys...don't you see, man? Your fear of losing your stuff is how they're going to steal your freedom.

I sure am glad we didn't allow them to pull this ruse on Immigration. I'd hate to see what freedoms we'd have lost if the .gov enforced our borders.

 

[poptab]

Anymore comments from the peanut gallery?

Shall we begin the grown up discussion now?

 

[jedi]

It is true the .gov can't hire these guys for a number of reasons.
Prior drug use, better money from underground sources, work schedule, etc..

 

[ModernGunner]

Certainly, 'Wired' shouldn't be taken as an 'objective perspective' on the subject. The 'defense' provided by the article is the same 'defense' (didn't physically hurt anyone) used by rapists, child molestors, and Bernie Madoff. But the harm is there, and it's damaging.

After Snowdens' antics, sentences and fines for hacking should be significantly increased. Members of 'Anonymous' caught should be 'kept busy' in prison for years, maybe straightening out the prison library bookshelves. There should be no 'sympathy' for these scumbags.

There is no actual 'justification' from the hackers, nor for their antics. It's done either for profit, or for 'fun'. Much the same as Dillinger. The crime is the same, regardless of whether or not they've used a sub-machine gun or a laptop.

ALL such hacking should be met with severe penalties, high fines, and long prison sentences. Something like a mandatory 10 year sentence, no plea-bargaining nor early release, and fines high enough ($1 million+) to effectively ruin their future hacking career.

Hacking of government, private business, or personal websites where virtually everyone stores at least some personal information, should be treated as seriously as any top-tier felony.

Any other obfuscation or rhetoric comes from the childish mindset. Don't like the penalties, don't do the crime. Simple as that.

 

[jedi]

 

[HoughMade]

Certainly, 'Wired' shouldn't be taken as an 'objective perspective' on the subject. The 'defense' provided by the article is the same 'defense' (didn't physically hurt anyone) used by rapists, child molestors, and Bernie Madoff. But the harm is there, and it's damaging.

After Snowdens' antics, sentences and fines for hacking should be significantly increased. Members of 'Anonymous' caught should be 'kept busy' in prison for years, maybe straightening out the prison library bookshelves. There should be no 'sympathy' for these scumbags.

There is no actual 'justification' from the hackers, nor for their antics. It's done either for profit, or for 'fun'. Much the same as Dillinger. The crime is the same, regardless of whether or not they've used a sub-machine gun or a laptop.

ALL such hacking should be met with severe penalties, high fines, and long prison sentences. Something like a mandatory 10 year sentence, no plea-bargaining nor early release, and fines high enough ($1 million+) to effectively ruin their future hacking career.

Hacking of government, private business, or personal websites where virtually everyone stores at least some personal information, should be treated as seriously as any top-tier felony.

Any other obfuscation or rhetoric comes from the childish mindset. Don't like the penalties, don't do the crime. Simple as that.

I can not disagree.

Do you think all the hackers out there are just trying to perform a public service? For the very few who view themselves that way, when they go and brag about their exploits where hackers (virtually) gather and explain some of their techniques....do you not think that the Russians, Chinese, Nigerian, etc., hackers going after your personal info and your bank accounts, don't hang out there too and learn? Everybody wants to be a law-breaking folk hero of some sort....then they whine like spoiled children when their law breaking actually results in consequences.

 

[steveh_131]

The 'defense' provided by the article is the same 'defense' (didn't physically hurt anyone) used by rapists, child molestors, and Bernie Madoff. But the harm is there, and it's damaging.

Actually there often isn't any harm caused by hackers. If you'd read the article, you would see several examples of folks facing heavy penalties who caused no tangible harm to anyone.

The crime is the same, regardless of whether or not they've used a sub-machine gun or a laptop.

The crime is not the same. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that involving firearms in the commission of a crime is a game-changer.

ALL such hacking should be met with severe penalties, high fines, and long prison sentences. Something like a mandatory 10 year sentence, no plea-bargaining nor early release, and fines high enough ($1 million+) to effectively ruin their future hacking career.

Most instances of hacking amount to minor vandalism.

Would you put a kid in jail for 10 years for spray-painting on an overpass?

Don't like the penalties, don't do the crime. Simple as that.

Have you ever heard of the 8th Amendment? Or are you only (poorly) familiar with the 2nd?

I'm not saying that hackers shouldn't be prosecuted for damaging property or engaging in fraudulent activities, etc. But I think that the point of this article is that much of the penalties are far too steep, a legitimate constitution gripe. If you had read it, you would have seen that it pointed out some more reasonable punishments.

 

[actaeon277]

If someone breaks into my house, steals nothing, damages nothing, they still have committed a crime.

Why is this different?

 

[jedi]

If someone breaks into my house, steals nothing, damages nothing, they still have committed a crime.

Why is this different?

What crime, treaspassing perhaps.
If caught in your house doing nothing but just taking up space what punishment should we hand out?
10 years in hard prison?

 

[actaeon277]

What crime, treaspassing perhaps.
If caught in your house doing nothing but just taking up space what punishment should we hand out?
10 years in hard prison?

