4 ms·

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

by markyc 14y ago

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.

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

by markyc 14y ago

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

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.