Slashdot Mirror
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."
the punishment gets worse and worse until they actually catch one of the little bastards
bite my glorious golden ass.
Everyone hack as if it's your last month
who said anything about hacking?
bite my glorious golden ass.
My ex-wife uses computers to run her company (political polling) and she cheats. So technically she is comitting a crime and using computers. Should she worry about his?
http://Lenny.com
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.
Yet corporate executives who steal millions and fuck with societies infrastructure walk free.
I dont live in the US nor frankly care about the democratic theocracy running there. The sooner the US falls (like all other empires in history) the better. The ironic thing about the US is americans are unwilling to pay minor costs associated with social services but are willing to pay huge costs associated with running the worlds largest prison population.
So if my car has a computer under the hood do I get a life sentence for speeding?
Kevin....My roof is almost done. Email me.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
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
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Next thing you know, prosecutors and corrupt police officers will be planting PalmPilots instead of pistols on folk to get harsher jail sentances.
"Your honor, not only did this man murder his wife, he has an AOL account!"
"hang him then fry him"
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime? I'd guess right after the learn that
people are going to use illicit drugs no matter how many of
our tax dollars they spend trying to stop it.
Great, this means that if you can't find a room in a hotel in the bay area. You can write a script to do a night of jail time.
Just clicking a link to go to jail might be faster than the normal check-in process at many San-Jose bay area hotels.
If you coded it correctly, you could download some MP3's to listen to, and go to jail at the same time!
Advanced hackers could arrange longer stays if they couldn't pay their rent due to all the open source free work they have done.
In fact, with wearable computer clothes, you could push the button, and call 911 to get a free pickup right at the airport! -- Ross
Ross Youngblood
I guess I should be using my palm pilot less. If I commit manslaughter while using a computer, God save me.
I think if the guidelines actually included the phrase
"Federal pound me in the ass prison" it might help.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
This may sound flippant, but they'll realize that increased penalties don't act as a deterrent around about the same time that that realize that fact for every other type of crime.
...regarding the word "hacker". As many of us here know, the term "hacker" does not mean "computer criminal", as the mainstream press continually connote or denote it. I've often heard the defense that "well, once 99% of people start using a given word in a particular sense, that becomes a/the 'correct' meaning." By this logic, the millions of people who point at their computer (the box with the power supply, optical drive(s), floppy drive(s), hard drive(s), PCI/AGP/ISA card(s), etc. in it) and call it a "CPU", or a "processor", or a "hard drive"-- or even a "modem"-- are correct. They're not, nor are the people who think that "hacker" means "cyber-criminal".
I'd say that perhaps 99% of lay-people would, if shown a computer sans monitor, keyboard and mouse, call it either "a CPU", "a processor" or "a hard drive", and a few will call it "a modem" or "some computer thingy". This does not make these terms correct.
"Hacker" will never mean "computer criminal", no matter how many ignorant journalists and non-techies take it as such.
I am most definitely a hacker. I am most definitely not someone who breaks into systems, creates or uses exploits, makes viruses, etc. etc. etc.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
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.
That's funny. It deterred Kevin Mitnick for quite awhile---particularly when he was behind bars, and when he was prohibited from using a computer.
threatening/ warnings will put a halt to the overweight 30 year olds (or the growing number of uber 31337 13 year olds) of the world who want to take their anger out on something. Just like addicts if they need something bad enough they will get/do it. Kazaa users still continue to download songs, people just seem to think they are anonymous when they do things on the web. Go Figure.. ::unchecks post anonymously::
It's about actually punishing the crime. This might filter out a few people who would've committed a crime, but that's only a secondary function of the law. Given the greater damage incurred by attacks (worms and viruses being a key component of that), it seems fit to more severely punish those who take a part in this increased damage.
You zap the moderators with a wand of humor! The moderators resist!
It's not a deterrent. It's punishment.
who said anything about hacking? Er, good point. Please replace hacking with computer crimes. Maybe I should have put hacking in quotes.
"The big question in our lives is how to be at the same time a hedonist and in a hurry" - Alain Ducasse (?)
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.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okMaybe slashdotters will choose to delete their leaked half-life code before they get terminated ;x (see the link)
Cover your eyes and click this link!
I therefore think I am.
Isn't the point of all punishment to deter the criminal and/or others from committing criminal acts?
