3 ms·

I highly doubt he breathed as much into "throw the book at him" as you have to defend your position. My name-calling is not absurd. What is absurd is your opini

I highly doubt he breathed as much into "throw the book at him" as you have to defend your position. My name-calling is not absurd. What is absurd is your opinion on this matter. You're part of a vocal minority that doesn't care if someone commits a crime if it satisfies your personal anti-corporate agenda.

n09n 15y ago
I think a large part of their supporters don't care if someone commits a crime if it is done in a sufficiently shameless and entertaining way. Just look at Sabu's tweet.
sophacles 15y ago
I very clearly stated I care that a crime has been committed. I don't have an anti-corporate agenda. I have an agenda, but it is simply that we take care to ensure that: 1. the punishment fits the crime, not that we do our worst to everyone who breaks a law ever - this is unreasonable. 2. that in our attempts to find justice in one case, we don't ignore a hundred others because our bloodlust. 3. that we assess the responsibilities of companies to their customers and recognize liability and that large coffers are tools which can be used to unbalance the system. I apologize that I have offended you with my long writing about my position on this, I don't know any one sentence platitudes or slogans on which to hang my position. You see, I have thought about it a lot, and none of the simple statements seemed to cover my thoughts fully nor appropriately. Yes, your name calling is absurd - it won't change my mind and doesn't really even offend me, just slightly annoys me because it doesn't add to the conversation. It obviously hasn't made you feel any better, you still seem pretty angry. I am actually curious why you think my postion is absurd. Would you mind telling me, using adult language and responding to the opinions I actually wrote about, not the ones you are claiming (those contradict statements I have made so I am not sure how you got them).
- coderdude 15y ago
  I do not believe that your original statement did anything to convey what you've just said. I do not find this reponse unreasonable. I jumped the gun calling you retarded -- I assumed you were the usual tyoe that defends anonymous/lulzsec. They don't care about the crime, they don't see why it's a crime, etc. That was my impression. I do get angry in these discussions. These people are annoying. The others in this thread I've responded to are like this but at least you acknowledge that this person should be punished.
  - sophacles 15y ago
    Fair enough. My original comment was intended to be very sarcastic. I don't respond well to platitudes and slogans, they usually just annoy me by ignoring that most things in life cannot be properly summed up in 6 words. I think that like many issues, both sides in this one seem to resort to shouting matches in which sides need to be taken, and people forget the issue in the desire to "win" and like I said, my response is usually sarcasm towards both... perhaps a bit of childishness on my part too there :) Anyway, I appreciate your response here, thanks for that.
- tsotha 15y ago
  >the punishment fits the crime, not that we do our worst to everyone who breaks a law ever - this is unreasonable. How many million dollars did he cost Sony? I agree, let the punishment fit the crime. If he's lucky he'll have a few years left after he's released.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    HN user rtm is a YC partner and the infamous Robert Morris, of the Morris worm which had a nice impact on the internet back before it was the internet. I guess we're lucky that rtm had a few years left after he was released.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Sony bears the greater part of responsibility for whatever losses it incurred due to its negligent security practices. Digital security is not like physical security -- it's so "easy" to secure systems (in comparison to securing a physical location against e.g. looting or vandalism) that it's better to preemptively close all known classes security holes than it is to be lax with security and expect the law to sort things out.
    - shabble 15y ago
      There's the issue that digital data is much more valuable (and/or damaging). Nobody is going to break into an office building to steal their filing cabinets in the hopes of finding enough info there to guess someone's mother's middle name and subsequently hope to steal their credit card or bank account. Being able to effectively search, filter, and map against other sources makes digital data particularly valuable. In essence, digital crime scales. That said, I'm not sure I agree with your claim of the ease of digital versus physical security - physical security is something we're fairly good at, having had a few thousand years of practice. I suspect the number of bank robberies in which human factors (The physical equivalent of rubber-hose cryptanalysis being 'pointing a shotgun at the manager') massively outweighs those that were exploited by technical means. That's not to say that they weren't negligent in not even taking the basic precautions that are common sense to anyone working in the field, and even many who aren't.

