More Jail Time For Computer Crime Starting Next Month

An anonymous reader writes "Washingtonpost.com is running a detailed story about how new changes to the sentencing guidelines will increase jail time for most computer crime cases, starting November 1. When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime? The piece ends with a quote from uberhacker Kevin Mitnick saying just that."

Comments

It's not about deterring crime ..

[RubberDuckie]

It's about appeasing the masses. "Look", say the politicians, "We're tough on computer crime!" This will keep most people off the law makers backs.

It's already completely unbalanced

[Weaselmancer]

Currently, you can get more time for hacking your cablemodem than manslaughter. What's the point anymore?

To any lawmakers out there who might read this - We Get It Already. Lay Off.

Weaselmancer

Re:It's already completely unbalanced

[Cat_Byte]

Yeah it's the same with the MADD sponsored DUI laws. It's down to 1 beer makes anyone under 120 lbs legally drunk now and the laws get tougher & tougher. Currently in TX you get in more trouble for 2 beers than you would for being caught with halucinogens. You lose your license for 1 year for a first offense as of Sept 1. For 2 beers I had to pay $2500 bond, $2500 fines, $1500 lawyer fees, and $150 to get my vehicle back. Next phase is my insurance went up over $2000/year. All that was for cutting myself off at 2 beers and going home early.

I know it sounds off topic, but making more laws does not prevent breaking the law. It is simply another source of income for law enforcement and the court system. You can compare it to the gun laws. There are more than enough laws on the books to enforce what they want (and then some) but it's a lack of enforcement that makes some people think more laws are needed.

Spammers

[Erick the Red]

Spammers already do all kinds of computer crimes (hijacking computers, etc.), and get no punishment, even after being reported. Sorry, but %100 more of zero is still zero.

Re:Uhhhhh....

[startled]

There are several factors in deterrence. Two are perceived sentence, and perceived chance of getting caught.

After a point, perceived sentence stops having a significant deterrent effect. Death penalty generally has no statistically measurable effect beyond a life sentence. Similarly for, say, 10 years vs. 5 years. 5 years vs. $200 fine, I haven't seen studies, but I would imagine that yes-- if the penalty for speeding were 5 years, a lot fewer people would speed.

Perceived chance of getting caught can also make a huge swing. If you've hit the point where increasing the sentence really doesn't do much-- and it doesn't take long to hit that point-- this can be much more effective. If you know there's a 100% chance of getting caught, obviously you won't commit a crime with a significant penalty. If you know most people get caught, you'll look into other types of crime.

Given that penalties for most serious computer offenses are already extremely high, perhaps they should focus on catching and prosecuting people for reasonable sentences, rather than hitting the occasional jackpot and throwing the guy in jail for life.

Shit, if we kept on that trend, we might one day actually consider rehabilitation. Imagine, a prison doesn't guarantee a high recidivism rate!

Re:Jail Time

[IthnkImParanoid]

Putting criminals in jail certainly does deter crime during the duration of their sentence.

That is, until they get out of prison. Aside from spending a few years in the company of more serious criminals (rapists, thieves of physical property, assault-ers) I'd imagine a sentence for decrypting a data file on your computer or reverse engineering some protocol that was heavier than sentences given to drunk drivers that end up killing people would make someone bitter, angry, and not at all likely to respect the law and the society that makes it.

If I lost a few years of my young adult life for writing a linux DVD player, I don't think the people that put me there would be around long after I got out.

Re:Who cares

[m0rph3us0]

Those figures change dramatically when you consider per capita GNP. In reality the US per capita aid level is one of the cheapest donor levels of any industrialized nation.

Foreign AID as percentage of GDP
Per capita GDP
Lets put it this way, the average dane spends almost 8 times the amount of money in real dollars average american does.

No one hates the US because they are sucessful. I don't hate most european countries that have similar per capita GDPs. People hate the US because they are arrogant and have a horrible record for supporting and aiding vicious reigmes. (Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, bin Laden, Taliban,El Salvador, etc)

Let me know about a 3rd world country the US rebuilt that they didnt blow to shit first.

Whoever convinced americans that they lived on the best country on earth really pulled the wool over their eyes as to what a good country can be.

If you ever get a chance or are actually interested in what the US stands for pull their voting record from the UN and look how many abstentions and votes against UN resolutions against colonization and terrorism the US has cast.