When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime?
It won't deter this type of crime? I can assure you, I've seen plenty of situations where I've been tempted to play the line a bit, but when I think about my lovely wife, and 5 children, and the risk of penalties, I change my mind quickly.
Perhaps we should realize that deterring a crime is not the same as eliminating it?
A $200 fine for speeding will deter speeding - but it won't eliminate it.
[ Dictionary.com ]
v. deterred, deterring, deters v. tr.
To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt: "Does negotiated disarmament deter war?" (Edward Teller). See Synonyms at dissuade.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Langauge is what the majority makes it. The fact that you yourself speak year 2003 English and not Olde English is proof enough. Hacker now means "computer criminal", much like "romantic" now refers to something laden with matters of the heart, instead of "strange". Get over it.
Well, as has been pointed out by Dilbert author Scott Adams (among others), if you're in jail then you're not out committing the crime. Putting criminals in jail certainly does deter crime during the duration of their sentence.
I mean just look at the lot of lying, and cheating stock brokers and corporate executives... If they were as poor as the average hacker, they'd be in a pound-your-ass prison faster than you could say 'enron'.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
(who lives in Jefferson City, TN) calls it "emodium"
Just as with misuse of the term hacker, we eventually learn to deal with such ignorance.
(My emodium has more cross compilers than your emodium, so there!)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
"...but most maximum prison sentences handed down for computer crime range from one year to 10 years. Hackers whose exploits result in injury or death -- if they disable emergency response networks or destroy electronic medical records, for example -- face 20 years to life in prison.
Hackers will face up to a 25 percent increase in their sentences if they hijack e-mail accounts or steal personal data -- including financial and medical records and digital photographs. Convicted virus and worm authors face a 50 percent increase.
Sentences also will increase by 50 percent for hackers who share stolen personal data with anyone. The sentences will double if the information is posted on the Internet. More than half of the sentences handed out under federal computer crime laws would be lengthened by this change alone, according to a Sentencing Commission report released in April.
Jail time also will double for hackers who break into government and military computers or networks tied to the power grid or telecommunications network.
Hackers who electronically break into bank accounts can be sentenced based on how much money is in the account, even if they don't take any of it. Under the new guidelines, however, judges can tack on a 50 percent increase to the sentence if the hacker did steal money."
So Lets see if I create a worm to hack into millitary computers to hijack email accounts and steal personal data which then sends then info in an email to George W. Bush and also posts it on slashdot all the while destroying medical records and stealing money from secret millitary accounts how many years in prison do I get?
It can also be argued that it is there to keep law-abiding citizens satisfied in their law-abiding ways, and content that crime doesn't really pay. It's a two-fold effect.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Personally, I'd prefer that small scale computer cracking, viruses, worms, and other security challenges continue to be a problem. It's unforunately the only method we have to ensure we are vigilant against the far greater problem. There are REAL TERRORISTS out there who would love to destory the infrastructure of the US and other first-world nations. But for the script kiddies making computer security a problem for everyone, these issues would largely get brushed under the rug by software companies wishing to save face.
The logical solution to this problem is not to try and weed out those who are malicious--this will fail the moment we fail to catch even ONE cracker. The only solution is to continue to improve security.
I am actually quite surprised, given the apparently inadequate security present in most government and commercial institutions, that we have not yet seen a major terrorist attack on our information infrastructure to date.
Hey boys...Just keep pumping out more of these "Hackers are Witches" kinda dumbass penalties and you're going to start to find that good computer help won't help your asses anymore.
Get it?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Well, that and "Hello, World!" is the height of my programming prowess.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
Who cares if raising penalties doesn't result in lowering crime? It can't hurt and it looks like they're doing something in the public's eye. It's not like it takes as much effort as studying the problem and coming up with the best solution. Seriously though, do they think someone is sitting at their computer contemplating whether a couple of months of jail time is worth doing for the crime, or if two years might be too much. They don't think that they will get caught, or they are too addicted to (the trill, "glory", etc.)do anything about it.
you must be a cracker..
This is why I don't like a lot of Slashdot readers. What options are you giving politicians in order to deter computer crimes? You guys say higher penalties don't deter crime; while that may be true, Slashdot has to be one of the biggest proponents of anonymous computing around. So if you don't want criminals to be named and you don't want them to be sentenced, what do you want to have happen to them? Is computer crime not really a crime?