n09n 15y ago

I think a large part of their supporters don't care if someone commits a crime if it is done in a sufficiently shameless and entertaining way. Just look at Sabu's tweet.

sophacles 15y ago

I very clearly stated I care that a crime has been committed. I don't have an anti-corporate agenda. I have an agenda, but it is simply that we take care to ensure that: 1. the punishment fits the crime, not that we do our worst to everyone who breaks a law ever - this is unreasonable. 2. that in our attempts to find justice in one case, we don't ignore a hundred others because our bloodlust. 3. that we assess the responsibilities of companies to their customers and recognize liability and that large coffers are tools which can be used to unbalance the system. I apologize that I have offended you with my long writing about my position on this, I don't know any one sentence platitudes or slogans on which to hang my position. You see, I have thought about it a lot, and none of the simple statements seemed to cover my thoughts fully nor appropriately. Yes, your name calling is absurd - it won't change my mind and doesn't really even offend me, just slightly annoys me because it doesn't add to the conversation. It obviously hasn't made you feel any better, you still seem pretty angry. I am actually curious why you think my postion is absurd. Would you mind telling me, using adult language and responding to the opinions I actually wrote about, not the ones you are claiming (those contradict statements I have made so I am not sure how you got them).

coderdude 15y ago
I do not believe that your original statement did anything to convey what you've just said. I do not find this reponse unreasonable. I jumped the gun calling you retarded -- I assumed you were the usual tyoe that defends anonymous/lulzsec. They don't care about the crime, they don't see why it's a crime, etc. That was my impression. I do get angry in these discussions. These people are annoying. The others in this thread I've responded to are like this but at least you acknowledge that this person should be punished.
- sophacles 15y ago
  Fair enough. My original comment was intended to be very sarcastic. I don't respond well to platitudes and slogans, they usually just annoy me by ignoring that most things in life cannot be properly summed up in 6 words. I think that like many issues, both sides in this one seem to resort to shouting matches in which sides need to be taken, and people forget the issue in the desire to "win" and like I said, my response is usually sarcasm towards both... perhaps a bit of childishness on my part too there :) Anyway, I appreciate your response here, thanks for that.
tsotha 15y ago
>the punishment fits the crime, not that we do our worst to everyone who breaks a law ever - this is unreasonable. How many million dollars did he cost Sony? I agree, let the punishment fit the crime. If he's lucky he'll have a few years left after he's released.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  HN user rtm is a YC partner and the infamous Robert Morris, of the Morris worm which had a nice impact on the internet back before it was the internet. I guess we're lucky that rtm had a few years left after he was released.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Sony bears the greater part of responsibility for whatever losses it incurred due to its negligent security practices. Digital security is not like physical security -- it's so "easy" to secure systems (in comparison to securing a physical location against e.g. looting or vandalism) that it's better to preemptively close all known classes security holes than it is to be lax with security and expect the law to sort things out.
  - shabble 15y ago
    There's the issue that digital data is much more valuable (and/or damaging). Nobody is going to break into an office building to steal their filing cabinets in the hopes of finding enough info there to guess someone's mother's middle name and subsequently hope to steal their credit card or bank account. Being able to effectively search, filter, and map against other sources makes digital data particularly valuable. In essence, digital crime scales. That said, I'm not sure I agree with your claim of the ease of digital versus physical security - physical security is something we're fairly good at, having had a few thousand years of practice. I suspect the number of bank robberies in which human factors (The physical equivalent of rubber-hose cryptanalysis being 'pointing a shotgun at the manager') massively outweighs those that were exploited by technical means. That's not to say that they weren't negligent in not even taking the basic precautions that are common sense to anyone working in the field, and even many who aren't.