6 ms·

Posts like yours validate the insane over criminalization of what essentially amounts to a prank. I had literally the exact same experience in high school. Got

Posts like yours validate the insane over criminalization of what essentially amounts to a prank. I had literally the exact same experience in high school. Got expelled and had to get a GED. They could have easily pressed charges. Part of the issue is people like you who advocate for respecting "the system" and essentially scaring kids into not doing anything. Except that simply re-enforces the draconian laws that are currently in place. If more kids rebelled and this was a regular occurrence it would help to desensitize society to digital pranks instead of always treating these kids like terrorists.

paxys 5y ago
I don't understand this response. Having been on the wrong end of it you should be advocating harder than anyone to teach kids the complexities of cybersecurity law and ensure they can make the right decisions rather than throw away their future over a stupid prank. There is no "validation" happening here, the OP is just stating reality. Random high schoolers' rebellions aren't going to result in Congress overturning the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a hundred related laws.
- rkk3 5y ago
  > ensure they can make the right decisions rather than throw away their future over a stupid prank. Is it a good system if a "stupid prank" can "throw away your future" ?
  - paxys 5y ago
    No it is not a good system. But nothing I said is invalid because of that.
  - skeaker 5y ago
    No, but that doesn't mean you should deliberately play into it.
quasarj 5y ago
What? How is warning someone that they are going to ruin their lives the same as endorsing it?
tertius 5y ago
Probably better to try and reform the law instead of suggest children break the law and ruin their lives.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Clarifying that the ruination of lives here is the direct result of profoundly bad laws that inappropriately criminalize benign behaviors.
  - tertius 5y ago
    Hence the need for reform.
999900000999 5y ago
This is a very complicated problem. Unless you kill someone I generally don’t believe in life long criminal records. They only serve to drive people into further criminality. I imagine for a robbery you could get 5 years in prison, 5 years with it on your record and then automatically get it expunged. Back to the topic at hand , what if the IT hack stopped people from getting paid on time. How many suffered emotional distress ? Evictions can literally cause suicide. Maybe someone can’t afford medication, skip it and have a stroke. The entire criminal justice system is broken. So you did something stupid at 20, at 46 you still can’t find a job due to your record. People want simple easy solutions. Things are much more complicated. If you release a dozen felons 5 years early and 2 go on to commit horrific crimes it’s easy to ignore the good the other 10 did
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > The entire criminal justice system is broken. So you did something stupid at 20, at 46 you still can’t find a job due to your record. Welcome to the War On Redemption. Primary participants are the harmful people who create these systems and the people who remain silent while countless lives are ruined for no good result.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  I dunno. Assault that permanently injures someone, rape, kidnapping, and trafficking are lifelong scarring for the victims. I may not rank computer hacking or selling drugs as deserving of a permanent record, but there are lots of other violent crimes short of homicide that do.
- Gunax 5y ago
  I don't think it's the record's duty to keep you from being employed. That's the employer's decision. Even if I agree that it's a dumb practice, you're proposing a world where employers are free to refuse your hire if you (eg.) were fired from a job 26 years ago, but not because you were convicted of a crime.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    You don't have to tell them you were fired
drusepth 5y ago
Unfortunately, "desensitizing" people to existing law by illegal rebellions is a Pyrrhic victory at best when the consequences are so impactful to the individuals that martyr for The Cause. There are processes for changing the laws without sending kids to jail, having to treat kids like terrorists, or potentially making the law even harsher because it isn't effective enough to dissuade lawbreaking. If the laws feel draconian, perhaps following those processes might be a better approach to change the system without as many sacrifices.
- NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  >There are processes for changing the laws without sending kids to jail, having to treat kids like terrorists, or potentially making the law even harsher because it isn't effective enough to dissuade lawbreaking. And none of them work, or will ever work in this oligarchy. The rich own the congress, and the senate, and they benefit greatly from these things. America hasn't been a functioning republic in at least 50 years.
drhayes9 5y ago
I don't think telling kids not to narc on themselves "validates the insane over-criminalization". I think telling legislators or parents would, though. The comment didn't say "respect the system", it said to deal in the realpolitik and don't try to effect legislative change by ruining your life as a high school student.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
testudovictoria 5y ago
GP isn't validating over criminalization. GP is trying to steer people clear of catching charges. The end results for both is, "Don't hack your school district for a prank," but the context of the two are very different. Students' minds are still developing. You can tell them not to respect Draconian laws surrounding hacking, but do the students understand what's at stake? Yes, students get in trouble all the time, but most of the consequences for their stupidity are slaps on the hand. Lunch in a classroom, a parent-teacher conference, after school detention, in-school suspension, getting grounded - none of these things carry civil or criminal charges that are a matter of record. What should be a harmless prank can turn into a life altering civil and criminal charges. With high school kids, things quickly go from, "I hacked the school network to do a Rick Roll; they laughed and sent me on my way," all the way to, "I gave my friend the exploit to do something similar; I didn't know he was going to change everyone's grades to 69%." Further, I would not want to teach in a district where students doing digital pranks is the norm. I volunteer at a high school. Unchecked digital pranks would quickly turn into a constant stream of disruptions. Everyone would think that their prank is better than the last.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> a prank Why do we tolerate pranks? You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'. Leave other people's things alone. Don't create work for other people. Don't bother people just trying to do their jobs. Don't impose your sense of humour on others. These all seem like basics to me? If you think someone's funny? Great. Just don't bother other people with it. Do it with your own stuff, not other people's.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Many criminal cases require establishing intent. Pranks may be harmful as you allude to, but the intent still matters.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    How does that work? Can you murder someone for a prank and say your intent was just a prank so it was fine?
    - lr4444lr 5y ago
      Intent separates murder from manslaughter in most states in thr USA, so yeah, a death from a prank is tangible different.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        But they did intend to disrupt the systems in this case. The impact was their exact intent.
        kube-system 5y ago
        When people say "establishing intent" in terms of criminal cases, this is usually a shorthand for something more specifically defined in the law, like "intent to do harm" or something. To use the murder example again: many people who commit manslaughter have all kinds of various intentions. The one murder is concerned with is whether or not they specifically had the intent to kill the person. "Establishing intent" in this scenario is specifically regarding that one intent. Not any intent.
restingrobot 5y ago
We need to have harsh penalties for this. People who don't understand the complex systems they were able to access, might introduce vulnerabilities that more malicious entities can exploit. An example of this would be a student at a university accessing internal network from a physical terminal in a building, (intranet), and accidentally disabling a firewall, (say to play a video from a remote location). In doing so, its no longer just a prank as they may have exposed the entire internal network to outside internet. This is a super basic example, but it serves to illustrate my point. It's not just a prank bro, even when it is.
javajosh 5y ago
validate the insane over criminalization I think you misread the GP. He's not defending the system, just describing it, and how the OP was lucky that the people in charge were unusual and open-minded. He's warning others that the risk/reward implied by the OP's experience is misleading. I suspect that most commenters on this site applaud the kids adventurousness and style. A great hack! But we are uniquely aware of how rare it is that anyone with authority, school administrators or law enforcement, would show any leniency or self-restraint in these cases. On balance, the instinct seems to go for the jugular, dehumanize the kid as a criminal hacker, and ruin his life. No-one is saying that's good, or reasonable. It's just how it is.
mmaunder 5y ago
Warns kids against jumping off cliffs. Accused of causing gravity.