...or "rehabilitate" anybody. The intent is to control a kind of power that is greatly feared.
Here's an analogy, which I'm sure has flaws but here goes anyway.
This is like burning witches at the stake. Witches were thought to have control over nature and man via black magic, special knowledge of the occult, etc. We've all heard the saying that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand it.
When I hear things like the giant brou-hahas made over websites using "cookies" (gasp!), I realize how mysterious computers must seem to ordinary non-tech people. When bad things (virii, DDOS attacks) start happening to computers and web sites, it must be especially scary to these folks because they didn't really understand what was going on in the first place, and now it's all gone to crap for no easily explainable reason.
All of this fear and ignorance eventually bubbles over into rage, and an urge to lash out towards those perceived to be responsible.
Yes, I realize that a cracker is not a perfect analogy to a witch because the cracker is actually performing malicious actions. But there seem to be many examples of white-hats getting snagged in this over-zealous dragnet (the Adrian Lamo case for instance).
The extent to which The Gubment has started prosecuting these crimes smacks of fear and ignorance, just like the Red Scare, and the original witch hunts. The idea that Kevin Mitnick could actually call in a nuke strike from a payphone... idiots!
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
More Jail Time For Computer Crime Starting Next Month
Anyone else read that as someone getting jailed for a computer crime that will happen in the future?
The coolest voice ever.
Are you that slow or just taking a break from your homework?
How much hacking/cracking did Kevin M. do while he was in jail?
If there is no punishment, there is no reason not to do it. Put the jerks in jail!
Why are there so many more hackers in the real world then there is in cyberspace? Is it that hacking gates, windows, doors, and safes is easier? It certainly can't be that the risk is less. And there is no way you could use the defense of "I was just showing them that the building was venerable, serious."
Oh, that's right, I steal and vandalize for the sake of better security in the future and for the challenge.
And I was planning on hacking the IRS before right before April rolled around. Now what am I going to do, pay my taxes?!
Actually they already owe (not own, like many people think) me.
-Tim Louden
Aren't the sentences for themes crimes overblown as it is? Why don't they just declare the death penalty for all "hacking" crimes and get it over with? This way we at least don't have to spend money on pushing the legislation through.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Its politically beneficial for politicians to appear tough on crime. This move does get the political points but it leaves a long term mess for a prison system already over burdened by mandatory minimum sentences and it makes judges into clerks, rather than intelligent wielders of the law.
Look at California; direct democracy there lets the voters feel good for one election and saddles the politicians(managers, lets remember) with situations that just can't be made to work - you *must* provide more services, but not raise taxes.
Disaster ensues when you decouple responsbility and authority to discharge the duties. Judges are being hamstrung, reform has become impossible for nonviolent offenders in many areas, and it is only going to get worse.
I'll tell a personal story about what a joke mandatory minimum sentences are.
I have a friend who has a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart mounted in a little wooden box. He operates on one lung, shrapnel from the booby trap he set off while on patrol in the Mekong delta still comes to the surface in his back, but he kept his M60 lit up covering the LZ while the rest of the platoon retreated to the choppers.
He was involved in agricultural research and he ran a computer shop. One of his computer shop customers laid hands on his ag business information, ordered methamphetamine precursors, and then implicated my war hero friend to cover himself when he got busted.
Because of the manner in which the prosecutor handled the case the judge had to sentence this guy for something. He said he wanted to have him do forty hours of public service to remind him to keep his business records locked. He served six years in a federal camp.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
So the only reason you're not out killing people is because you'd get put behind bars for the rest of your life?
I'm glad I'm not your neighbour.
Harsh penalties might not decrease crime, but IF the crime rate falls for whatever reasons anyway, the people who introduced new law would advertise it as THEIR success.
Win-win, because the public wouldn't care about damages made by ineffective, severe laws (think of costs/effects of war against drugs).
IANAL
I went out to the US Dept of Justice Statistics and Weaselmancer has a pretty good point.
From: USOJP
Mean sentence for murder = 248 months (20.6 years)
Hackers whose exploits result in injury or death -- if they disable emergency response networks or destroy electronic medical records, for example -- face 20 years to life in prison.
