The Story of the tech.net.ru Crackers

tabdelgawad writes "The Washington Post is running a three-part story (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) detailing the events of the arrest of the two Russian crackers, Vasiliy Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov, from a couple of years ago (See also Previous Slashdot Story 1 and 2). The writeup is light on technical details, but includes fascinating information about the crackers' socioeconomic conditions and motivations, as well as the competence and effectiveness of the FBI in combatting cybercrime."

Comments

True Patriot Act!

[sokkelih]

"crackers' socioeconomic conditions and motivations" These are the motives for terrorism.. Gues who is responsible for these things.

Re:True Patriot Act!

[KingRamsis]

would care to enlight us on who is reponsible?

Re:True Patriot Act!

[gl4ss]

terrorism spawns where political goals can't be met by other means (trying to get something into the public knoweledge or trying to force the majority into something else by terror, or by fighting the oppressing force using unconventional means that cause terror).

common criminals spawn of poverty and possibilities, much like in usa too.

however theres a very thin line between criminal and legal person russia.. chances are that to do ordinary business you will have to be at least partly criminal(bribe & etc).

A friend of mine got busted by FBI

[192939495969798999]

A while ago, I knew a guy that got caught for piracy /hacking by the FBI... not pretty. I would use this article as a caution to anyone that thinks our government is incapable of action!

This was a great story.

[Anonymous Coward]

It highlights how oafish and ineffective the FBI can be. Read this story carefully. Want to illegally hack other people's computers and not get caught? Don't incur financial damage and the FBI will never chase you. Just ask Fyodor.

Re:This was a great story.

[jandrese]

"Financial Damage" is a tough thing to define though. Some companies will claim millions of dollars lost to recover systems that have been hacked. How much actual financial damage did Kevin Mitnick cause?

Re:This was a great story.

[Root Down]

Just the unauthorized presence in a machine is enough if the company wants to prosecute. All you have to do is 'alter a file', right? You know, like a log or history file? That's all it takes.

Re:This was a great story.

[GMontag]

Actually, in the Mitnick case, there was a good helping of the FBI 'coaching' the firms on how to claim damage. IIRC, none of them came back to the FBI with what the FBI wanted to hear, so they were told to use full development costs as the damage estimate. Some of the accounts that I read, quite some time ago now, the folks having to deal with the FBI seemed to be getting fed up (hey! nuce pun! just noticed in preview) with the nonsense.

This shady appraisal work was most glairing with the SUN damage estimate of >$20Million(?) for source code that could be purchased for much less and was given away free to educational institutions.

Even though I have always advocated that Kevin should have done some time for his harassing phone calls to Shimomura, around 90 days, I have yet to see any true financial damages that he caused anybody.

Re:This was a great story.

[Methiphisto]

The problem with this is that a company is allowed to determine on its own how much damage was done. So it is quite common to see exagerated costs that are hugely disproportionate to the actual incident.

Re:This was a great story.

[pacman on prozac]

This comes up every time this kinda story gets posted.

Even if you break into a machine and touch nothing, even logfiles, you are costing that company money.

how? well that company has to do something about the hacked server (lots don't, they should) such as re-install, spend time fixing it, check logs, run extra checks on any other servers on the network. This all takes someones time and costs someone money.

Think about it from a personal point of view, you start a webhosting company and your server gets owned...you have to fix it, and since you don't know to what extent it has been owned that either means at least a few hours of investigating or more likely a complete re-install from backups. This all costs time/money. Whether that server should have been more secure in the first place is a whole other argument.

This company should then be able to prosecute you for the money you have cost it. There is nothing unfair about that. Their business is selling a service which you have interfered with.

If that company then goes and charges $20million for 3 hours of admin time re-installing I certainly wouldn't think that fair.

But at the end of the day if you don't wanna get burnt don't play with matches..... If you don't wanna risk getting sued for millions of dollars then don't break into corporate networks.

Re:This was a great story.

[GMontag]

how? well that company has to do something about the hacked server (lots don't, they should) such as re-install, spend time fixing it, check logs, run extra checks on any other servers on the network. This all takes someones time and costs someone money.

Do you mean like when I leave the front door to my apartment open and someone comes in, leaves traces of his presence, takes nothing and leaves, I then have to remember to use the lock I have on the front door to begin with? Even (ghasp) remember to set the alarm that came with the apartment anyway?

Or, if I leave my vehicle unlocked, someone comes in and shuffles the trash around, then leaves without taking anything. I then need to remember to lock the doors, close the windows, etc, right?

I am kind of lost on how those cost me money.

The only reason your example costs anybody any money is because they did not do things correctly to start with.

Now, if you were using an example where data were vandalized, stolen, etc. and used a similar example I would probably agree with you.

Re:This was a great story.

[pacman on prozac]

You are missing the point.

It is not about physical damage to the property. It is about the fact that those machines function to provide secure storage for the data on them. When that is comprimised in any way then action must be taken otherwise the company would either risk loosing customers or being sued.

Your analogies aren't really close to this. One way they might be is if you had your credit card or bank documents sat in plain view (or even hidden) in your car/appartment in the situations you describe. Then you have to take the day off work to change all of the details. That is how you lose money.

Re:This was a great story.

[GMontag]

Then allow me to simplify:

If they were not secure to start with how is it "extra" work to secure them?

Yes, your new examples just show that I need to exercise the proper care with my affairs and I incurred more trouble by leaving my things laying about. It is still not "extra" work that should be "payed for" by others.

start-up

[stonebeat.org]

didn't all dot-coms targetted the large US companies to con them out of money?

interesting paper

[AbdullahHaydar]

This is an interesting paper from Feb 2002 on which countries originate the most malicious attacks. (Russia doesn't even make the list)

Google cached HTML version of the paper.

Re:interesting paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the US didn't make the list either, "because [US-based attacks] constituted such a large portion of the dataset"...

Re:interesting paper

[vinlud]

Yeah, that's crazy!
Hey, lets look to the backgrounds of people who walked on the moon, except Americans, they have such a large portion of the dataset.... :-?

thoughts

[Ashish Kulkarni]

You know, with this economic downturn, a lot of people might be tempted into doing stuff like this. You start on the legal side, but slowly start crossing the line...and with more and more of the world starting to jump on the e-bandwagon, it's really scary to think. It's not just hacking I'm thinking of but also of backdoors and malicious activites from within a organization (securit y inside an organization can be slack sometimes).

What about not stealing?

[POds]

Say, instead of stealing credit card number or anything at all, they just left evidence on the computer that they were there (like they did).

Could they still have been prosequted, or would anyone ever have bothered to bring it this far?

Sounds like these guys could have made a business out of it, if only it was done right (not that im suggesting my suggestion was right :)).

Re:What about not stealing?

[ahooton]

You have always stolen something from a financial standpoint, in the eyes of the law (and probably as viewed by the owners of the machines you've hacked). This is because you have utilized machine time/cycles on the machines you broke in to. You did not pay for this time/cycles, the owners of the machine(s) have, so you are stealing something of value.

This is how the argument goes. Just don't do it, it's dumb -- no smarter than jacking a car for a joyride. Nobody I know that wants to stay out of jail does either of these things.

Re:What about not stealing?

[Rick.C]

If you found an "Alex was here" message on your server, wouldn't you wonder what else Alex did? Wouldn't you rebuild your server to eliminate any back doors Alex might have installed? How long does that take and how much is your time worth?

Now multiply that by 50 servers.

Yes, as the article stated, many victims were coached by the FBI to inflate their losses, but even of nothing of value is taken, there is still a real cost to the victim.

Re:What about not stealing?

[Anonym1ty]

Oh but it does matter.

You see if you've broken into a computer, you've pointed out how insecure it was. In pointing this out, they now know they have to fix it. Fixing it costs money.

Being blissfully ignorant of a problem doesn't cost them anything. Once they are aware of it, it needs to be fixed. This may be a case of killing the messenger but you see the person who makes them aware they have to pay money for something ultimately is he who causes the financial hardship in their minds.

Remember it is we who forced these people to have to learn about things they'd rather not. It is we who better watch our backs for the smallest thing that frightens them will cause them to pick up their pitchforks and torches!

Re:What about not stealing?

[egork]

I would suggest these certain guys at that certain place could build a viable business (in Russian terms) for next couple of years. It is only that they were enthusiastic morons and have let FBI people get their passwords by collecting scancodes once this "hackers" were in USA. Well, they came into USA for a business development mission, but that was a wrong decision, wich did not fit to their business modell at all (stay out of reach of the authorities in the target country).

So I might suggest there are more consistent and successful "businessmen" out there now, who do not come to USA for a roadshow.

Economic conditions and crackers...

[jkrise]

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. A recent notable case is that of the Pakistani who is said to have hacked the PassPort Password Reset bug aka feature. Poor chap hacks hotmail for a living? Or is it just the obvious (?) ter.... connection?