paxys 5y ago

I don't understand this response. Having been on the wrong end of it you should be advocating harder than anyone to teach kids the complexities of cybersecurity law and ensure they can make the right decisions rather than throw away their future over a stupid prank. There is no "validation" happening here, the OP is just stating reality. Random high schoolers' rebellions aren't going to result in Congress overturning the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a hundred related laws.

rkk3 5y ago
> ensure they can make the right decisions rather than throw away their future over a stupid prank. Is it a good system if a "stupid prank" can "throw away your future" ?
- paxys 5y ago
  No it is not a good system. But nothing I said is invalid because of that.
- skeaker 5y ago
  No, but that doesn't mean you should deliberately play into it.

quasarj 5y ago

What? How is warning someone that they are going to ruin their lives the same as endorsing it?

tertius 5y ago

Probably better to try and reform the law instead of suggest children break the law and ruin their lives.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Clarifying that the ruination of lives here is the direct result of profoundly bad laws that inappropriately criminalize benign behaviors.
- tertius 5y ago
  Hence the need for reform.

999900000999 5y ago

This is a very complicated problem. Unless you kill someone I generally don’t believe in life long criminal records. They only serve to drive people into further criminality. I imagine for a robbery you could get 5 years in prison, 5 years with it on your record and then automatically get it expunged. Back to the topic at hand , what if the IT hack stopped people from getting paid on time. How many suffered emotional distress ? Evictions can literally cause suicide. Maybe someone can’t afford medication, skip it and have a stroke. The entire criminal justice system is broken. So you did something stupid at 20, at 46 you still can’t find a job due to your record. People want simple easy solutions. Things are much more complicated. If you release a dozen felons 5 years early and 2 go on to commit horrific crimes it’s easy to ignore the good the other 10 did