Now, I note it does say death, and if a person commits a computer crime that results in death, fine 20 years+ is ok with me; however, injury doesn't warrant the minimum 20 years IMHO.
What worse is that the average for rape is only about 11 years.
As a frequent Slashdot reader, I rolled my eyes as soon as I read this article, but the postings made me want to scream. Why shouldn't those who commit computer crimes be punished with severity? A lot of readers here have these amazing delusions of grandeur, seeing themselves as little robin hoods, hacking against the man. Please. Think of the millions of dollars in lost revenue and wasted time cause by computer viruses. If I owned a large company that suffered a virus attack from a 1337 haxor that found a vulnerability in my firewall, I would want him to be held accountable, same as if he drove a truck through my office and stole the money I lost. Computer crimes and just those, crimes. And like all crime it's about time legislation was passed to punish the scum that commit them.
That's an interesting distinction. Is the whole point of the threat of punishment to act as a deterrent? Many of the Death Penalty proponents would argue yes. They claim that the threat of the death penalty stops people from commiting mass murder. The only problem with that philosophy is that people never think they are going to get caught.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Anyone else notice this?
The new guidelines let victims tally financial loss based on the costs of restoring data, fixing security holes, conducting damage assessments and lost revenue.
Now, I don't know about you, but fixing security holes is one of my jobs for systems I am involved with, not something I do just to rack up penalties in a trial.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
If you are going to get life in prison, why wouldnt you kill to stay out? Most people would rather die than spend life in prison.
I hope all you slashdot readers are teaching your kids about these injustices, so when they grow up, and become the majority, they can vote these laws down. Cant change them now, too many people who vote, who dont understand computers and buy this "Hacker Hype" laws.
Just like you cant get a law passed without the "Blue Hair" votes, when we are the "Blue Hair" people, maybe times will change.
Higher sentences for hackers while Ken Lay et al are still sitting in their multimillion dollar mansions? Does anybody out there sense severe, disgusting irony?
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
It's a tool. Bad analogy time: one person breaks into a house with a baseball bat, and another using a hammer. Why would we need a law that said using one over the other should lead to a different sentence?
Better analogy time. One person destroys data by hacking into the system and deleting the data, the other physically walks to where the data is kept and pulls out a magnet. Why should that be a different sentence?
As much as I (still) like the idea, I realize that sucking money out of politicians' bank accounts would be a prime candidate if the PTO ever started accepting bad ideas. It's rather like taking a baseball bat to a wasp's nest... Even if you did manage to get away from it unscathed, your neighbours would hate you for the rest of your life.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It's not the time spent behind bars for minor crimes, it's the fact that it's on your record FOREVER. With the internet it's more & more popular for employers to fork out the $20-50 to do a background check on potential employees. Making them spend more time behind bars isn't the answer. I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime. If someone ends a life intentionally, I believe the remainder of their life should be spent behind bars. If someone causes a BSOD via an exploit, they could spend 3 days in jail, be noticed by their employer they were gone, and have it on their record. If someone "hacks" and steals credit card numbers you are now in the grand theft and personal damages category. These laws seem to be generalizing the script kiddies crashing windows in with the thieves. It's just another case of people writing laws who don't even know what the hell they're talking about.
Also, the "cracker" comment is quite derogatory and immature. Grow up.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Increasing penalties will NOT deter script kiddies. If the Feds arrested some teenager, the juvi courts wouldn't have a CLUE what to do with him. He wasn't shooting up, spraypainting a bridge, shoplifting or commiting murder - where's the crime? Case Dismissed, NEXT!
This law is geared towards ADULTS that know better. Adults that write worms, viruses and launch malicious attacks that target a specific company.
More specifically, this law is created to punish the hacking elite who compromise protected systems and retrieve credit card numbers and the like.
Even as an adult, if I unleash a script kiddie attack on some random target, who the hell is even going to bother investigating it anyway.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
This type of sentence is completely unreadable. Sounds like a sad story, but it is way to hard to read. Up the font size too.
Sorry I know there are a lot of problems with it I wrote it in a very depressed state and just needed to get it all out. I never really got to go over it all. It's the facts that matter.
http://Lenny.com
Bah. The way the economy is right now, I'm almost for this, just for the free room and board.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
rtfP!!! :)
He said criminals AND OTHERS!!!
