Lawyers Say Hackers Are Sentenced Too Harshly

Bendebecker writes "Cnet is reporting: 'The nation's largest group of defense lawyers on Wednesday published a position paper arguing that people convicted of computer-related crimes tend to get stiffer sentences than comparable non-computer-related offenses.' Finally, someone is listening..." The document makes the points that most computer crime cases involve disputes between an employer and employee, and that the seriousness of the offense is generally comparable to white-collar fraud cases.

Comments

It all depends

[hawkbug]

I think it all depends on the crime committed.... stealing 8 million credit cards is a lot more serious than defacing a website for an hour, don't you think?

Too harshly....in United States of America

[jsse]

arguing that people convicted of computer-related crimes tend to get stiffer sentences than comparable non-computer-related offenses.

Only in US. Convicted hacker Raphael Gray, who stole 23,000 credit card no. and sent Bill Gates boxes of Viagra, was only sentenced to three years of community rehabilitation. As he told BBC:

"...Kevin Mitnick was stopped from going near computers, even from working a cash register, but they can't do that in this country.

I've had two job offers - one from the guy who tracked me down..."

Modern "Witch Hunt"

[resistant]

People have always tended to be hysterical about that which they fear and don't understand. They see this "hacking" (it should be called "cracking" in this context, but that's a lost cause) as a vaguely defined but fearsome threat, regardless of the actual reality of harm, and clamor for the modern equivalent of witch burnings.