6 ms·

I really hate these sort of laws, surely is on the CIA to not be easy to get access to this sort of stuff from a 15 year old kid. It's the same with banks lend

I really hate these sort of laws, surely is on the CIA to not be easy to get access to this sort of stuff from a 15 year old kid. It's the same with banks lending to countries who are unable to repay, or CEOs never going to jail for aiding and abetting Mexican drug cartels. No one takes responsibility for their own stuff any more.

kayoone 11y ago
> surely is on the CIA to not be easy the get access to this sort of stuff from a 15 year old kid Just because you can throw a stone into a storefront and steal stuff, does not mean you are free to do that. Or are you arguing that just because it's the evil CIA, it's fine to hack them and leak tons of personal info (which potentially puts lifes in danger)
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The argument is that CIA - which counts itself as part of the security services - ought to know at least a little about online security. >Just because you can throw a stone into a storefront and steal stuff, does not mean you are free to do that. There are parts of the world where tourists are warned about pickpockets. Of course pickpockets shouldn't pick pockets. But that's not the world we live in. Only a fool goes walking in those parts of the world without taking good precautions. And if you're an intelligence agent, that goes at least double.
  - kayoone 11y ago
    Sure, but again, just because something is possible and seen daily around the world does not mean it's legal or should not be prosecuted. Like someone else said, that is like a rapist blaming the victim for making it too easy.
    - Tiksi 11y ago
      I don't think the argument is that they shouldn't be prosecuted for hacking the CIA, as much as that the CIA should also be prosecuted for having such shit security on important data. Personally I don't think drafting a new law for that is a good idea, but I can see how it could fall under gross negligence.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  > Or are you arguing that just because it's the evil CIA, it's fine to hack them and leak tons of personal info (which potentially puts lifes in danger) If he isn't arguing that's a valid reason, allow me. Or are you arguing that the CIA is not "evil"? For anyone outside the US, or anyone inside who can set blind patriotism aside, the CIA has spent its entire existence doing very bad things, up to and including including murder, torture, coups d'etat and other violence and atrocities against countless people and nations. Given this role the CIA takes upon itself around the world - ruining or taking actual lives, using the excuse of theoretically saving lives - maybe leaking names (and AFAICS all this kid has done is access a Verizon email account) puts fewer people's lives in danger.
- rblatz 11y ago
  I would argue that this kid should be punished no more than he would be for breaking into anyone's email. The CIA should require nation state level effort to break into, not bored 15 year old effort.
throwaway_asjla 11y ago
When this sort of defense is given of rapists it's rightfully called victim blaming. And the two examples you gave are quite different from this one, in those cases the perpetrator is actually let off scott free
- js8 11y ago
  It's called victim blaming not only for rapists; but the analogy is flawed. In this case, the "victim" is an institution, which really should know better to defend themselves. In fact, the institution here in question is often on the offense.
notahacker 11y ago
I don't see why the CIA's apparently lax security means a crime isn't a crime. Just because the security guards should be fired for falling asleep and leaving the door unlocked doesn't mean that the burglar isn't guilty. Sure, I don't think a kid trying to show off should face the same punishment as an adult doing something purely malicious, but "it was actually a surprisingly easy crime to carry out" should never be a reason not to prosecute.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  It should be a criminal offence to have such lax security if what you are protecting is so important.
  - cant_kant 11y ago
    Automatically indicting parents of abducted children follows as one consequence.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      Not quite. Lapses in security in governmental organisations can put millions of people at risk. This case was pure carelessness by multiple parties.
  - 7952 11y ago
    It is hard to find obvious real world comparison for this kind of thing. Perhaps it should be thought of like food hygiene. If you sell dangerous food you should take responsibility for that and not just blame the bacteria. But if someone intentionally infects food they should also take responsibility. Those two perspectives are not incompatible. But the lesson is that bacteria and hackers will always exist!
    - madaxe_again 11y ago
      I'd go for the classic bank analogy. Who's responsible, the bank that left the front and vault doors wide open all night while not bothering to hire any guards, or the guy that walks in, goes "bloody joke", and takes some lollipops from the counter?
cant_kant 11y ago
By that impeccable logic, victims of homicide only have themselves to blame.
pjc50 11y ago
He didn't break into the CIA's systems, he broke into the AOL account of the director of the CIA with some straightforward social engineering. There shouldn't have been anything classified in the AOL account, but it looks more like a breach of his personal privacy.

