6 ms·

Disturbingly, the HACIENDA system actually hijacks civilian computers to do some of its dirty work, allowing it to leach computing resources and cover its track

by e40 12y ago

Disturbingly, the HACIENDA system actually hijacks civilian computers to do some of its dirty work, allowing it to leach computing resources and cover its tracks. Yeah, that is disturbing, and it should be made illegal.

ganeumann 12y ago
I think it's already illegal.
- alex_duf 12y ago
  Agreed, it's just that there's no tribunal to bring the case to.
  - hadoukenio 12y ago
    So does it set a precedent that the humble citizen is able to do it without legal ramifications?
    - deciplex 12y ago
      In a sense, yes. There will be ramifications, of course, but they are entirely extralegal. It's best not to think of the Five Eyes as being nations of laws.
      - joe_the_user 12y ago
        Seeing this intelligent if pessimistic post downvoted without comment makes me sad for Hacker's News.
- jonstewart 12y ago
  Each country probably had the others do the dirty work in their own country, a legal loophole.
- kordless 12y ago
  I think they don't care if it's illegal. They believe their actions are justified. The primary problem with that assumption is that they are the ones that justify it.
- shitgoose 12y ago
  Illegal they do right away. Unconstitutional takes a bit longer.
mpyne 12y ago
How disturbing and/or illegal should it be? I mean, I'm game to make it illegal if it's not already, and it probably already is illegal in the countries where that would be going on. But when I advocated the viewpoint that unauthorized access to computers was illegal and disturbing back with Aaron Swartz, that viewpoint didn't seem as popular at Hacker News for some reason. Likewise when Jeremy Hammond admitted to hacking into Stratfor and was duly sentenced, that didn't seem super-popular here. So if people want strong legal controls (and I do), then great! Let's have those, keeping in mind legal controls apply to everybody, with the state having at least as much authority and power (and often much more) than the public at large. If people instead believe that the intent and the underlying cause of what you do completely justifies one's actions, then don't be surprised when you see "Bad Guys" doing "Bad Things" because they also deeply believe that what they are doing is right, essential, and good for humanity in general.
- nemo 12y ago
  Personally while I thought that while Aaron Swartz was guilty of something, the charges DAs were pressing for were disgustingly and flagrantly incommensurate, and I was distressed at the abuse of government power. I didn't really follow the Jeremy Hammond case, can't speak to it. I don't really have a problem with penalties for computing crimes, but I firmly believe that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. The commonality with NSA and with Swartz is that you have heavy-handed authority figures flagrantly abusing their power with impunity. That's the part that I take issue with. Swartz was headed for a prison term and life as a felon for downloading a lot of documents he technically had legal access to (the issue was with the way he downloaded them). I don't think he didn't break any rules, but what he engaged in was in all respects a victimless crime. The NSA has abused its power in ways that are mind-boggling, lying to the Congress and continuing with illegal programs after being told to stop, abusing the privacy of the public in ways that have ramifications of such a scale that are hard to even sorted out, but nobody is seeing any justice for things that look like serious crimes. Nobody is even being charged with anything. Comparing computing crimes of individuals vs. the government hacking citizen's computers and violating basic civil liberties is that the government engaging in the same act is doing something far more dangerous, harmful, and abusive, and the punishments should be far more severe, since the dangers from that abuse are far, far more serious, but instead they are non-existent.

by e40 12y ago

ganeumann 12y ago

I think it's already illegal.

alex_duf 12y ago
Agreed, it's just that there's no tribunal to bring the case to.
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  So does it set a precedent that the humble citizen is able to do it without legal ramifications?
  - deciplex 12y ago
    In a sense, yes. There will be ramifications, of course, but they are entirely extralegal. It's best not to think of the Five Eyes as being nations of laws.
    - joe_the_user 12y ago
      Seeing this intelligent if pessimistic post downvoted without comment makes me sad for Hacker's News.
jonstewart 12y ago
Each country probably had the others do the dirty work in their own country, a legal loophole.
kordless 12y ago
I think they don't care if it's illegal. They believe their actions are justified. The primary problem with that assumption is that they are the ones that justify it.
shitgoose 12y ago
Illegal they do right away. Unconstitutional takes a bit longer.

mpyne 12y ago

How disturbing and/or illegal should it be? I mean, I'm game to make it illegal if it's not already, and it probably already is illegal in the countries where that would be going on. But when I advocated the viewpoint that unauthorized access to computers was illegal and disturbing back with Aaron Swartz, that viewpoint didn't seem as popular at Hacker News for some reason. Likewise when Jeremy Hammond admitted to hacking into Stratfor and was duly sentenced, that didn't seem super-popular here. So if people want strong legal controls (and I do), then great! Let's have those, keeping in mind legal controls apply to everybody, with the state having at least as much authority and power (and often much more) than the public at large. If people instead believe that the intent and the underlying cause of what you do completely justifies one's actions, then don't be surprised when you see "Bad Guys" doing "Bad Things" because they also deeply believe that what they are doing is right, essential, and good for humanity in general.

nemo 12y ago
Personally while I thought that while Aaron Swartz was guilty of something, the charges DAs were pressing for were disgustingly and flagrantly incommensurate, and I was distressed at the abuse of government power. I didn't really follow the Jeremy Hammond case, can't speak to it. I don't really have a problem with penalties for computing crimes, but I firmly believe that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. The commonality with NSA and with Swartz is that you have heavy-handed authority figures flagrantly abusing their power with impunity. That's the part that I take issue with. Swartz was headed for a prison term and life as a felon for downloading a lot of documents he technically had legal access to (the issue was with the way he downloaded them). I don't think he didn't break any rules, but what he engaged in was in all respects a victimless crime. The NSA has abused its power in ways that are mind-boggling, lying to the Congress and continuing with illegal programs after being told to stop, abusing the privacy of the public in ways that have ramifications of such a scale that are hard to even sorted out, but nobody is seeing any justice for things that look like serious crimes. Nobody is even being charged with anything. Comparing computing crimes of individuals vs. the government hacking citizen's computers and violating basic civil liberties is that the government engaging in the same act is doing something far more dangerous, harmful, and abusive, and the punishments should be far more severe, since the dangers from that abuse are far, far more serious, but instead they are non-existent.