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> The entire criminal justice system is broken. So you did something stupid at 20, at 46 you still can’t find a job due to your record. Welcome to the War On Redemption. Primary participants are the harmful people who create these systems and the people who remain silent while countless lives are ruined for no good result.
lr4444lr 5y ago
I dunno. Assault that permanently injures someone, rape, kidnapping, and trafficking are lifelong scarring for the victims. I may not rank computer hacking or selling drugs as deserving of a permanent record, but there are lots of other violent crimes short of homicide that do.
Gunax 5y ago
I don't think it's the record's duty to keep you from being employed. That's the employer's decision. Even if I agree that it's a dumb practice, you're proposing a world where employers are free to refuse your hire if you (eg.) were fired from a job 26 years ago, but not because you were convicted of a crime.
- emteycz 5y ago
  You don't have to tell them you were fired

drusepth 5y ago

Unfortunately, "desensitizing" people to existing law by illegal rebellions is a Pyrrhic victory at best when the consequences are so impactful to the individuals that martyr for The Cause. There are processes for changing the laws without sending kids to jail, having to treat kids like terrorists, or potentially making the law even harsher because it isn't effective enough to dissuade lawbreaking. If the laws feel draconian, perhaps following those processes might be a better approach to change the system without as many sacrifices.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>There are processes for changing the laws without sending kids to jail, having to treat kids like terrorists, or potentially making the law even harsher because it isn't effective enough to dissuade lawbreaking. And none of them work, or will ever work in this oligarchy. The rich own the congress, and the senate, and they benefit greatly from these things. America hasn't been a functioning republic in at least 50 years.

drhayes9 5y ago

I don't think telling kids not to narc on themselves "validates the insane over-criminalization". I think telling legislators or parents would, though. The comment didn't say "respect the system", it said to deal in the realpolitik and don't try to effect legislative change by ruining your life as a high school student.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

testudovictoria 5y ago

GP isn't validating over criminalization. GP is trying to steer people clear of catching charges. The end results for both is, "Don't hack your school district for a prank," but the context of the two are very different. Students' minds are still developing. You can tell them not to respect Draconian laws surrounding hacking, but do the students understand what's at stake? Yes, students get in trouble all the time, but most of the consequences for their stupidity are slaps on the hand. Lunch in a classroom, a parent-teacher conference, after school detention, in-school suspension, getting grounded - none of these things carry civil or criminal charges that are a matter of record. What should be a harmless prank can turn into a life altering civil and criminal charges. With high school kids, things quickly go from, "I hacked the school network to do a Rick Roll; they laughed and sent me on my way," all the way to, "I gave my friend the exploit to do something similar; I didn't know he was going to change everyone's grades to 69%." Further, I would not want to teach in a district where students doing digital pranks is the norm. I volunteer at a high school. Unchecked digital pranks would quickly turn into a constant stream of disruptions. Everyone would think that their prank is better than the last.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> a prank Why do we tolerate pranks? You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'. Leave other people's things alone. Don't create work for other people. Don't bother people just trying to do their jobs. Don't impose your sense of humour on others. These all seem like basics to me? If you think someone's funny? Great. Just don't bother other people with it. Do it with your own stuff, not other people's.

lr4444lr 5y ago
Many criminal cases require establishing intent. Pranks may be harmful as you allude to, but the intent still matters.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  How does that work? Can you murder someone for a prank and say your intent was just a prank so it was fine?
  - lr4444lr 5y ago
    Intent separates murder from manslaughter in most states in thr USA, so yeah, a death from a prank is tangible different.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      But they did intend to disrupt the systems in this case. The impact was their exact intent.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        When people say "establishing intent" in terms of criminal cases, this is usually a shorthand for something more specifically defined in the law, like "intent to do harm" or something. To use the murder example again: many people who commit manslaughter have all kinds of various intentions. The one murder is concerned with is whether or not they specifically had the intent to kill the person. "Establishing intent" in this scenario is specifically regarding that one intent. Not any intent.

restingrobot 5y ago

We need to have harsh penalties for this. People who don't understand the complex systems they were able to access, might introduce vulnerabilities that more malicious entities can exploit. An example of this would be a student at a university accessing internal network from a physical terminal in a building, (intranet), and accidentally disabling a firewall, (say to play a video from a remote location). In doing so, its no longer just a prank as they may have exposed the entire internal network to outside internet. This is a super basic example, but it serves to illustrate my point. It's not just a prank bro, even when it is.

javajosh 5y ago

validate the insane over criminalization I think you misread the GP. He's not defending the system, just describing it, and how the OP was lucky that the people in charge were unusual and open-minded. He's warning others that the risk/reward implied by the OP's experience is misleading. I suspect that most commenters on this site applaud the kids adventurousness and style. A great hack! But we are uniquely aware of how rare it is that anyone with authority, school administrators or law enforcement, would show any leniency or self-restraint in these cases. On balance, the instinct seems to go for the jugular, dehumanize the kid as a criminal hacker, and ruin his life. No-one is saying that's good, or reasonable. It's just how it is.

mmaunder 5y ago

Warns kids against jumping off cliffs. Accused of causing gravity.