Even granting that economic conditions lead to cracking, it should be interesting to see the effect in the US over the next decade. Already, the DMCA, oppressive MS licensing, litigious thugs (SCO - brought to you by MS) etc. are eroding the economic wealth of the US and putting more and more money into the hands of a few rich corporations.

Countries outside the US are little affected by legislation as well as law-enforcement in the US. Piracy before, piracy in the future. The SCO case, even if settled in favor of SCO will have little impact in Europe, and nil or negative impact elsewhere across the globe. If any, it is likely to fuel further Linux adoption, courtesy the attention brought by the case.

The net result of these trends could be the rapid impoverishment of the US, and the beneficiaries could be the rest of the world. The incentives for crackers to emerge in the US could be huge, in say, another 3 to 5 years - IF the hypothesis were true.

Re:Economic conditions and crackers...

[KingRamsis]

i will just assume that you are not a troll and try to discuss the matter in a civil way

(?) ter.... connection

you mean terrorism ? nah don't think so but maybe if you have some balls to talk a bit more clearly please?.
now I live in a third world country and we are steadily migrating away from anything Microsoft anything you can pay for to an equivalent free solution, take out MS Office put Open Office, uninstall Adobe and pass that Gimp CD.
So no need to piracy at all, we are all ethical here.

Re:Economic conditions and crackers...

[jkrise]

" you mean terrorism ?"

Nah, I meant terrifc connection - clear?

It's nice to know folks going Open Source to escape slavery from MS - and these effrots need to be commended. It is also a reality that HPaq and other Linux-loaded systems are formatted and loaded with the favorite OS by the masses. Ethical maybe (who'd think it's ethical to pay an American monopoly?), but still a subjective POV (point of view).

Re:Economic conditions and crackers...

[EvilBudMan]

--The net result of these trends could be the rapid impoverishment of the US, and the beneficiaries could be the rest of the world. The incentives for crackers to emerge in the US could be huge, in say, another 3 to 5 years - IF the hypothesis were true.--

MOD parent up. This is exactly what could happen. The rest of the world on one internet and the US on a propietary internet if a few have their way.

SCO put out the right bait

[pitc]

I'm yet to decide if this is good news or bad news. OSI's response seems to completely destroy SCO's filing... and they've found somebody we all love to hate to take up their cause.

How many times have I heard (and said), "this is it!! this is what will take down microsoft" only to be dissapointed. This time, though...

We still fighting the "Hacker" vs "Cracker" war?

[ScottGant]

Just wondering. Thought we gave up on this a while ago, but it appears some are still hanging onto this notion.

I know I get blank, "deer in the headlights" look from co-workers and friends when I try to explain the difference of a hacker and a cracker. Finally I just gave up.

I think they're moving toward "white hat" and "black hat" hacker terms now. But it's hard to keep up on this stuff. I mean, I still use the term "groovy"...so what do I know.

Are Slashdot trolls odd or what ?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

This story is about russian hackers, and that's the only one where there's no "in soviet russia" post ...

Re:Are Slashdot trolls odd or what ?

[ciscoeng]

In Soviet Russia, the FBI hacks you.

Re:Are Slashdot trolls odd or what ?

[arpy]

That's because, IN SOVIET RUSSIA it's no laughing matter.

Re:Are Slashdot trolls odd or what ?

[Griim]

In Soviet Russia, software cracks YOU!

Re:Are Slashdot trolls odd or what ?

[jpmahala]

It can't be done. It winds up creating an endless loop:

In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia cracks in Soviet Russia,.....

Re:Are Slashdot trolls odd or what ?

[Master of Transhuman]

Actually in Soviet Russia, the FBI hacks for the Russians - or don't you remember the FBI spy (I guess I don't - forgot his name...)

Re:America IS the Law

[CaptainFrito]

k, flamebait maybe, but the fbi did it, not me. I was simply paraphrasing the situation

Moral of the story:

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Don't use Windows for mission critical applications where money changes hanges. Although these articles only mention it in passing, either in an attempt to remove technical "jargon" or due to a wish to defer to MSFT, it does mention that these guys exploited vulns in NT, and fails to mention that they exploited any other OS. Maybe it's blaming the victim, but why were these CIOs astonished when they were hacked? Best case is that it was lack of research on their part. Worst case it was plain stupidity. Nevertheless, MSFT isn't held accountable.

On a related note, I was an indirect victim when they targeted an online shop that I purchased some stuff from (www.thenerds.net). Although I didn't lose cc info, the shop told me that my account was being held hostage unless they paid up. My response: I won't do business with them again, for depending on MSFT to secure their e-biz. I've also gone to a disposable Credit Card, which I recommend: www.mbnashopsafe.com.

Bottom line: any "CIO" that depends on MSFT for e-biz security gets what's coming to him.

Re:Moral of the story:

[onion2k]

If you trust an online shop based entirely on the OS the server is running then.. err.. can I sell you stuff please?

Re:Moral of the story:

[RTMFD]

Computer security is really a joke. Instead of venting your rage on MSFT, even though that might have been the platform of choice, the time to root on a lot of linux distros and Solaris boxes is pretty appalling too. I think the CC companies will hit the breaking point of paying up on all of these fraud claims and begin to demand better of the software industry.

Re:Moral of the story:

[Glass of Water]

As a sort of funny illustration, look at the picture on this page, which shows the crackers' old dean, Lev Kazarinov, in his office. He has a Microsoft baner on the wall, and his monitor shows the blue disk checker screen you get when your Windows system crashes.

Re:Moral of the story:

[Invisible Agent]

Don't use Windows for mission critical applications where money changes hanges. Although these articles only mention it in passing, either in an attempt to remove technical "jargon" or due to a wish to defer to MSFT, it does mention that these guys exploited vulns in NT

Boy, are you ever right on this one! Thank god non-MS operating systems are completely secure...

Re:Moral of the story:

[cornjones]

that isn't the disk checker. it is most likely a dos based app or maybe the installer but definitely not the disk checker or a bsod.

sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:Moral of the story:

[Glass of Water]

The AC has wisdom. Listen to the AC.

Re:Moral of the story:

[rusko]

it is not a 'disk checker' screen, the dean still uses ms-dos and edit, because his 386 cant pull win 3.1

paul

Crackers to Support Governments?

[POds]

I know what these people have done has an over-all BAD feeling. But these guys obviously have an interest in it, and they obviously have a certain skill. Could governments start to hire these known hackers to defend themselfs...

I mean, generaly, when interest and skills are combined, you get a good result. And by nature, i dont think these guys were really that bad.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[Dylan2000]

1. You are trolling. You know it, I know it, the mods don't know it.

2. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1989. After 1989 there was no USSR, no repressive govt, no torture chambers for subversives or whatever else you might be implying.

So that was 11 years before this story took place and these crackers were 24 and 19 years old.

The repressive state they were 'a product of' ceased to exist when these boys were 13 and 8.

Nice troll, but next time use something a bit less obvious, ok?

The article fails to mention...

[httpamphibio.us]

...if the crackers taste any good or not.

"commercial competition"

[deliasee]

As one of the Russian authorities pointed out, it basically boils down to "commercial competition" between the two countries. The disparity in our economies is manifested in the lack of law enforcement in Russia. People who have no other options use what they've got, and countries with bigger problems than a couple of their citizens trying to make some money (albeit illegally) have their hands tied. I think the more interesting question is how to resolve the problem in a manner that would help both sides; is the answer simply stamping out these people's skills and livelihoods?

Re:"commercial competition"

[21mhz]

Don't blame Russian socioeconomic situation for these guys' deeds. There are lots of IT workers in Russia, and I assure you they don't have to turn to crime in order to sustain themselves. Granted, the circumstances for these two guys might have been dire, but they deliberately preferred criminal activity to, oh horror, going broke and starting to seek another opportunity.

Re:"commercial competition"

[benzapp]

In many ways, it reminds of the American government basically refusing to enforce English copyrights in the 19th century. That was certainly commercial rivalry, but that whole revolution thing may play a part.

Re:"commercial competition"

[stevenp]

There are several sucessful software companies in Russia, this and this come to mind. The first one writes antivirus software, the second one office and OCR tools.
It is possible to develop competetive software and make money in Russia, even maybe a little bit easyer than in the west, because most software developers are quite happy with 500 USD per month (this is 6000 USD per year!). The software can be delivered electronically to the clients so the company has much smaller expenses than a similar US company.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[Gothmolly]

The sad thing is that you think that this is a troll, and that everything magically changed post-1989.

The indivduals who prepetuate the act

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go off on one of the common, "it's all our own fault for causing the rest of the world so much pain."

Wheter or not we (as in the United States, or any group there-in) don't live up to our own standards is irelavant to others actions. *Everyone* must be held accountable for what they do.

