5 ms·

> A maximum punishment “would also help address any false perception that unauthorized access of a computer is ever justified or rationalized as the cost of liv

> A maximum punishment “would also help address any false perception that unauthorized access of a computer is ever justified or rationalized as the cost of living in a wired society — or even worse, a crime to be celebrated,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Maya D. Song wrote. If the US judicial system is serious about that statement they should be addressing the blatant violations of the law perpetrated by the NSA and FBI. As long as our own elite groups engage in hacking crimes, "unauthorized access of a computer" will remain "justified" in the minds of hackers.

wmeredith 10y ago
I don't agree with this logic. The government engages in all sorts of activities that are illegal for citizens. Use of lethal force, for instance.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  The problem is that the US government is engaging in activities that are illegal for the US government. The government is not above the law.
- calgoo 10y ago
  And I think a lot of people would start to shoot back if the government was massively shooting people. But you don't need to worry, they will only shoot you in the foot, so they know where you have been by following the blood trail /s I'm not for lawlessness on the net, but like mentioned here, until the elite is punished for their crimes, people will fight back.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  War is, or should be, an extreme case where the ability to live under a legitimate set of laws is threatened. Both our optional wars of aggression, and mass surveillance are lawless acts, and acts against the people. The reason people find such a sentence offensive is that they find our government has lost the legitimacy it takes to impose such a sentence on a non-violent crime.
tptacek 10y ago
The logic here seems to be, if NSA is allowed to break into computers, Jeffrey Tambor's email is fair game for everyone else.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  That is not at all what I'm saying. If the government wants to send the message that it's not on to break the law then it needs to police itself.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the logic here. The government can be hypocritical while still obligated to enforce the law. (I'm stipulating the rest of your point, which I obviously don't agree with totally).

wmeredith 10y ago

I don't agree with this logic. The government engages in all sorts of activities that are illegal for citizens. Use of lethal force, for instance.

jcoffland 10y ago
The problem is that the US government is engaging in activities that are illegal for the US government. The government is not above the law.
calgoo 10y ago
And I think a lot of people would start to shoot back if the government was massively shooting people. But you don't need to worry, they will only shoot you in the foot, so they know where you have been by following the blood trail /s I'm not for lawlessness on the net, but like mentioned here, until the elite is punished for their crimes, people will fight back.
Zigurd 10y ago
War is, or should be, an extreme case where the ability to live under a legitimate set of laws is threatened. Both our optional wars of aggression, and mass surveillance are lawless acts, and acts against the people. The reason people find such a sentence offensive is that they find our government has lost the legitimacy it takes to impose such a sentence on a non-violent crime.

tptacek 10y ago

The logic here seems to be, if NSA is allowed to break into computers, Jeffrey Tambor's email is fair game for everyone else.

jcoffland 10y ago
That is not at all what I'm saying. If the government wants to send the message that it's not on to break the law then it needs to police itself.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the logic here. The government can be hypocritical while still obligated to enforce the law. (I'm stipulating the rest of your point, which I obviously don't agree with totally).