The UK already has fairly severe (IMO) penalties for computer crime. The Computer Misuse Act of 1990 makes unauthorized access of a computer system a crime with a maximum sentence of 6 months or a fine of 2000. If there is an intent to commit a crime, then maximum sentence increases to 5 years. The unauthorized alteration of computer data also carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
The Act covers any crime with a significant link in the UK. Additionally, it also includes conspiracy and incitement. Personally, I believe that the Act was a knee jerk reaction to the thought of criminals running round a wired nation. However, it is rare for somebody to be prosecuted under the Act.
Drew: Damn that Nigel! I swear - he's stealing money from the company children's softball fund we started last week. I just wish there was a way we could get a look at his computer, and maybe stick it to him!
Lewis: You know - I found this program last night while looking for... stuff... online, and I think it could let you know what's on his system!
Drew: Really? Let's get to it then! [random typing-motions on the keyboard]
Drew: It's true - he DID steal those funds! Wait until everyone sees this!
[The Next Day, drew shows up to work with the local softball team.]
Drew: Nigel - we're onto you! I want you to fess up and appologize to these children.
Nigel: Ah, Mr. Carey. Hi kids. Yes - I'd like to appologise for what you're about to see. Allright boys - take him away!
[Police swarm in, grabbing Drew Carry violently. ]
Drew: What? What's all this - he's the one that's stealing from these kids!
Police officer: Yeah - just the kind of slander I'd expect to hear from a dirty HACKER!
Announcer: Next episode on the Drew Carry show - Day one of Drew's 25 year prison sentence. Remember kids - don't use computers!
Ryan Fenton
Hm maybe Bush can start a war on hacking? It would work kind of like the war on terrorism: FUD, arrest random people, more FUD, invade a country.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
No. The main point of punishment is simply Justice. Deterance is an added bonus.
Glad to see the Justice system taking on important matters. I mean, since we started throwing the death penalty around as a deterrent, look how little murder occurs!
Oh wait...
I know nothing
Remember, the younger you are, the cuter you look. :)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
But, will this also apply to the government? Or other well-funded, and politically well placed entities such as the RIAA?
When I see important officials in the government (read: Orin Hatch of Utah) saying it should be OK to destroy a file-sharer's computer, it sends alarm bells off!
Too often, politicians, and major funders of politicians think themselves all-knowing and immune to the laws they create.
What I find funny is that so far we have prosecuted 1 person for enron, with a small sentence. Yet we spend millions going after grey hats and then keep them in prison for eons.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think it's one of those honeypots.
Does the opposite hold true? Can I hack into the credit account of someone, and I get negative penalties? That sounds cool.
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
uberhacker Kevin Mitnick
Hardly an uberhacker in my book.
maybe slightly off to the side of the topic, but mitnik a uberhacker??
if that's what he is/was, then he wouldn't have got caught.
uberhackers don't exist. if you know about them, then everybody knows what they're doing and they lose their uber status.
just like if you tell people you're a hacker, then you're a script kiddie. no exceptions.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Putting criminals in jail certainly does deter crime during the duration of their sentence.
I think you need to improve your English skills. Deterrence means preventing something from being done. Locking someone up after the time is a bit different.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I think seeing those guys hauled off to prison for the latest set of viruses will do more to deter computer crime than making the laws tougher.
No, its to punish those that commited a crime. The only way punishment is a deterant (if it even is to begin with) is to make the punishment far outweight the crime. Which also goes against most modern ideas of justice.
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.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
According to your document (I hate pdfs. Grrr.), negligent manslaughter (included in "other violent felonies") has a mean sentence of 33 months (2.75 years).
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
"hang him then fry him"
Actually that sounds like a pretty good idea for being an AOL'er in the first place.
Think about how much it would clean up the net... :)
Blockwars: multiplayer, free, and live
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
The draconian nature of the sentence isn't what will deter people, it's frequency of conviction that will. If the Federales started putting a lot of guys away for this stuff, even if it was just a $10k fine + 1-3 years (which is a fairly mild Federal sentence), it would have much more impact than some apparently random guy getting 10 years+$100k every 18 months.
Unfortunately tracking these things are nearly impossible, even if the perpetrator isn't using 10 compromised systems in 10 overseas countries to get to one here, so the convinction rate isn't likely to increase.