The only motavation for terrorism is the will to cause terror.

Organization

[vinlud]

The tech.net.ru computers were meticulously organized to make the crimes as efficient as possible, investigators said. Each victim's information was kept in its own file; the hacking programs were placed in a folder labeled "badstuff."

How meticulously organized!!
Must be evil hackers!

Re:We still fighting the "Hacker" vs "Cracker" war

[CurbyKirby]

Some of us are. Realistically speaking, usage dictates meaning. If everyone else in the world is going to think of hackers as malicious intruders, then so be it. Languages change over time, and computer jargon should be no different.

I'm sure some people will fight for using the "correct terms." They are probably also zealots for their favorite text editor or Linux distro. I don't mind that they do it, but I won't do it myself.

Fight the battles worth fighting for. Leave the H/Cr battle for someone else.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[CaptainFrito]

Frederic Bastiat detailed quite clearly what "legal plunder" is in his classic treatise "The Law". It applies to every government I've every tested it against. And, unless I misread those stories, the FBI lied, cheated, and cracked their way to "justice". Nice. Try substituting American names for the Russion ones, "Russia" for "America" and "KGB" for "FBI" and see if you still feel the same way.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since I switched over to Linux, I've had nothing but problems. My girlfriend left me, my dog died, the pet rock ran away and people look at me strangely.

Damn you Linux!

FBI investigative methods

[asmithmd1]

It wasn't too hard to figure out who was responsible

Ivanov was so bold he sometimes sent his résumé -- and even photos -- to prove that he was a serious security consultant. The documents listed his home phone number and detailed his previous experience

I wonder if they could have tracked him down if he didn't send them his contact info

Short Version

[bryanp]

He starts a business with the Best of Intentions.

Local crime bosses go after him for protection money. "Hey, nice server you got dere. Be a shame if sumtin' happened to it."

His employee suggests they raise the protection money by breaking in to American sites, steal CC #'s etc.. and offer to return the stolen data (?) and tell them how they did it. Raise protection money with protection money.

"Hey, the FBI can't get us here. We're in Russia, not Wisconsin."

FBI proves them wrong.

No, I don't feel sorry for them. They're criminals. Send them to Federal pound-me-in-the-ass Prison.

Re:Short Version

[skarmor]

Actually the russians were were right, as long as they stayed in Russia they FBI couldn't do anything to them. Thats why the FBI had to lure them to the States.

Re:Short Version

[Anonymous Coward]

No one deserves to be raped. Shame on you for suggesting it.

Re:Short Version

[Kyn]

Rapists deserve it. An eye for an eye and all that.

Re:Short Version

[Lost Engineer]

I don't think he was implying that they deserve to be raped. Maybe he was just trying to say that they deserve to go to prison, where they will likely be raped. Maybe it was even a subtle criticism of the prison system.

keyloggers

[markov_chain]

I like this snippet:

Unbeknownst to Gorshkov and Ivanov, the agents had installed onto the "company's" computers a program that logged the young men's keystrokes as they were accessing the tech.net.ru systems in Russia. That allowed U.S. law enforcement to obtain the hackers' passwords.

0wned by FBI's keylogger, har har!

Re:keyloggers

[HughJampton]

I don't know why, the phrase "young men's keystrokes" seems somehow.... hmmmm....

Blame Lenin, Stalin, and Co.

[SuperMario666]

If by "True Patriot" you are satirically indicting the "great patriots" of recent Russian history (ie communists) as most responsible for my nation's current economic difficulties then I salute you for astuteness. Otherwise, I shall just assume that like most of your Western ilk, you are simply naive, spoilt, and underinformed.

A frequent misconception

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, anyone damaged by cybercrime must prove that they were harmed to the tune of 5 thousand dollars to get the FBI involved:

"S. 2092 significantly adjusts the $5,000 threshold and other provisions in the current law by:

Read up. You can think of this as the "Fyodor cap", i.e., the threshold of damages under which Fyodor can attack your computer while immune to prosecution.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[Dylan2000]

No, everything didn't magically change. What did change, however, is all the conditions you just mentioned.

"...a repressive State where people were State property, and property rights didn't exist, where the Might made Right, where Need justified any excess or brutality, and where a class of "looters by law and criminals by right" was created."

That changed.

I'm not sure what your point might have been, but everything you said about this society, whether "magically" or not, certainly did change, and you know that as well as I do. I don't believe you're trolling anymore, but I'm really not sure what you are trying to say..?

"commercial competiton" = "theft"

[SuperMario666]

How would you feel if some ghetto denizen wandered into your gated suburb, then proceeded to wander back out with your computer?

Is that just "commercial competition" or is it just theft, plain and simple?

Bank robbers, burglars, Enron execs, these Russian crackers - what do they all have in common? They steal things and as far as I'm concerned stealing is and should remain wrong.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[theLOUDroom]

2. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1989. After 1989 there was no USSR, no repressive govt, no torture chambers for subversives or whatever else you might be implying.
...
The repressive state they were 'a product of' ceased to exist when these boys were 13 and 8.


While the USSR no longer exists, it would be silly to think that everything that it had done was magically undone the day it ceased to be.

I suggest you take a trip to Berlin, stand at Checkpoint Charlie (or anywhere else along the wall), look left and look right.

I did this last Spring, on Spring Break. It's a very powerful experience. I was too young to understand the full implications of what was happening when the wall fell, but today I realize that the effects of the USSR live on and will for quite some time.

Whether or not the grandparent post was trolling, it's resonable to consider the USSR's effects on the people it controlled. It made a lasting impression on many societies.


Think about this one: How long did it take after abolition for the status of blacks in America to change? Where those born 20 years after abolition, able to live their lives blissfully unware that it had ever happened?

Maybe societies don't change instantly, even if you'd like to think so. If you want an example of this in relation to the topic at hand, I suggest you do a search on the word "propiska."

Here's a link from about a month ago.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[axxackall]

After 1989 there was no USSR, no repressive govt

Really? How do you know that?

You heard many stories as russian mafia groups kill some of each other when they devide something. But also there are many cases when russian politicians are killed for no economical reason. Often after demanding of investigation of activity of official russian security services.

There was a repression of soviet communists before 1989, not it's a repression of russian mafia, which is a huge iceberg, and a top of it is a Russian Goverment.

By the way, do you know where most of communists gone? Nowhere! They sit in same chairs in the same rooms. They just changed the sign on the door of their office.

And speaking of a repressive state, most of russians think that the current goverment is doing a genocide of the own people. It's the same as it was in Camboja, just it's better organized in order to prevent any international sanctions.

Slashvertisement for the FBI?

[j-turkey]

as well as the competence and effectiveness of the FBI in combatting cybercrime.

This is the first time I've ever heard a /. editor offer such praise for the FBI...ever.

Could this possibly be a Slashvertisement for the FBI?

--Turkey

Re:Slashvertisement for the FBI?

[Rick.C]

The /. editor had to wipe the sarcasm off his keyboard after he typed the article.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[skarmor]

It's true that the repressive, corrupt Communist institutions "disappeared" after 1989. However, Russia has continued to have problems throughout the nineties and into the present. Many Party members were quick to take advantage of the new political reality in Russia, aligning themselves with the new democratic parties for personal gain. Corruption runs rampant in Russia, might still makes right, need continues to justify excess and brutality (see the Russian mafia)and the "looters by law" continue to operate under a different guise. I think this is what he's trying to say.

Am I the only one who noticed that...

[LeoDV]

The Washington Post calls them hackers and their activities hacking, while /. rightfully used the word cracker? I emailed them a slightly different version of RMS' letter you can find in the Jargon file (Appendix C). I've got no illusions about how effective it'll be, but I still feel it's something we should do more.

Re:Am I the only one who noticed that...

[greygent]

Actually, you're wrong.

The term "cracker" was pushed in the recent past by the OSI movement in their efforts to distinguish "kernel hackers" from "system hackers". But long before this misinformation arose, it was "hacker".

Unfortunately, due to an aggressive revisionist campaign by ESR, Slashdot, and others, they want you to use their term and have wrongly confused a lot of people (like you).

Re:Am I the only one who noticed that...

[LeoDV]

Of course I don't have first hand information, but I'm under the impression that the term "hacker" was coined in the 60's at MIT when they were screwing around with PDP computers, and was used in (so-called) hacker circles to refer to what the Jargon file describes as hackers until the term was hijacked by mainstream media.

I know cracker technically only refers to a certain technique of security breaking (as opposed to say, phreaking) and was later broadened to security breakers in general, if that's what you meant.

Re:Am I the only one who noticed that...

[greygent]

See above.

In underground circles long before ESR started his revisionist campaign, "crackers" referred to people who cracked software copy protection schemes.

Hackers were "security breakers" as you say. This is why we have 2600: The Hacker's Quarterly, and terms such as HPAV (Hacking, Phreaking, Anarchy, Virus). History lends a much different picture than the one OSI folks are trying to push on us.