kayoone 11y ago

> surely is on the CIA to not be easy the get access to this sort of stuff from a 15 year old kid Just because you can throw a stone into a storefront and steal stuff, does not mean you are free to do that. Or are you arguing that just because it's the evil CIA, it's fine to hack them and leak tons of personal info (which potentially puts lifes in danger)

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The argument is that CIA - which counts itself as part of the security services - ought to know at least a little about online security. >Just because you can throw a stone into a storefront and steal stuff, does not mean you are free to do that. There are parts of the world where tourists are warned about pickpockets. Of course pickpockets shouldn't pick pockets. But that's not the world we live in. Only a fool goes walking in those parts of the world without taking good precautions. And if you're an intelligence agent, that goes at least double.
- kayoone 11y ago
  Sure, but again, just because something is possible and seen daily around the world does not mean it's legal or should not be prosecuted. Like someone else said, that is like a rapist blaming the victim for making it too easy.
  - Tiksi 11y ago
    I don't think the argument is that they shouldn't be prosecuted for hacking the CIA, as much as that the CIA should also be prosecuted for having such shit security on important data. Personally I don't think drafting a new law for that is a good idea, but I can see how it could fall under gross negligence.
hartpuff 11y ago
> Or are you arguing that just because it's the evil CIA, it's fine to hack them and leak tons of personal info (which potentially puts lifes in danger) If he isn't arguing that's a valid reason, allow me. Or are you arguing that the CIA is not "evil"? For anyone outside the US, or anyone inside who can set blind patriotism aside, the CIA has spent its entire existence doing very bad things, up to and including including murder, torture, coups d'etat and other violence and atrocities against countless people and nations. Given this role the CIA takes upon itself around the world - ruining or taking actual lives, using the excuse of theoretically saving lives - maybe leaking names (and AFAICS all this kid has done is access a Verizon email account) puts fewer people's lives in danger.
rblatz 11y ago
I would argue that this kid should be punished no more than he would be for breaking into anyone's email. The CIA should require nation state level effort to break into, not bored 15 year old effort.

throwaway_asjla 11y ago

When this sort of defense is given of rapists it's rightfully called victim blaming. And the two examples you gave are quite different from this one, in those cases the perpetrator is actually let off scott free

js8 11y ago
It's called victim blaming not only for rapists; but the analogy is flawed. In this case, the "victim" is an institution, which really should know better to defend themselves. In fact, the institution here in question is often on the offense.

notahacker 11y ago

I don't see why the CIA's apparently lax security means a crime isn't a crime. Just because the security guards should be fired for falling asleep and leaving the door unlocked doesn't mean that the burglar isn't guilty. Sure, I don't think a kid trying to show off should face the same punishment as an adult doing something purely malicious, but "it was actually a surprisingly easy crime to carry out" should never be a reason not to prosecute.

rorykoehler 11y ago
It should be a criminal offence to have such lax security if what you are protecting is so important.
- cant_kant 11y ago
  Automatically indicting parents of abducted children follows as one consequence.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Not quite. Lapses in security in governmental organisations can put millions of people at risk. This case was pure carelessness by multiple parties.
- 7952 11y ago
  It is hard to find obvious real world comparison for this kind of thing. Perhaps it should be thought of like food hygiene. If you sell dangerous food you should take responsibility for that and not just blame the bacteria. But if someone intentionally infects food they should also take responsibility. Those two perspectives are not incompatible. But the lesson is that bacteria and hackers will always exist!
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    I'd go for the classic bank analogy. Who's responsible, the bank that left the front and vault doors wide open all night while not bothering to hire any guards, or the guy that walks in, goes "bloody joke", and takes some lollipops from the counter?

cant_kant 11y ago

By that impeccable logic, victims of homicide only have themselves to blame.

pjc50 11y ago

He didn't break into the CIA's systems, he broke into the AOL account of the director of the CIA with some straightforward social engineering. There shouldn't have been anything classified in the AOL account, but it looks more like a breach of his personal privacy.