3 ms·

I'm curious, how can you discourage kids from hacking into core infrastructure and accidentally breaking things? It is very natural for kids and teens to test

I'm curious, how can you discourage kids from hacking into core infrastructure and accidentally breaking things? It is very natural for kids and teens to test their boundaries and try to get as much access and control over any system that they could get into. And from a kid perspective it doesn't feel like a particularly dangerous or wrong thing to do. Hacking into stuff feels just like an elaborate and very rewarding game. Game that requires specialized knowledge and skills, but a game nevertheless. I think we all remember the feeling. But in reality this is not a game. Damage that can be done by an accident involving a such a game/hack that goes awry can be catastrophic. That includes loss of life and likelihoods of a large number of people. Examples? Say, can a hack interfere in a subtle way with remote surgery? Or with hospital power supply? Or chemical plant? The answer is unfortunately, yes. Our systems a networks are not secure enough and not kid-proof. And probably will never be. So there must be some policy that discourage kids from hacking into stuff that matters. And yet it should be friendly, because it is preposterous to put people in jail for 'games' that are very unlikely to cause any harm most of the time.

markyc 14y ago
how about we work on making that infrastructure kid-proof, instead of demolishing the kids?
- dchichkov 14y ago
  Difficult. What system can really stand against a determined 17 year old with some ten years of experience, including a few years of hacking and network security? Hacking and network security is a relatively shallow and yet specialized skill. Relatively shallow, because it doesn't require years and years of studying, like, say theoretical physics or modern math. And specialized, because your regular developer is not necessarily stays current with all the latest security practices and exploits. Because of that properties a determined teen can outmatch skills of people maintaining and designing the system by orders of magnitude. And with that kind of mismatch in skills, what can really stand against that kid?
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    If our systems aren't able to stand casual, playful attack, they have absolutely no chance at surviving a real, concerted attack. And there's plenty of evidence that the latter happen all the time nowadays.
- b0ttler0cket 14y ago
  Yeah. That. But let's make sure we understand the point of his example. The whole point of the law is to take trials on a case by case basis. More often than not there is no broadly sweeping rule that will dictate the outcome of the case. The phrase "a rule sweeps too broadly," is common in legal parlance. (I studied law for 4 years. I have some experience with this). The kids who cause more damage will get a heavier punishment. That is simply just. What is unjust is robbing them of a huge chunk of their lives. Justice is about contextualization. We have to ask questions like; is it reasonable that they should have known better? Did they intend to bring down a power plant? Did they mean to cause bodily harm? But 10 years for a 17 year old. Can't seem to wrap my head around that.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  That's one of the reasons we have fences and security cameras everywhere these days. I personally don't care for it. For example, I noticed a case a few weeks ago where three juvenile were arrested for throwing objects off a bridge into traffic, including one lump of concrete that weighed 50 pounds. Nobody was hurt, fortunately, but it wasn't for lack of trying and they did damage several vehicles. Frankly, I'd rather see them go to jail for several years than have to convert my car into a tank or see every foot bridge wrapped in thick steel mesh.
belorn 14y ago
Imagine a few kids throwing rocks or sticks at buildings. A rather petty crime, normally punished by a small fine for first time offenders and youths. No reason to throw them in jail for several years right? Then say they throw their rocks not at some store window, but at a power station. Maybe at a hydroplant (those turbines do not like large rocks), or a solar plant (glass!). Maybe its at a electrical substation (a wet/icy stick or metal rod between two lines will cause shorts and break things). The damage from such actions can be catastrophic. Life and livelihood can be lost for a large number of people. What if the power for the hospital gets interrupted, or the chemical plant? This leaves us with a simple question then. Should we send teenagers that throw rocks and sticks/rods in jail for up to 10 years? Is jailtime a proper method to discourage kids from throwing rocks at power stations? In my society, that's has not been the current approach, and we have not had much failures from kids throwing rocks at power stations (or hacks for that matter). Schools, proper parenting, and after school activities has served the role of prevention.
- dchichkov 14y ago
  No. A normal kid wouldn't throw rocks at buildings. It is just instinct. So there are natural instincts that prevent kids from throwing rocks at cars, hospitals or power stations. But. A normal kid would not feel any wrong when he/she is breaking in into some computer network. It is again just instinct. To a kid it feels like an awesome and elaborate game with no consequences (and 99.999??% of time there are no consequences and no harm done).
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >No. A normal kid wouldn't throw rocks at buildings. It is just instinct. So there are natural instincts that prevent kids from throwing rocks at cars, hospitals or power stations. Natural instinct? No, it's upbringing. And a lot of kids have shitty upbringing. It doesn't even have to be of the "father was an alcoholic, beat mother etc" kind. It can be "I had a perfectly good family that bend over backwards to satisfy my ego" type, or "I got most of my intra-personal skills off of TV and the internet", type.
    - 14y ago
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Why are you divorcing actions from context and circumstance? Those are how we determine the seriousness of a crime and the legal repercussions of it. For example, what is the punishment for crashing a car? Well, it depends on the context and circumstances. Sometimes there is no punishment. But what if the crash occurred due to being intoxicated? What if the crash was into another car? What if people died or were seriously injured in the crash? It's not as though "hacking", "unauthorized access", and "web sites" are each monolithic things for which the seriousness of an act is independent of context and circumstances. There are just as many different levels of seriousness when it comes to the online world as there are in the real world. What are the consequences for property trespass in the physical world, for example? Well, it depends entirely on context and circumstances. If someone merely wandered into another person's land in order to pick berries or something that is very much different than, say, breaking and entering in order to commit robbery, for example.
- b0ttler0cket 14y ago
  Exactly, the beauty of the law is that almost always, the outcome is decided on a case to case basis. It used to be less case-to-case when there were mandatory minimums. These were basically algorithmic processes to output a time range for imprisonment during sentencing. Judges had to abide by these sentencing tables. Since then, they have been abolished and judges are now empowered to make the decision themselves based on the facts of the case. There are situations in which the outcome is not decided case-to-case. These situations are called "strict-liability" where if you commit a violation, you are punished no matter what. Thankfully, these aren't crimes. Usually, it's if you double park, you're getting a ticket. It doesn't matter whether you had the intent.

