4 ms·

Well I mean the guy commited crimes and entered private systems. Its not like he is innocent. Are you saying you want it to be legal to hack into any random sys

Well I mean the guy commited crimes and entered private systems. Its not like he is innocent. Are you saying you want it to be legal to hack into any random system in the world ? (that would remove all the fun of hacking) PS: And I have done some hacking, stolen some files, financial information a long time ago, but I agree that it is highly illegal and should be punished and I do regret my actions. Thankfully I stopped before it was too late

w1ntermute 14y ago
Did you read the Wiki article? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the TJX hack, yet they were going to scapegoat him.
- tkahn6 14y ago
  Yes, he claimed that. It doesn't make it true. His own father believed that he was involved.
  - cantankerous 14y ago
    It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what's provable. Otherwise he's innocent until shown to be guilty...regardless of what his father or anybody else thinks.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    I can't speak to this specific case, but I'm sure lots of fathers have been completely wrong about their sons.
monsterix 14y ago
How is it a crime to access (force access) content that belongs to the public? It was created using tax payers money and should have been available to the public without the hurdles in the first place. Note the same content is now available over the Internet for free legally. So what has changed, and what was lost?
caf 14y ago
It certainly shouldn't attract a sentence considerably worse than violent crimes do. There's a persuasive argument that no nonviolent crime should be punished by prison time at all.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>highly illegal This is the problem. It should be "illegal" but not "highly illegal" -- the penalties should be along the lines of trespass, e.g. 30 days in jail or a $1000 fine, not 30 years in prison and a million dollar fine. More than that, the crimes need to be defined with actual specificity. Read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act sometime if you want to scare yourself. It's preposterously vague. How about we repeal that in its entirety and defer to the laws that prohibit the actual bad stuff, like fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of trade secrets, etc. If all you do is get root on a server and then leave, the penalty should be a $5 fine and a stern warning, and the same penalty for the "victim" who put an insecure server on the internet.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Not to go too far off track here - but should I get a penalty for not locking my door at home?
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    OK, forget the fine then, we'll just go with the stern warning. The point is that they should both get the proverbial slap on the wrist -- the person who breaks in should be chastised but hasn't caused any real harm and the person who allowed it to happen should endeavor to be more careful and not redirect responsibility for something trivially harmful that they could have themselves prevented if they deemed it worthy of the required effort.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      So, what your are saying, is that I shouldn't be penalized if I don't lock my door at home, but I have no basis to complain if someone comes into my house, snoops around, looks in drawers, and then leaves without damaging anything. I'm actually ambivalent about this, but I'm always intrigued as to whether people's sense of "Protect yourself on the internet or you deserve what you get" translates to "Protect yourself at home, or you deserve to be burgled". Indeed - one could take it so far as, "Protect yourself with a weapon late at night/in your home, or you deserve to be beaten/mugged/etc..." - but, in general, we recognize the black and white line somewhere between "ssh server" and "put in hospital with contusions" - I think the "snooping around my house with unlocked door" is the gray area.

w1ntermute 14y ago

Did you read the Wiki article? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the TJX hack, yet they were going to scapegoat him.

tkahn6 14y ago
Yes, he claimed that. It doesn't make it true. His own father believed that he was involved.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what's provable. Otherwise he's innocent until shown to be guilty...regardless of what his father or anybody else thinks.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- nitrogen 14y ago
  I can't speak to this specific case, but I'm sure lots of fathers have been completely wrong about their sons.

monsterix 14y ago

How is it a crime to access (force access) content that belongs to the public? It was created using tax payers money and should have been available to the public without the hurdles in the first place. Note the same content is now available over the Internet for free legally. So what has changed, and what was lost?

caf 14y ago

It certainly shouldn't attract a sentence considerably worse than violent crimes do. There's a persuasive argument that no nonviolent crime should be punished by prison time at all.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>highly illegal This is the problem. It should be "illegal" but not "highly illegal" -- the penalties should be along the lines of trespass, e.g. 30 days in jail or a $1000 fine, not 30 years in prison and a million dollar fine. More than that, the crimes need to be defined with actual specificity. Read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act sometime if you want to scare yourself. It's preposterously vague. How about we repeal that in its entirety and defer to the laws that prohibit the actual bad stuff, like fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of trade secrets, etc. If all you do is get root on a server and then leave, the penalty should be a $5 fine and a stern warning, and the same penalty for the "victim" who put an insecure server on the internet.

ghshephard 14y ago
Not to go too far off track here - but should I get a penalty for not locking my door at home?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  OK, forget the fine then, we'll just go with the stern warning. The point is that they should both get the proverbial slap on the wrist -- the person who breaks in should be chastised but hasn't caused any real harm and the person who allowed it to happen should endeavor to be more careful and not redirect responsibility for something trivially harmful that they could have themselves prevented if they deemed it worthy of the required effort.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    So, what your are saying, is that I shouldn't be penalized if I don't lock my door at home, but I have no basis to complain if someone comes into my house, snoops around, looks in drawers, and then leaves without damaging anything. I'm actually ambivalent about this, but I'm always intrigued as to whether people's sense of "Protect yourself on the internet or you deserve what you get" translates to "Protect yourself at home, or you deserve to be burgled". Indeed - one could take it so far as, "Protect yourself with a weapon late at night/in your home, or you deserve to be beaten/mugged/etc..." - but, in general, we recognize the black and white line somewhere between "ssh server" and "put in hospital with contusions" - I think the "snooping around my house with unlocked door" is the gray area.