4 ms·

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it was "hacked", either. This is lots closer to calling unlisted telephones.

ehnto 8y ago
I don't think it is a big deal and hope no one gets charged. But you are using up resources, both ink and the time it takes to stop the printer from printing 100 pages of garbage, which could be non-trivial and disrupt important business functions. So I think it's a bit more malicious than calling unlisted telephones. Oddly, I think calling unlisted telephones is more morally opposable than printing on random printers. So there are clearly two different ideals in my brain dueling for relevancy...
- mirimir 8y ago
  True. And this was auto-dialing 50K of them, and leaving a ~commercial message. But on the other hand, it wasn't printing solid black pages until the paper ran out. Which is what some jerk did to my fax machine, some decades ago ;)
ChrisLomont 8y ago
Printing one sheet costs around $0.15. The 50,000 he printed likely cost his targets a total of $7500. That’s second degree felony grand theft territory. Good luck.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's still ~orthogonal to "hacked". Even if, in fact, it's illegal to print to a misconfigured printer.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  Can prosecutors aggregate the value of damage across thousands of unrelated victims for the purpose of charging grand theft? My gut says this is probably not the way it works, but I’m curious if others know more. As a side note, I don’t think what he did can be charged as theft, technically speaking, because theft laws generally require the perpetrator to take property from the victim. This case would be destruction of property or vandalism, if my memory of law school serves. And I don’t think there are grand versions of those crimes, at any rate.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    If I stole a penny from millions of people do you think I'd be charged for stealing a penny? Yes, this is how it would be charged. >because theft laws generally require the perpetrator to take property from the victim. If I sent a penny from millions of people to another person, would I be innocent of crime? If I burned up money in another person's safe, would I be innocent? The law will look at the damage to the victim(s), in aggregate. That the person causing the losses only hurts each a little or doesn't end up with goods is irrelevant. Besides the normal value of goods laws, there are even tougher computer fraud and abuse type laws. Those could really cost him if some prosecutor decided to pursue those. I suspect there are Feds right now looking at this case and how to proceed. Personally I don't want to see this person get prison for a felony, but perhaps charging him with it will make him or others think twice about such behavior next time. Community service or such would be a good outcome.
starbeast 8y ago
Is more like having an autodialler deliver unsolicited marketing calls on mass and somehow managing to reverse the charges on each call.

I don't think it is a big deal and hope no one gets charged. But you are using up resources, both ink and the time it takes to stop the printer from printing 100 pages of garbage, which could be non-trivial and disrupt important business functions. So I think it's a bit more malicious than calling unlisted telephones. Oddly, I think calling unlisted telephones is more morally opposable than printing on random printers. So there are clearly two different ideals in my brain dueling for relevancy...

mirimir 8y ago
True. And this was auto-dialing 50K of them, and leaving a ~commercial message. But on the other hand, it wasn't printing solid black pages until the paper ran out. Which is what some jerk did to my fax machine, some decades ago ;)

ChrisLomont 8y ago

Printing one sheet costs around $0.15. The 50,000 he printed likely cost his targets a total of $7500. That’s second degree felony grand theft territory. Good luck.

mirimir 8y ago
That's still ~orthogonal to "hacked". Even if, in fact, it's illegal to print to a misconfigured printer.
gnicholas 8y ago
Can prosecutors aggregate the value of damage across thousands of unrelated victims for the purpose of charging grand theft? My gut says this is probably not the way it works, but I’m curious if others know more. As a side note, I don’t think what he did can be charged as theft, technically speaking, because theft laws generally require the perpetrator to take property from the victim. This case would be destruction of property or vandalism, if my memory of law school serves. And I don’t think there are grand versions of those crimes, at any rate.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  If I stole a penny from millions of people do you think I'd be charged for stealing a penny? Yes, this is how it would be charged. >because theft laws generally require the perpetrator to take property from the victim. If I sent a penny from millions of people to another person, would I be innocent of crime? If I burned up money in another person's safe, would I be innocent? The law will look at the damage to the victim(s), in aggregate. That the person causing the losses only hurts each a little or doesn't end up with goods is irrelevant. Besides the normal value of goods laws, there are even tougher computer fraud and abuse type laws. Those could really cost him if some prosecutor decided to pursue those. I suspect there are Feds right now looking at this case and how to proceed. Personally I don't want to see this person get prison for a felony, but perhaps charging him with it will make him or others think twice about such behavior next time. Community service or such would be a good outcome.

starbeast 8y ago

Is more like having an autodialler deliver unsolicited marketing calls on mass and somehow managing to reverse the charges on each call.