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

depends what you did

[AssFace]

defacing a web page != stealing credit cards.

they shouldn't have equal sentences, but that isn't to say one of them isn't deserving of what they get...

Have to exaggerate the problem...

[$$$$$exyGal]

Those convicted "are receiving sentences based on the fear of the worst-case scenario rather than what the case may really be about," Granick said.

In many cases, the victim would be ignored if s/he didn't over-state the actual damages. I've heard victim after victim (right here on slashdot) state that they've went to the FBI/local officials, and were denied help because the actual damages didn't add up to a certain amount.

No wonder victims are overstating the problem, it's because they don't like being ignored.

--sex

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought a laywers job was to understand the law and to represent his/her client, not decide what's fair or not fair regarding the law.

Who says they are deciding. They are stating their opinion. It is up to legislators to create and modify the law and judges to uphold it. Lawyers just happen to be the most intimitately involved with both types of cases and therefore are qualified to state an opinion.

I would also point out that they are as free to state their opinion as you are.

Re:just fraud

[RyanAXP]

Quoth the Rave,,, err, Anonymous Coward:
"Oh, well, in that case, since it's ONLY fraud, might as well let them go free."

You didn't understand the argument, or didn't bother to read it, at least. They're not saying computer criminal should "go free," but that the harshness of their punishments should be similar to the punishments meted out for similar crimes not involving computers. Is that really so difficult to support?

Too Harsh?

[methuseleh]

Are hackers sentenced too harshly, or are "comparable" criminals not sentenced harshly enough?

me != suprised

[alaric187]

It's because lawmakers have no idea what hacking is. All they know is that the news and their handlers and their real constituents (donors) say it's very bad. It's just like way back in the day when people were put in institutions for being depressed. No one knew why they were depressed so they just put them away.

Now, I'm not saying that hacking others' equipment is good. I'm just saying that the punishment should fit the crime, not get 10 years in jail because you made the RIAA website say they love mp3s instead of money.

The Witches of Yesterday...

[jetkust]

...are the hackers of today.

Something is wrong when murder gets you less time.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... McOwen was charged under Georgia law with computer trespass. Facing up to 120 years in prison..."

A man installed a program that for all intent and purposes is a screen saver and he could have been forced to serve 120 years in prison had he not plea bargained. Clara Harris killed her husband with her Mercedes, was found guilty of 1st degree murder, and was only sentenced to 20 years (she'll get out in 10).

I think something is wrong with a system that gives you more time for installing a program that doesn't do any damage than it does for murdering a person in cold blood.

But does it still warrant...

[aepervius]

...more year in prison than the average raper ?

Re:But does it still warrant...

[Planesdragon]

(*) If anyone has a problem with me accusing the US government of being corrupt, feel free to explain the rationale for letting rapists and murderers go free while non-violent drug offenders.

Well, who goes free and who gets convicted is a function of a randomly chosen population sample, not the government. Plus, if they follow the law, no matter what the laws says, then they're not "corrupt" in the "not doing their jobs" sense.

If a state government wanted to pass a puritanical "no kissing in public" law, they'd be well within their jurisdiction to do so, and the officers and judges and lawyers carrying out this law wouldn't be corrupt.

I agree that extremely violent offenses such as rape and murder should, without exception, give higher sentences than any other kind of crime. But that doesn't mean that a government that puts drug offenders and prank-hackers in jail for twice what the average rate for murderers is corrupt. Extreme, maybe, but not corrupt.

(And if you counter with "will of the people", I'll want to know an update on the status of the movement for a constitutional amendment requiring equitable and fair sentencing throughout the country.)

Re:The Bulk

[1u3hr]

My opinion is, if you keep the punishment higher, people are less likely to do it. In other countries, people are shot by a firing squad if they get caught DUI. Therefore, less people drive drunk and no accidents. Same principal applies here. Not saying we should shoot hackers :-), but that if the punishment is steep, maybe it would detere illegal hacking.

If that logic is pursued, just make every crime, from littering and jaywalking on up, a capital offence. That would deter ALL crime. Sounds idyllic, doesn't it?

The point the lawyers are making is that the penalty should be in relation to the harm caused, not multiplied merely because it somehow involved a computer. Whether you defraud using a fountain pen or a PC, the penalty should be the same.

Re:I agree

[NineNine]

What if you were to break into a bank vault? Not take anything, just break in and look around? You'd be up shit creek without a paddle. How about breaking into a military base "just to look around"? How about breaking into a casino's back rooms?