Re:Am I the only one who noticed that...

[Bob Uhl]

Those self-described `hackers' of the 80s were just that: self-described. They were kiddie who wanted to be like their betters, the real hackers, who were non-malicious programmers. The word `hacker' was first used in computing circles to mean, well, a hacker--only later was it corrupted by puerile crackers and a lackwit media.

More than the crackers ....

[losttoy]

.... its the *customers* who suck more. How long will you keep chasing random crackers?? If you can't secure your systems you deserve a Gorshkov and Ivanov. Duh!!! Companies getting into e-commerce without proper security!!! If the hackers don't extort millions from them, the customers and shareholders should sue them for those millions for ill-keeping confidential information.

My favorite quote for the lazy :

[aepervius]

U.S.-based attacks triggered nearly half (49%) of all the events in the 4th quarter. The U.S.-based events were not included in this study because they constituted such a large portion of the dataset and because the main focus of the study was on socioeconomic, political, and geographic patterns in the data. In order to better understand and predict the sources and nature of future attacks, data was col- lected and parsed for non-U.S. originating events.

In other word, if you want to stop piracy and hacking, shut down the most [cyber]terrorist country : ther U.S.

Re:My favorite quote for the lazy :

[sean23007]

Non US-based attacks constituted over half (51%) of all the events in the 4th quarter. This is indisputible evidence that if we want to stop piracy, hacking, and terrorism, the United States needs to subjugate all those other countries, here referred to as The Rest Of The World, and put them under our military command (like we're not doing to a country that will go nameless...

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Re:Figures

[ePhil_One]

Maybe because most hackers are crackers? Nobody seems to hack a webpage to advocate the funk music or hip-hop lifestyle -- it's always about cracker type things.

I don't even know what you are talking about. A cracker is pretty much by definition also a hacker, but a hacker is generally someone who experiments with computers as a hobby. Which means almost all of Linux was written by hackers. Drivers that were written without the aid of the manufacturers were "hacked". The current environment of equating hackers with "bad" is media nonsense.

From Meriam Webster:

4 a : to write computer programs for enjoyment b : to gain access to a computer illegally

Not so black and white....

[pragueexpat]

I've been reading this story with interest, since I'm American, currently living in Prague, and recently visited Ukraine (OK, not Russia, but economically similar). The mafia is all over that place, and I have no doubt that these kids were being hassled for "protection money". Many homes in Russia do not even have hot water, so you can't think of this place as you would a western democracy - the people do anything to survive. Now, of course, this is no excuse for criminal behavior. However, I keep thinking - isn't it better that these guys are finding the cracks in your system and telling you about them, instead of just stealing all the credit card info and causing much more damage to your business in bad publicity and pissing off customers? This is really a catch-22. As a business owner, of course I don't want to encourage blackmail. But having vulnerabilities on your business site is YOUR problem and its better that you're told about them before someone else takes advantage. I would rather pay someone and find out about vulnerabilities than have someone else steal all my info and ruin my business reputation. Of course, these guys could just keep coming back for more money every month if they already have my CC#s and info. In that case, your server's vulnerability has cost you big time. Sorry, I don't have a good answer to this, but let's not let the business owners off the hook because they are being blackmailed from people who found mistakes in THEIR OWN servers. To sum up: Blackmail=BAD, businesses that don't secure their systems=ALSO BAD.

Re:Not so black and white....

[tealover]

I noticed that too (the $1,000 cell phone). I think these guys know how to make themselves look pitiful but in reality they are just criminals.

It's a shame because if they channeled their talents, they could probably do something really productive with their lives.

Re:Not so black and white....

[3Bees]

pragueexpat stated:

and recently visited Ukraine (OK, not Russia, but economically similar). The mafia is all over that place, and I have no doubt that these kids were being hassled for "protection money"

I beg to differ. Russia and Ukraine are very different in terms of economic and political situations. Ukraine has been totally looted by their political elite. There is no infrastructure left to mention at all. Ukraine is also a primarily agricultural country that has little industial presence at all (what there is is mostly located along the Polish border). Russia has been looted as well, but has (to a large degree) begun to return to a steady footing. They still have their infrastructure, and have an enormous industrial base. They also have an extremely educated populace.

None of this addresses your main points, but it is also important to note that Ukraine has varying amounts of criminal presence depending upon which cities you examine. The western cities have a large criminal populace as they have made their livelihood for decades off of smuggling goods from Europe through Poland (well, for centuries depending on how loosely you interpret history). This has, of course, engendered an enormous black market. Same goes for the black sea areas (especially Odessa) that smuggle goods to and from Turkey (notable quantities of drugs and prostitutes). Odessa also has been a traditional center of organized crime, even before the break up of the Soviet Union.

Re:Not so black and white....

[Reservoir Penguin]

Thank you for your post. I'm russian working for and IT firm. Racketeering mostly belongs to the early-mid 90s. WE still have to pay bribes to various municiapl controlling agencies like fire department and health department tho.

Re:cowboyneal...

[bonderachi]

mod this up! don't you folks remember the security poll? i'll bet the idiot moderators smugly use qmail. seriously - you moderators are complete morons.

Competence?? What Competence?

[losttoy]

Except now he makes sure to check the FBI's most-wanted list every few weeks and avoids leaving the country. Just in case.

Looks like FBI goofed up. Now all crackers would be wary of any job offers from US and will definitely not travel to US. They can be safe in the *laws* of their own countries and mint money. Not so smart on the part of FBI after all.

Re:We still fighting the "Hacker" vs "Cracker" war

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some problems with the ESR shove-it-down-our-throats "correct" term.

When I was growing up, a "cracker" was a person who wrote code to "crack" copyright protection on (Amiga) computer games. A "hacker" was a close kin of the phreaker, and bypassed security on computer systems.

Considering that "crackers" are still around (though they've moved from the Amiga to the PC it seems), what do you call crackers if hackers are called crackers?

Hmmm... Economics.

[paja]

This is just plain stupid. Connecting hacking with economical situation in any country is going nowhere. There are some countries, where You have to know what's going on before You start a company. And a bunch of guys living in such conditions should know about it.

Just a rule of thumb: running a small family bussines in Eastern Europe means keeping it low. If You don't want to, just be sure You are big enough to face consequences.

Re:Hmmm... Economics.

[botzi]

...running a small family bussines in Eastern Europe means keeping it low.If You don't want to, just be sure You are big enough to face consequences.

So truth and so difficult to realize for someone who's never been in some(not ANY) part(s) of EE...... I'd just add that it stands for the "non-family" business as well....

South Korea?

[TheMidget]

Top of the list (after the US...): South Korea

Now, I really wonder how many of these so-called South Korea attacks where really originatin from there, rather than just using an open proxy located in South Korea. Personnally, whenever I go after an annoying spammer's broken .asp scripts, I always use a proxy (or several of them, chained together). And South Korea just has so much choice there. Russia has quite a number of open proxies as well, and makes for a quite convincing point of origin too!

guh?

[delmoi]

Only the most amateur hackers would be stopped by using Linux rather then M$ software. Sure it's theoreticaly possible to connect a machine 'naked' to the internet, it will probably be insecure. Linux, Windows, or whatever. The proper way to setup a 'secure' network is to use whatever you want and put it behind a good firewall proxy (of course, you'll need to make sure any web-based systems are secure as well)

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Lord, shut up already! We know you'd like to be called "crackers" instead of hackers, just like you'd rather be called Trekkers instead of Trekkies. But wake up! IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! This nickname was bestowed upon a group by the general public, you can't decide to change it "just because", it is a part of culture, and contrary to your own personal belief, YOU ARE NOT A JEDI KNIGHT! This isn't a light side vs. dark side thing, it's just a case of people who hack for fun wanting to pretend they are samuri or some shit.

The name of cracker has already been taken anyway, it refers to a white man.

Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[reynolds_john]

I hope these guys get the chair. Seriously. My wife and I are *very* careful online, and in all purchases - even so far as shredding all information before it goes into the trash.

The last two weeks we've had identity/credit theft again.. the second time within a year. Let me tell you first hand, this is NO fun. I spoke with our Credit Union representative about this - she stated that members are being hit with this almost nonstop, and it only shows signs of getting worse. Even better, now (she stated) they have perfected forging other things like money orders and the like, which is on the rise as well.

This hacking sounds "interesting" up to the point you've lived through it first hand. Now, I just want these guys caught and put away. However, the responsibility doesn't simply rest on their shoulders. Visa and other Banks should have the pants sued off them for giving the public such a laugh of security in the form of credit cards. Why lawsuits? Because once you hit their precious pocketbooks, they will finally take this stuff seriously. If the public truly understood the depth of how laughable the security is, I think they would experience mass account closures almost overnight.