markyc 14y ago

how about we work on making that infrastructure kid-proof, instead of demolishing the kids?

dchichkov 14y ago
Difficult. What system can really stand against a determined 17 year old with some ten years of experience, including a few years of hacking and network security? Hacking and network security is a relatively shallow and yet specialized skill. Relatively shallow, because it doesn't require years and years of studying, like, say theoretical physics or modern math. And specialized, because your regular developer is not necessarily stays current with all the latest security practices and exploits. Because of that properties a determined teen can outmatch skills of people maintaining and designing the system by orders of magnitude. And with that kind of mismatch in skills, what can really stand against that kid?
- lucian1900 14y ago
  If our systems aren't able to stand casual, playful attack, they have absolutely no chance at surviving a real, concerted attack. And there's plenty of evidence that the latter happen all the time nowadays.
b0ttler0cket 14y ago
Yeah. That. But let's make sure we understand the point of his example. The whole point of the law is to take trials on a case by case basis. More often than not there is no broadly sweeping rule that will dictate the outcome of the case. The phrase "a rule sweeps too broadly," is common in legal parlance. (I studied law for 4 years. I have some experience with this). The kids who cause more damage will get a heavier punishment. That is simply just. What is unjust is robbing them of a huge chunk of their lives. Justice is about contextualization. We have to ask questions like; is it reasonable that they should have known better? Did they intend to bring down a power plant? Did they mean to cause bodily harm? But 10 years for a 17 year old. Can't seem to wrap my head around that.
anigbrowl 14y ago
That's one of the reasons we have fences and security cameras everywhere these days. I personally don't care for it. For example, I noticed a case a few weeks ago where three juvenile were arrested for throwing objects off a bridge into traffic, including one lump of concrete that weighed 50 pounds. Nobody was hurt, fortunately, but it wasn't for lack of trying and they did damage several vehicles. Frankly, I'd rather see them go to jail for several years than have to convert my car into a tank or see every foot bridge wrapped in thick steel mesh.

belorn 14y ago

Imagine a few kids throwing rocks or sticks at buildings. A rather petty crime, normally punished by a small fine for first time offenders and youths. No reason to throw them in jail for several years right? Then say they throw their rocks not at some store window, but at a power station. Maybe at a hydroplant (those turbines do not like large rocks), or a solar plant (glass!). Maybe its at a electrical substation (a wet/icy stick or metal rod between two lines will cause shorts and break things). The damage from such actions can be catastrophic. Life and livelihood can be lost for a large number of people. What if the power for the hospital gets interrupted, or the chemical plant? This leaves us with a simple question then. Should we send teenagers that throw rocks and sticks/rods in jail for up to 10 years? Is jailtime a proper method to discourage kids from throwing rocks at power stations? In my society, that's has not been the current approach, and we have not had much failures from kids throwing rocks at power stations (or hacks for that matter). Schools, proper parenting, and after school activities has served the role of prevention.

dchichkov 14y ago
No. A normal kid wouldn't throw rocks at buildings. It is just instinct. So there are natural instincts that prevent kids from throwing rocks at cars, hospitals or power stations. But. A normal kid would not feel any wrong when he/she is breaking in into some computer network. It is again just instinct. To a kid it feels like an awesome and elaborate game with no consequences (and 99.999??% of time there are no consequences and no harm done).
- coldtea 14y ago
  >No. A normal kid wouldn't throw rocks at buildings. It is just instinct. So there are natural instincts that prevent kids from throwing rocks at cars, hospitals or power stations. Natural instinct? No, it's upbringing. And a lot of kids have shitty upbringing. It doesn't even have to be of the "father was an alcoholic, beat mother etc" kind. It can be "I had a perfectly good family that bend over backwards to satisfy my ego" type, or "I got most of my intra-personal skills off of TV and the internet", type.
  - 14y ago

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Why are you divorcing actions from context and circumstance? Those are how we determine the seriousness of a crime and the legal repercussions of it. For example, what is the punishment for crashing a car? Well, it depends on the context and circumstances. Sometimes there is no punishment. But what if the crash occurred due to being intoxicated? What if the crash was into another car? What if people died or were seriously injured in the crash? It's not as though "hacking", "unauthorized access", and "web sites" are each monolithic things for which the seriousness of an act is independent of context and circumstances. There are just as many different levels of seriousness when it comes to the online world as there are in the real world. What are the consequences for property trespass in the physical world, for example? Well, it depends entirely on context and circumstances. If someone merely wandered into another person's land in order to pick berries or something that is very much different than, say, breaking and entering in order to commit robbery, for example.

b0ttler0cket 14y ago
Exactly, the beauty of the law is that almost always, the outcome is decided on a case to case basis. It used to be less case-to-case when there were mandatory minimums. These were basically algorithmic processes to output a time range for imprisonment during sentencing. Judges had to abide by these sentencing tables. Since then, they have been abolished and judges are now empowered to make the decision themselves based on the facts of the case. There are situations in which the outcome is not decided case-to-case. These situations are called "strict-liability" where if you commit a violation, you are punished no matter what. Thankfully, these aren't crimes. Usually, it's if you double park, you're getting a ticket. It doesn't matter whether you had the intent.