In case you haven't noticed, you can't just go where ever you want just to look around.

Re:6th Grader Charged in Grade-Switch Caper

[stratjakt]

No, it isnt ridiculous at all that he face the charges. He knew what he was doing was against the law when he did it. He comitted felony computer fraud, and is being charged with it.

What would be ridiculous would his being tried and convicted as an adult, and spending 10 years in a max security prison. But that wont happen, he'll get the warning and the incident will go into his sealed juvenile record.

IMO there's too much 'juveniles shouldnt be punished after all they're just kids' sentiment. Youngsters know this, and commit more and more crime knowing they wont be severely punished.

It would be ridiculous if the teacher gave him permission to use the computer, and in doing so he accidentally formatted the C: drive, or something like that. But if he knowingly committed a crime (which it would seem he did), he should be prosecuted for it.

Re:It all depends

[An Onerous Coward]

Certainly. Furthermore, there should be some inquiry into how much damage was actually done by the theft of the credit cards. Say you broke into Visa, downloaded their entire database of usable cards, and stored it on your computer. Now what?

If you immediately deleted the database, and sent Visa an explanation of the vulnerability, you should certainly be less liable than if you posted it on your FTP site, or wrote a small shell script telling Amazon.com to send every Visa holder a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Potty."

As things stand now, the prosecutor would just brew up an "analysis" showing that you cost Visa $500,000,000, point out that you're a terrorist, and sentence you to life in solitary (so that you don't manage to escape, gain access to a payphone, and start a nuclear war).

Close, but...

[spiedrazer]

It probably has more to do with the current importance computers have in our society/economy. We have gone away from a production based economy to a service based economy that relies HEAVILY on compuer infrastructure. Since computer crimes actually aren't that difficult to pull off, the powers that be don't want them to get out of hand and erode confidense in the base infrastructure.

100 years ago before the automobile became dominant, society & the economy depended quite a bit on horses. As such, you would be hung for stealing a horse, not because it's such a horrible offense, but because if the punishment wasn't really stiff excess horse theivery would probably have actually undermined the stability of society. Who would want that!

The same forces are probably in effect here.

Re:no, it doesn't

[Alsee]

I'd look at it this way; you broke into the house to steal a TV, but on your way out you slipped into the china cupboard and accidently broke a Han Dynasty era vace worth 1.2 million.

I suggest you actually READ the PDF. Your $1.2 million vase is NOT broken. The entire point of the article is that computer related law is broken.

If some kid sneaks in, watches some TV and leaves. he does NOT berak your vase. The crime is a misdemeanor. The economic damage is zero. This is sentenced as a "Base Offense Level" 6 misdemeanor. Perfectly reasonable.

Now lets look at what computer law does:

The kid didn't touch your cupboard or vase, but you decided you needed a cupboard with a lock for $5000. This counts against the kid and he gets +2 on the base offense level for $5000 in "damages". It now becomes a FELONY.

Then there is a +2 on the offence level for using a "special skill".

Then there is a +2 on the offence level for using "sophisticated means".

The kid did he not intend to cause any harm. The kid in fact did not cause any harm. So now a harmless prank that is supposed to be a level 6 misdemeanor is actually treated as a level 12 felony. THAT is the point they are making.

They also want to make sure this harmless prank doesn't get sentenced as TERRORISM. They don't go deeply into this topic, but they are also opposing certain "computer-terrorism" laws and proposed laws. They essentially make it terrorism for a kid to throw a snowball across state lines at a supermarket. The DOJ claims this is acceptable because they promise it will only be used in "appropriate cases". Pardon me, but I don't think a misdemeanor harmless prank should EVER be within the scope of a terrorism law.

Another problem they mention is one that came up in the Mitnick case. The kid takes a photo of your vase. The kid never shows the photo to anyone. Here's how computer law meaures this "vase theft": You paid $1000 for the vase, but you bought it on a $50,000 vacation. You later realize the vase is worthless and give it to the salvation army for free. According to computer-law taking the photo caused $51,000 in economic damages.

In the Mitnick case he copied software. If they had to spend money repairing damage Mitnick had done then there would be economic damage. If Mitnick had sold or given the software away then there would be economic damage from last sales. Yes, Mitnick broke the law, but the fact that he was charged and punnished based on tens or hundreds of millions in economic damages when the actual figure was zero damage was absurd.

And yes, one of the companies did in fact decide to give the software away for free (and it had nothing to do with Mitnick). Care to explain how he caused millions of dollars of damage by making a single copy of $0 software?

-