The ease of use of these things is apalling. Heck, once they have a number, how hard is it to get the rest of the data like address and phone? What a laugh.

People - protect yourselves. I'm looking more into this: [Private Payments]
as a method of protecting my primary cards. If anyone else has suggestions, please let me know.

Re:Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[botzi]

I hope these guys get the chair. Seriously.

I hope that you're not so serious, but if you're - poor you, and happy living in your personal small little world.
I'm not the one who's gonna defend the "economic" crimes, but why don't we leave "the chair" for mass murderers(although that nobody deserves it;oP) and not for information thieves????
Ohhh... and I hope YANAL ;oP

The ease of use of these things is apalling. Heck, once they have a number, how hard is it to get the rest of the data like address and phone? What a laugh.

Well, yeah... its all thieves fault that their job seems so "easy"....

Re:Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with Botzi. Just the idea of giving someone the chair over something like this is insane. Thats the problem with America anymore, many here are too eager to murder another person.

No other country has as severe penalties as we do for crime. Its more like the land of Injustice. Even the Bible says "Thou shall not kill". It can't be any plainer than that.

The punishments in America are the reason why our jails are so overcrowded. Instead of getting people help, we just lock them up.

Re:Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[reynolds_john]

Yeah, I am living in my own personal world, just like we all are. Don't take the "chair" comment so seriously. You're more likely to get more time for downloading some silly song on a P2P than hacking American companies.

I can't pretend to completely understand their plight. However, I work as hard for my $$ just as they did. I don't "deserve" to have it stolen just because I have a better living status. The world is full of inequalities, or *perceived* inequalities. Heck, I think it's unfair that many people have millions, while I struggle in middle class. This is the age-old argument that crime from strife and plight make right. It wasn't that they couldn't put food on their table doing something legitimate - it's that they CHOSE to do illegal activities in order to make a quick dollar.

And... as I stated earlier, the theives are not the only ones at fault. Those who make it so easy to circumvent are too (i.e. banks, etc.)

Re:Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[botzi]

>>Don't take the "chair" comment so seriously.

Assumed so... otherwise, I totally agree that a severe punishment is necessary... just not "chair"-eqaul severe;oP....

Re:Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[mrogers]

Visa and other Banks should have the pants sued off them for giving the public such a laugh of security in the form of credit cards.

If credit cards are so bad that someone should be sued for creating them, why do you use them? Let me guess: because it's convenient? While it's certainly inconvenient to live without a credit card in the US, since they're often used as a form of ID, it really isn't difficult to avoid USING your credit card.

You're trying to shift the blame for your own laziness onto a company that offered to make your life easier, but actually made it more complicated. SURPRISE: Most of the things that companies claim will make your life simpler, actually make it more complicated. If you desire a simple life, it is occasionally necessary NOT TO USE ALL THE SERVICES OFFERED TO YOU BY CORPORATIONS. If you decide to use a service anyway, when you know from personal experience that it will complicate your life, you should not blame anyone but yourself.

Re:Recently experienced the joy of credit thef...

[Kintanon]

Wow. I'm pretty fast and loose with my CC info online and I've never been bothered by fraud of any kind. I'm still more worried (Which is to say, slightly worried) about some pissed off waiter snagging my CC info than I am about someone stealing it online.

Kintanon

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[BigBadBri]

Personally, I don't think he is trolling.

The reason?

After the fall of the communist state, the land-grab for political and economic power in the former Soviet Union was won for the most part by criminals and criminal organisations. The systems were never put in place to foster a proper civic society, so the outcome was that a sort of libertarian anarchy prevailed, where criminal activity (including murder, protection rackets, etc.) was par for the course.

The post doesn't state that it is communism that was responsible for the actions of these lads - it can easily be read to mean that the socioeconomic conditions were so bad because of the abrupt collapse of communism and the lack of an adequate civic society to succeed it.

Take a look at the articles, and look where a lot of the stolen money went. Cyprus and Israel are two of the Russian Mafia's favourite places for laundering / stashing ill gotten gains.

Guess what! It's all Ronnie Reagan's fault!

Favourite Quote

[CmdrGravy]

"Morgenstern, meanwhile, was conflicted. He didn't want to pay any extortion fee but he was determined not to let the hackers ruin his company's reputation either. He was worried that news of even a minor break-in might spook customers. After all, E-Money was built on trust."

Obviously criminals are bad etc, etc but if Morgenstern is running as he says a business that is built on trust and hasn't bothered to safeguard the security of his customers then he really is getting what he deserves. In many ways he should count himself lucky these people have actually told him about his problems and not just spent their time ripping him off on a daily basis without his knowledge. The fact he is then willing to spend $1 million on, by the sounds of it, rebuilding his entire infrastructure shows just how dodgy it must have been in the first place.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[BigBadBri]

Of course it's OK - you wouldn't want the Russian Mafia to get it's hands on that $200 billion, would you?

That money is far better off in the West, where it can be put to work usefully, rather than being used to support gangsters.

Besides, looting hundreds of billions is what western financial institutions do best - look at the complicity of various merchant banks in the Enron collapse. If that isn't looting, I don't know what is.

What is Illegal These Days?

[ryryslide]

Now I understand that these crackers used a ton of illegal credit cards. What I want to know is, is it illegal to go to a company and say, we have found some problems with the security of your system and we were wondering if you would be interested in paying us to fix them. Now I'm not talking about releasing all of their customer credit cards if they don't comply... I'm talking about just asking for money to fix a problem. Is that illegal?

Parent should be modded up

[Hobbex]

What kind of a barberous place has America turned into, when people getting raped as part of their imprisonment is considered not only acceptable (a ha-ha-ha standing joke for Letterman and Leno) but desireable?

What other humiliating physical violence do we think criminals should be subjected to? Should the women get raped as well? Maybe this should be institutionalized, so we can be sure that all inmates get raped and violated in equal measure?

Re:Parent should be modded up

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone whos friend received a VD while spending only a few years in prison for a relatively minor crime, a painful disease that HE HAS TO LIVE WITH FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, I agree wholeheartedly with the parent poster. That prison rape is considered acceptable or funny is truly disgusting.

No sympathy for them

[Brother52]

There's absolutely NO PROBLEM getting a decent computer job in Russia, if you're any good. Decent programming skills will earn you enough to live on in virtually any city that's not small (Chelyabinsk is big). I'm a Russian, so I guess I know what I'm talking about.

There's just that kind of people who are reasonably smart, but with ambitions far outweighting their creative abilities. These often become crackers. Living conditions just don't matter here.

As to mafia demanding "protection money" - I really don't see it happening to a company that is barely afloat and works fully within the law. There're just lots of better targes. So I guess this was a consequence, not the cause.

Mod troll accusers down.

[theLOUDroom]

Funny, I haven't seen any evidence that Fyodor did anything more than connect to an open X server on the public internet, that some poor troll left open. Where's the proof that he ever did anything that was actually illegal? (Actually, I haven't seen proof of him even doing anything at all.)

When you're accusing someone of a crime you typically want to have proof.

You also don't want to be someone that goes around posting fraudulent information.

Since this whole thing starts off with the troll admitting the he lied about who he was, he's destroyed his own credibility. I mean what's to say all these accusations aren't a troll as well?

You have provided no (functional) links to anything but a couple of troll's journals. Where the hell are the links to where Fyodor brags about all this?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

dead horse beats YOU!

Re:We still fighting the "Hacker" vs "Cracker" war

[Monkeyman334]

It's ignorance, plain and simple. The biggest computer experts, authorities, like ESR are saying that "hacking" is the wrong term. Looking at the history of hackers, he's right. So I think it makes sense for people to try and stop ignorance. Look at Paul McFedries and wordspy, yeah, google means to "search the internet", BS. The term google was not used before google came around, and people started using google to mean search google because it was the search engine you'd use to get the best results. He says he's just reporting on the usage, but why doesn't he add "alot" to the dictionary, I see that all the time. Oh wait, because it's wrong and shouldn't be used. So we're fighting ignorance here. Although choosing whether or not to give up on it is a value decision and up to you.

Re:We still fighting the "Hacker" vs "Cracker" war

[eddy the lip]

Funny thing, back in the day (my day - think Apple IIs and TRS-80s) we called anyone who mucked around in networks "hackers" (and it didn't occur to most of us that this could be malicious - you're just looking, right?). "Crackers" cracked copy protection and brought Tai Pan and Battlezone to the masses.

Maybe it's a geographical thing.

Identity Theft

[veg_all]

Take mine,...please.

(don't mind the outstanding student loans)

Parent should be modded down

[Bob Uhl]

Boo-hoo-hoo. So several of our states allow capital punishment. Certain crimes merit capital punishment. E.g. the Floridian recently executed: he slew a man, his pregnant wife, their children and ripped the child from her womb and mutilated him. I suppose the `enlightened' thing to do would be to feed and clothe him for the rest of his life?