Why not?
Are you saying you're ok with someone picking your lock, or using a copied key, entering your house at random times? So long as they don't hurt you or steal anything.
Maybe they copy your credit card info, social security number, but as long as they don't use it?

 

[jedi]

Why not?
Are you saying you're ok with someone picking your lock, or using a copied key, entering your house at random times? So long as they don't hurt you or steal anything.
Maybe they copy your credit card info, social security number, but as long as they don't use it?

I'm saying what punishment should we hand out for this?

 

[HoughMade]

I'm saying what punishment should we hand out for this?

There is a legitimate debate about what punishment is just. I would be curious about recidivism rates with hacking. I would imagine they run very, very high, but that's speculation. If hackers have a high tendency to go back to their old ways, more harshness in an initial sentence may be appropriate. Now- I am not talking about how a person is treated in prison, just the length of the sentence and the fines. Some of the things mentioned in that article (if true) are disturbing.

I would contend that hacking and not "stealing" anything is an important crime to prosecute because the knowledge gained in these exploits makes out in the "community" at large and helps the nefarious hackers who will steal everything you own if they can.

Again, this "hacker as folk hero" think is just silly, but that's how some hackers want to think of themselves.

...and comparing hacking to rape and murder or whatever? Well, the feds generally don't prosecute those crimes and have a completely separate legal system. If we want to discuss why other crimes are not punished more severely, that's a discussion worth having, but just saying "violent criminals get less time" is an argument for longer sentences for them, not shorter sentences for hackers.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But being an ******* is not a crime, and neither is obtaining unsecured information from publicly facing servers.

Apparently, nobody taught somebody the concept of "stealing". This isn't downloading something off of Wikipedia or ESPN. Taking stuff that doesn't belong to you, something that you were not given permission to take and have, is stealing. It would be the same as if I taped a $100 bill to my front door. It may not be smart, it may not be the best way to secure my property, but it's mine. Just because the I didn't vault it away or put it in a bank, doesn't mean you have any right to help your self to it. How people can excuse others for what is out and out theft is beyond me.

If people don't know stealing other peoples' property is wrong, much less against the law, then we're in deeper trouble than one could imagine. We need to stop finding ways to forgive criminals and let them bear the responsibility of their actions. Screw them.

 

[steveh_131]

If someone breaks into my house, steals nothing, damages nothing, they still have committed a crime.

Why is this different?

I'm not sure that it should be different.

Apparently, nobody taught somebody the concept of "stealing". This isn't downloading something off of Wikipedia or ESPN. Taking stuff that doesn't belong to you, something that you were not given permission to take and have, is stealing. It would be the same as if I taped a $100 bill to my front door. It may not be smart, it may not be the best way to secure my property, but it's mine. Just because the I didn't vault it away or put it in a bank, doesn't mean you have any right to help your self to it. How people can excuse others for what is out and out theft is beyond me.

Interesting comparisons, good for discussion.

Let's start with the $100 bill. That is yours and it is on your property. Depriving you of it would be equivalent to theft.

What if person A sees the bill on your door and tells person B that it is there. Person B then steals it.

Person A was simply passing along publicly viewable information, person B did the stealing. Should person A be prosecuted?

That is a pretty solid comparison to some of these hacking endeavor.

 

[Rhoadmar]

I'm not sure that it should be different.



Interesting comparisons, good for discussion.

Let's start with the $100 bill. That is yours and it is on your property. Depriving you of it would be equivalent to theft.

What if person A sees the bill on your door and tells person B that it is there. Person B then steals it.

Person A was simply passing along publicly viewable information, person B did the stealing. Should person A be prosecuted?

That is a pretty solid comparison to some of these hacking endeavor.

Except the hacker is entering a place he shouldn't be and person A is presumably walking down a public street. If a hacker is viewing info obtainable by public posts, he is not hacking. If he is entering a place that is private he is committing a crime.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not sure that it should be different.



Interesting comparisons, good for discussion.

Let's start with the $100 bill. That is yours and it is on your property. Depriving you of it would be equivalent to theft.

What if person A sees the bill on your door and tells person B that it is there. Person B then steals it.

Person A was simply passing along publicly viewable information, person B did the stealing. Should person A be prosecuted?

That is a pretty solid comparison to some of these hacking endeavor.

The one example that that snipet was quoted from indicated weev downloaded 114,000 unprotected email addresses. Was he given permission? Apparently not. Did he have any sort of ownership interest in them? Apparently not. That is theft, cut and dried.

A better example would be somebody that accidentally stumbled upon the information (or $100 bill) and promptly notified the owner that you discovered the property would be easily misappropriated and give the owner time to correct it, if they so desired. If that person notified any other person of the presence of the information, other than the authority(ies) having jurisdiction, is guilty of something. I don't know if it would be technically an accessory charge or conspiracy charge but he is in the wrong--in my opinion.

If it isn't yours, you do not have any right to do anything with it other than return it to the rightful owner.