Go to the Texas death row site and state that those crimes don't deserve death. Bruce Jacobs, executed on Thursday, broke into a home and stabbed a 16 year old boy to death in 1986 in front of the kid's parents. Roger Vaughn, executed on the sixth of this month, raped and strangled a 66 year old woman in 1991. John Chavez, executed in April, shot and killed a man for that man's wallet. And so on and so forth.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Abcd1234]

Oh please... the fact is, killing another human being is murder. Period. Try to justify it all you want, but if there is no valid reason for a one person to kill another (self defense doesn't apply in this case, since the state is certainly not defending itself), then there is no morally consistent way to argue that the state should, in fact, have the power to kill a human being.

Basically, what you're advocating is state-sponsored vengeance. Well, sorry, I completely disagree with that... the law isn't about vengeance. It's about justice, and I don't believe that justice can be had by committing a second crime to "balance the scales". Of course, given the US mentality toward "justice", it doesn't surprise me that this is the prevailing belief. The fact that you believe certain crimes "merit" death is even more frightening, given the arbitrary nature of the determination (yet another key issue regarding the DP, IMHO).

Incidentally, I call capital punishment "vengeance" because it has no basis as a valid form of punishment. It doesn't deter crime (just look at the capital crime rates for Texas and Florida) and, clearly, it doesn't reform the criminals (kinda hard to reform when you're dead). Moreover, the significant possibility of mistrial (ever read "To Kill A Mocking Bird"... a book far too topical today, given the racial bias in death penalty sentences), or simply a wrong verdict, makes capital punishment FAR too dangerous. After all, it's a little difficult to take back if you made a mistake...

Incidentally, the response to "mod parent down" because you didn't like what I had to say speaks much to clearly about the state of things in the US. Better to suppress an unpopular opinion than have to listen to something you disagree with, eh?

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Bob Uhl]

Oh please...the fact is, killing another human being is murder. Period.

I don't disagree: it is murder to kill a man for his wallet; murder to kill a man for killing a man for his wallet; murder to kill a man in self defense. In each case one has slain a fellow human being, and in each case one's soul is stained. And yet there is a difference. All murder is wrong--but not all murder is equally wrong. In fact, as with many things, sometimes it is necessary to do one wrong thing rather than another. It is better to kill a man than let him kill one; it is better to starve to death (and thus kill oneself) than to kill another man for food; and it is better to kill certain criminals than to let them live.

We live in a fallen world, and sometimes we must do a little wrong rather than allow a yet worse wrong to take place. Why should slaying another be a ticket to free room, board and clothing for life? What sort of perverse incentive does that set up? Why should raping and murdering a ten year old be unpunished (in comparison to the crime, in several ways life isn't punishment)?

For that matter, why don't you also consider fines and imprisonment vengeance? They are, after all: that's what punishment is. It's not to change behaviour; it's certainly not to deter other criminals (although both those may be salutory side-effects). Punishment is applying the appropriate consequence to the commitor of a crime--which is to say, it's vengeance. For some crimes it means stealing his money; for others it means taking his liberty; for yet other it means taking his life.

Incidentally, the `you can't give it back' argument doesn't ring true: nor can you give back a man the years in prison he spends. In fact, I consider it rather less humane to keep a man in prison for forty years instead of killing him quickly.

Regarding the possibility of false conviction: that is present in any system of punishment possible. We do our absolute best to prevent it from happening: indeed every aspect of our system is meant to ensure that the innocent man has a chance, even at the risk that the guilty man might walk free. Yes, innocent men are fined; yes, innocent men are imprisoned; and yes, innocent men are executed. That's unavoidable. But we keep that number as low as humanly possible.

Incidentally, the response to "mod parent down" because you didn't like what I had to say speaks much to[sic] clearly about the state of things in the US. Better to suppress an unpopular opinion than have to listen to something you disagree with, eh?

Why not mod you down? You're wrong--while you certainly have the right to write as you will (and others have the right to read you, if they will), the whole basis of moderation is that some folks find some opinions are less worth reading than others, and that yet others are willing to abide by said finding. A post which derides the death penalty (and hence implicitly argues an absurd point, that it's better to coddle malefactors than punish them), and which argues that Americans would logically support rape as a form of punishment, is simply not worth reading, or wasting bandwidth to transmit, unless the reader is bound-and-determined to read nonsense, as is his right.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Dread_ed]

"it doesn't reform the criminals"

Not much does. You should take a nice close look at the subject of criminality before you extemporaneously state your emotional position as basis for how the real world "should" work.

The mental basis for criminality is a complete rejection of all authority save that of the criminal himself. Many times this mental attitude leads to psychosis. Generally, criminals do not want to change. In fact, many of them feel that they are morally superior to people who attend church, work real jobs, and have normal lives. Trying to reform someone who holds the reformer in such contempt is impossible without resorting to methods that you would, I am sure, find detestable(my turnt to reference a popular work: see "A Clockwork Orange")

Education, in most cases, results in well-read criminals. Psychotherapy results in criminals who learn to fake the psychologist's "steps to recovery." The plain truth is that "reform" is a crock of krap 99% of the time.

Remember that criminals choose to be criminals. They are not forced to be criminals.

The fact that the death penalty is, in your opinion, not a deterrent to crime is twofold. One, if it was applied more often and more expediently it would definitely be much more effective of a deterrent.

Two, it is the sole responsibility of the judicial system to deter criminals. The manner and effect of punnishment is the only deterrent to criminality. See one above.

In other words, if you go easy on criminals, if you try to practice sociology from the bench, or allow criminals to be set free before their terms are completed you are encouraging crime.

The only way to ensure that criminals are deterred from future crime is by punishing them harshly and mercilessly. Crime itself is unfair, harsh, and merciless, sometimes even senseless, why shouldn't the punishment be as well?

An analogy of sorts: If a prize winning German Shepherd decides one day, after many long years of harmonious interaction with humans, that it is going to maul a child, the animal will be immediately put to death.

Now, compare the mentality and socialization of the dog to the mentality and socialization of the human.

Who is more responsible, a dog or a man?

If we kill the dog, who may not be fully responsible for the action because of instinct, and who certainly is not cognizant of morality of humanity in his frame of reference, why should we tolerate someone to live who KNOWS that human life is valuable, that killing is not only wrong, but that it carries the possibility of death as punnishment.

Why the fuck should someone get to live if they disrespect law, liberty, property and society so much that they feel that the motivations, thoughts, conventions, and morals of the rest of us are so contemptable that they can violate anyone or any thing at any time based solely on their whim?

The criminal acts like an animal, so why not treat him like one?

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Bob Uhl]

Why not mod you down?...

I apologise for that--it was quite nasty. Really, the reason I changed the title was more as humour than as aught else. I was snarky at the end of my post, and did not exercise the self-control I should have. Sorry.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Abcd1234]

Now this is a more interesting discussion. :)

Not much does. You should take a nice close look at the subject of criminality before you extemporaneously state your emotional position as basis for how the real world "should" work.

Actually, my statement had little to do with the way the world "should" work. My argument is more logically and morally based than anything (in the philosophical, rather than Bush-style rhetoric, sense of the word ;)... 'course, one could argue that morals are relative, but... :)

Anyway, when selecting a form of punishment for a criminal, one should examine the justification for the sentence (why we use the forms of punishment we do). There are primarily two ways to argue this. The first is based around the idea of deterrence; we institute a form of punishment based on the idea that it will deter others from committing a crime. Of course, it's not so cut and dried as that... you first look at what extent capital punishment deters crime deters crime (which, in its current incarnation, does not) and whether or not other methods (early intervention, other types of punishment, etc) may be equally effective (looking at other nations where, for example, murder rates are far lower, I'd say this is true). You also have to consider the benefits (amount of deterrence) against the drawbacks. In this case, you have the (not insignificant) potential for innocent people being put to death. I would suggest this single drawback is enough to invalidate the DP, although there are others (mostly based on moral arguments... I'll stick to the empirical ones, though). Of course, this all depends on whether you agree that one innocent life is a fine price to pay for "justice"...

The second primary argument is based on retributivism... you know, "an eye for an eye" and all that. Does the punishment bring peace to the victims (my own impression is "no", but this is intuitive... I'd love evidence, one way or the other)? This side is, I think, a little more difficult to argue, one way or the other, because it depends on your beliefs (fe, I disagree with the concept of "vengeance" as a basis for the justice system).

Education, in most cases, results in well-read criminals. Psychotherapy results in criminals who learn to fake the psychologist's "steps to recovery." The plain truth is that "reform" is a crock of krap 99% of the time.

Care to back this up? You're assuming all criminals who are given the death penalty are either clinically sociopathic (they feel they are superior, not beholden to the rules/values of society, etc) or a lost cause for whatever reason, and then using this as a basis for your whole argument. But this is clearly nothing more than a generalization...

The fact that the death penalty is, in your opinion, not a deterrent to crime is twofold.

Actually, this has little to do with "[my] opinion". Just look at the violent crime rates for Texas and Florida. Are the numbers lower than adjacent states? No! So clearly there's something wrong here... the DP doesn't seem to be doing its job.

One, if it was applied more often and more expediently it would definitely be much more effective of a deterrent.

Hmm... but this argument doesn't hold with the drug war. Quicker, more expedient trials and longer jail sentences has done nothing to deter people from using drugs. So why would more frequent use of the death penalty make a difference. After all, you said it yourself, these people are sociopaths... it seems unlikely that they would actually be deterred, especially considering it doesn't even deter regular, moral individuals.

Two, it is the sole responsibility of the judicial system to deter criminals. The manner and effect of punnishment is the only deterrent to criminality. See one above.

Actually, your second point has nothing to do with whether the DP is a deterrant to crime, but I digress...

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Abcd1234]

Not really... the criminal has been captured (he must have been, you're about to kill him). He's no longer a threat to society, as he's now jailed (the jailing of the criminal is, really, the act of self-defense).

Remember, in general, the self-defense argument requires that the person be in imminent danger. I wouldn't say this is the case with an imprisoned convict.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Reservoir Penguin]

Murder is not unique to the US, yet most developed and many developing countries have abolished dp. I live in Russia and I'm proud that we did it 3 years ago. Killing a defesnless person 20 years after the crime took place has nothing to do with punishement its revenge plain and simple.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Dread_ed]

***DISCLAIMER AND WAIVER***

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. Please take no offense at the things I say. If I come off a little over-the-top it is because my opinions are very strong with regard to this subject.

"My argument is more logically and morally based than anything"

Let's take this one in order. The logic you state can be argued both ways. A simple basic argument in logic would go something like this: A person has life, someone takes it thereby incurring a debt of 1 "life." They must therefore forfeit their life to satisfy the debt. Society collects the debt through the instrument of the justice system so that "vengeance" is not the motivation. Vengeance is PERSONAL and subjectively applied...the justice system is impersonal and is applied with objectivity and impartiality. The criminal knows the penalty before they commit the crime. With vengeance you never know what you will get.

Now look at the "moral" part. What is morality? The OED says it is a system of right and wrong. More specifically it is a system of conventions that ensure freedom, liberty, property, and life. It is circular to argue that DP is immoral because people define morality differently. Just like war is not murder, and self defense is not murder, so the death penalty, to some, is not murder. Some view it as an instrument designed to support morality; with morality being the system that ensures the rights of life liberty property and freedom. In other words, some people believe that it is integral to morality, not a by-product or appendage or marginal, but central. It is the ultimate penalty to those who oppose the morality itself.

Ok, as for the psychotherapy and education of criminals, it is definitely a generalization. However, it does happen and is well documented. Unfortunately I cannot at the moment recall the huge 2 volume analysis of criminality that I read it in...I will post it later. You may be able to google something online. Oh, and I did not say they were sociopaths (though many are), but psychopaths, and then not always.

As for the death penalty being a deterrent and your statement about the drug war I kind of lost you there. Here is my experience. A friend of mine went to jail in Texas ( I happen to live in Texas) for a crime just short of RICO type drug charges not to mention posession of narcotics with intent to distribute, etc, etc. Of a 10 year term he spent 18 months in jail. Tell me again about longer sentences?

Anyways, the act of comitting crime changes the criminal. Just like perverse sexual acts change the sex addict. If you can provide sufficient levels of deterence throught the function of a harsh judicial system, many criminals will not progress to the point of requiring the death penalty.

"If people believe in murder, fine, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case"

I like this one. How about we just apply the morality of the criminal back to the criminal? That is your argument in a microcosm.

"They have rights, the highest of which is the right to life."

EXACTLY! Remember the victim! The victim had the same right to life. The criminal decided to disregard and violate that sacred, holy, highest of rights.

What punishment seems fitting for this violation? What is the life of the victim worth? Seven years of living in a confined space? Maybe ten? Maybe if I kill someone I should go to a place where they feed me and send me to vocational school and then offer me job placement after I get out early for "good behavior?"

All I have to say is UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE.

Unbelievable that anyone who holds life so sacred can think that violating that right means that the most that the violator can lose is a handful of years of being able to walk around where he wants to.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Abcd1234]

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. Please take no offense at the things I say. If I come off a little over-the-top it is because my opinions are very strong with regard to this subject.

That probably applies to everyone... it's a pretty polarizing issue.

Let's take this one in order. The logic you state can be argued both ways. A simple basic argument in logic would go something like this: A person has life, someone takes it thereby incurring a debt of 1 "life." They must therefore forfeit their life to satisfy the debt. Society collects the debt through the instrument of the justice system so that "vengeance" is not the motivation. Vengeance is PERSONAL and subjectively applied...the justice system is impersonal and is applied with objectivity and impartiality. The criminal knows the penalty before they commit the crime. With vengeance you never know what you will get.

The problem with this view is that the justice system isn't impartial. Just look at the average number of blacks on death row versus whites (yes, there are many factors here, but the sheer imbalance implies that it's not just due to socioeconomic issues). In fact, I would argue that a murder suspect on trial may very well not "know what [they] will get", simply because the sentence handed down may vary depending on the judge, the jury, the state...

Of course, now I'm beginning to understand the difference in views here. I see the role of punishment in the justice system as primarily 1) deterrant and 2) therapeutic (for lack of a better term). It appears your view is that the role of punishment is deterrant, and to "balance the scales". Again, the "eye for an eye" approach. 'course, it's tough to argue against that one, simply because it really is a matter of values. I am of the opinion that there can be no excuse for ending a human life... even if you think they "deserve it" (the definition of which is impossible to define conclusively).

In other words, some people believe that it is integral to morality, not a by-product or appendage or marginal, but central. It is the ultimate penalty to those who oppose the morality itself.

Yes, but how can you claim to live in a moral society when you are willing to selectively ignore those moral values? How can you possibly claim that it's valid to punish an immoral act by performing an immoral act? It makes no sense. It's not internally consistent. By allowing the state to decide which moral values are important when, you are weakening the values of society as a whole.

As for the death penalty being a deterrent and your statement about the drug war I kind of lost you there.

My point was this: You claimed that you could improve the effectiveness of the DP by increasing the frequency of its use (effectively "toughening up" the laws). Now, an analagous example of this in the real world is the US drug laws. For years, the US has been making these laws harsher and harsher, in an attempt to deter drug use and abuse. Despite this, drug use continues. Thus, it seems that simply "toughening up" the laws does not necessarily work.

Here is my experience. A friend of mine went to jail in Texas ( I happen to live in Texas) for a crime just short of RICO type drug charges not to mention posession of narcotics with intent to distribute, etc, etc. Of a 10 year term he spent 18 months in jail. Tell me again about longer sentences?

Well, this is more an example of a break in the legal system. The US has still tried to deter drug use and distribution through harsher laws, to no avail.

Anyways, the act of comitting crime changes the criminal. Just like perverse sexual acts change the sex addict. If you can provide sufficient levels of deterence throught the function of a harsh judicial system, many criminals will not progress to the point of requiring the death penalty.

Err, you used the phrase "will not". You probably meant "might not". I say

Re:Parent should be modded down

[qwertyatwork]

...What punishment seems fitting for this violation? What is the life of the victim worth? Seven years of living in a confined space? Maybe ten? Maybe if I kill someone I should go to a place where they feed me and send me to vocational school and then offer me job placement after I get out early for "good behavior?"

Yup, you have no experience with the judicial system. I have, and when I hear people make remarks like this I know they are extremely ignorant of the entire judicial system.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[Dread_ed]

Keep one thing in mind. The reason that prisons are as bad as they are in the United States is because of the criminals that are inside of them.

There is not state sponsored torture, no daily beatings, no fear of random "negative feedback" as a part of a brainwashing scheme. Sure, they are confined, have no privacy, and have no rights. However, the worst problems that they have they bring upon themselves through violations of the rules, or through confrontational acts toward other inmates.

Anyways, you are right, I have no experience with the judicial system. I have never been to jail. Never been caught doing anything that would warrant my having to stand trial. So, yes, I am totally ignorant of the judicial system. Did you do some hard time? Is that what makes you an expert on not only the judicial system but also gives you the ability to determine in others that they know nothing about the judicial system? Or are you a lawyer, paralegal, court reporter, baliff, judge, supreme court justice?

Maybe you misread my intent. Many people are proponents of "rehabilitation." Some people with this mindset believe that the criminal responds to authority the way he does because of lack of socio-economical choices and proper vocational training. Given the support and the funding, the situation I described would be commonplace, ie. job training and job placement. I believe that the idea of "rehabilitation" stems from ignoring the victims and misunderstanding the basis for criminality.

The idea behind the last comment you quoted is to draw a picture of the dichotomy of victims rights versus the rights of the convicted criminal. Again, many of those who support "rehabilitation" would love to see the criminal educated at the expense of the taxpayers and then "reintroduced" into society as a functioning member.

I personally would like to balance the scales in favor of the victim, not the criminal. Statements like, "This murderer is no longer a threat to society" have no meaning in my mind. They are not justification for reduced sentences, leniency in form of punishment, or for weighing the possible future contribution of the individual to society. The reason: they already comitted murder, what they do in the future is of no consequence. The punishment they are given is not being given for future actions, why should it be modified on the basis of supposed future acts of a possible neutral of good nature? This statement was attributed to the defense in the Andrea Yates trial recently. The only reason that it was applicable is that she was successful in killing all of her children. Had she failed to kill one of them this statement could not have been used by the defense. If we assume that this idea of "no longer being a threat" is effective in modifying the results of the punishment phase of a jury trial then we have an interesting problem on our hands. That is this: if she had failed in killing one of her children she could have had a more severe punishemnt.

Anyways, I will be surprised if you respond to this post, as I am admittedly ignorant of the entire judicial system, unless you see fit, in your magnanimous alacrity, to enlighten me with your overflowing wisdom.

Re:Parent should be modded down

[qwertyatwork]

...enlighten me with your overflowing wisdom.

You mean run my mouth line a fool because the internet makes you basicly anonymous? Id be delighted to :) Sorry it took so long to reply.

...Did you do some hard time?

I did 2 years 4 months in Oklahoma minimuns/community centers (work camps) Im not what you would consider a typical criminal. Its my only conviction (besides my hacking conviction when I was a young en back in the 80's) I got into a bad situation that only got worse. I went in, did my time stayed out of trouble and now 8 years later Im doing pretty well for myself. Later this year I talk to the parole board about a recommendation for clemency from the governor. Im a non-violent intelligent person that works hard for a living, and conducts myself in an ethical manner. I dont refer to myself as an ex-con because like the %85 rethat will turn within 3 years. My point is, Im one of you, not one of them. Let me give you an inside perspective on prison and reply. For the details you can mail me at spamalias543 at lansville dot dyndns dot org.

...no daily beatings

Ive seen it first hand from inside a prison.

...the worst problems that they have they bring upon themselves through violations of the rules

Im not sure, but I think your saying people put them selves there. Lets address this. As im sure youll agree, no system is perfect and nothing is without corruption. Corruption will flourish in environments that are ripe for it. Prison is a good place. If a cop was to stash some dope on me and arrest me, and I could provide evidence there would be hell for him to pay. If a corrections officer was to plant dope on a convicted child molester and he had evidence, no one (including me) would care. The entire judicial (essentially a political system) is corrupt to some extent, like all other larger political systems. Mandatory sentences giving exceedingly long sentences, zealous prosecutors wanting to up their career (you dont think integrity is what promites them do you? Its convictions) Public defenders want to get promoted to prosecuter, its the better job and you dont do that freeing rapists. D.A.'s up for re-election, lots of reasons for corruption in the legal system. Im not saying its totally corrupt, overall it works good but lets admit that its not perfect, and does have its flaws. There are lots of bad characters in prison, thats where we send the bad people. But not everyone in there is a bad person please always keep that in mind. Lots of factors put lots of people in prison for lots of reasons. A vast majority of the time it works, on occasion it does break.

...Never been caught doing anything that would warrant my having to stand trial

Caught, key word there. Ever thrown your buddy something as he was driving away in Oklahoma? Throwing an object at a moving motor vehicle, violent felony crime that carrys 1-10 years in a state penitentiary. That might sound ridiculous to you, but Ive seen lots of things under ridiculous circumstances like this. APC, "Actual Physical Control" it means your legally drunk and have physical control of a motor vehicle (inside a car and so are they keys) second offense after a prior dui/dwi/apc carrys 10 years mandatory prison time. A suprising number of people who sleep of a drunk in their car, rather than drive home are given 10 years for this. Yes Ive read the court documents. I could go on, my point is once again (read the previous rant, Ill try to get off this now :) )

...Many people are proponents of "rehabilitation."...because of lack of socio-economical...

Im a proponent of rehabilitation, for those that can be rehabilitated. Of the people that are released from prison, there is a very large percent that is guaranteed a return visit. There is small percent that that can be rehabilitated. Thats what rehabil

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[mccoyspace]

I don't mean this as a troll, but..... your 'checkpoint charlie' example doesn't say that much. Remember that Berlin during the cold war was a propaganda site for both sides. The commercial development on the west was fueled by and funded for political purposes -- the same on the east with their 'me-too' grand boulevards, etc. That the whole situation there was an untenable fiction on both sides is shown by the current state of the economy in berlin. It is totally bankrupt. With no politically-based funding, there isn't enough money to support the existing infrastructures. bottom line, there is enough propaganda to go around. Great suggestion to search 'propiska'. Wow, This was implemented after '89?!

Re: That was a great story

[pacman on prozac]

I think you actually said it best yourself:

Now, if you were using an example where data were vandalized, stolen, etc. and used a similar example I would probably agree with you.

The data is being stolen. Or it could have been. Because it is just information there is no way to tell 100% that it has not been looked at by the person who broke in. I think this is where the house/car analogies break down.

That data could be client information, it could be financial information, it could be anything at all. Companies are obliged to keep these things private, often by law and certainly by ethics and business sense. Therefore when they know that systems holding that information have been comprimised they must take action which will incur extra costs to their normal operation.

Yes they should have secured the boxes to start with, and perhaps they were negligent for not doing so, but the law says unauthorised access of computers is illegal which would put the costs of that illegal action on the person instigating it.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[theLOUDroom]

First off the whole "propiska" thing, is very old.
Stalin used them, for example. It offends a lot of people that some of those in power wish to continue this system. Here's another interesting link.
Second the thing to see is not Checkpoint Charlie, but the differences you can see in the city when you look in each direction. They're very noticible, even today. It's pretty easy to see which side had the worse end of the bargain and that they haven't yet caught up.

Re:Eurotrash

[caluml]

And what would be so wrong with that?

All the Russians I've ever met have been educated, cultured, friendly people. *

They're not the bumbling, devious, drunken idiots that Hollywood films frequently make them out to be.

* Disclaimer. I haven't met every Russian in the world.

(Na rodina, tovarishi.)

Obviously

[Woy]

In Soviet Russia, the FBI hacks YOU!

Re:We still fighting the "Hacker" vs "Cracker" war

[Marcus Brody]

ROFL

nice one...

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[zakezuke]

"In Leningrad the people say perestroika can be explained this way... The people who tried to tell us 2 & 2 is 10, are now trying to tell us that 2 & 2 is 5" --Billy Brag North Sea Bubble

Re:maybe because..

[egork]

Well, once, my post, my higly informative and from very cutting edge of technology post was rejected by Slashdot. (now look at my homepage where I am from :)

Re:Read this link

[fizbin]

Obviously this guy has never had to deal with an actual, physical burglary. If he had, he would have realized:

• The cops barely care about burglaries to begin with (it's low priority next to other things they have to do, and they're very difficult to solve anyway)
  
• They care significantly less when there's no property that could be conceivably recovered. ("Someone broke into your apartment, and shredded your manuscript? That's tough.")

It sounds to me like the FBI was behaving perfectly sensibly, and prioritizing computer crime the way any police force would prioritize burglaries or vandalism: by dollar value. The essay says more about the life experience and mental state of the author than it does about the FBI's cybercrime response.

Re:That is exactly my point

[fizbin]

As I said elsewhere in this thread, all this says is that computer attacks are then like burglary, only with an even smaller chance of getting caught, and none of the danger of surprising someone at home and armed.

Which means, of course, that every now and then a blackhat might accidentally hit a target with unexpected resources; however, barring that, the only thing that can be done is publicity.

Meta-Moderation is tough

[Rick the Red]

"-1 Flamebait" Yes, it's flamebait, so that's fair moderation. But the post is 100% correct, so it's only baiting flames from ignorant jackasses. Correction: ignorant elephants.

Re:socioeconomic conditions and motivations

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Society in Russia has been conditioned to the response that anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. Try travelling between northern russia and any of the baltic states - you'll soon see this as a fact.

The movement-restrictions between these areas were initiated by the EU, not the Russians. The Baltic states have been lined up for EU membership, and a part of the rules there is that the outside borders have to be 'secure' against 'economic migrants'. This is pretty mild on the Swiss borders or the Norway/Sweden border, but a lot less so in this case.

As to the rest of your post, a friend of mine is currently travelling the world and she was also there (Russia) last summer. She would be able to comment on your assertions, I can not.