"Your honor, not only did this man murder his wife, he has an AOL account!" "hang him then fry him" ...having an AOL account should be a capital offense.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why do we need harsher penalties for 'hackers'? It's because there doesn't seem to be an end to computer crime. Unfortunately, this is not the answer. I wouldn't hesitate to say that most computer criminals aren't even aware of the penalties until they get caught. They are concerned with only one thing: the chances of getting caught. The answer should be to take some of the money spent incarcerating people and make security a priority. Offer some tools and education. All this is going to do is put more troubled kids in jail for longer. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I was tried under current law for everything I did when I was a teen, I'd still be in jail right now. Give them a chance to become productive citizens.
My Blog
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Improve your reading skills. If the criminal is in prison, he cannot go out and commit any crimes, can he? Therefore, crime has been deterred. Any crimes that the criminal may have commited has been prevented.
Whether thats moral/ethical whatever view of it, is another kettle of fish.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
I live in Texas, you insensitive clod!
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Where the hell did this come from? You must be a lawyer with all of those assumptions you came up with all on your own. I hate spammers, I hate worm writers, I hate virus writers, I HATE porno pop-up ads. All of these fall under the category of more than $2,000 in personal and financial damage I was talking about. I was talking about someone who reboots a computer being classed the same as someone who commits murder. And where the hell did the gun design & build comment come from? You seem to have issues. I didn't say any of what you accuse me of. You remind me of my ex girlfriend.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Ya know, there are all kinds of programs to keep kids off drugs/alcohol, off the streets, etc. What about one to educated kids on the dangers of hacking. I know, it kinda makes me cringe at first too and the implementation would probably be lame at first. But I think that's a way to help and also help educate others about the issues so that they don't think that just every computer geek is a hacker/cracker.
Most of the non-technical people I know refer to their monitors as their "computer". (The box itself is of course just the CPU)
I wonder, if common usage forces "hacker "to mean "computer criminal", will it force "computer" to mean "monitor".
No, its to punish those that commited a crime
And why should we punish those who commited a crime? What is the goal of punishment? If someone burn down my house, putting the guy in jail won't give me a new house... so what's the point? To satisfy my stupid desire for revenge? Unfortunately I know that's an illusion, I know my desire for revenge will never be satisfied. So what's the point of punishment?
Look at it this way : if there was no punishment, there would be a lot mor crimes. So punishment is a deterant and that's why we punish criminal (at least that's what most people believe).
(Ok having said that I must admit I also believe the main reason for punishment is not to discourage criminal... punishment is about control and power, it's about instinctive social hierarchy.)
Yeah. Let's pack some more people in prison. Two million ain't enough. Yeah, let's get tough on crime by locking up pimple faced kids who mod blaster variants with 300 lb carjackin' buttpounders. Nevermind those corporate execs who ran Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson and other into the ground.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
computers. They'll never admit their wrong, that it doesn't work, that they're stupid, and it will go on forever for spite and eventually they'll turn it into a cash cow like law enforcement has already for the other fields to justify their existance.
You! A Troll! It makes my day.
Does this mean release the floodgates of Trolldom or loose the hounds of hell or something?
nite, I'm outa here...
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
Same with drugs. They've been getting tougher on drug laws for years but it hasn't changed the street price of a rock of crack...uh, well that's what I hear anyway. Instead lets spend billions imprisoning people for minor drug offenses, spend millions more on privacy-invading drug tests, all of which has bought us exactly nothing. Just so our lawmakers can stand up and show people they're tough on drugs? Somebody explain to me just where this insanity stops? I'm hoping the answer is not "at the Canadian border."
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I'm for combining space program with prison system.
(MIT discussion quote from Wednesday)
Especially experimental vehicles.
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
IT's ok to have a policy against hiring Americans. It's not ok to have a policy against hiring anybody else.
Peeps can talk all they like about Americans, but we lead the world in technology, money, and military strength. Screw em all.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
So, we stiffen copyright law, computer crime law, and all sorts of crime law, only allowing those with millions of dollars to throw around to get away with them, yet many of the more basic crimes (rape, murder, etc) are NOT constantly pushed upwards for sentencing to "deter" these crimes...
Could this trend be because there is no corporate interest in the other crimes? Naaaaah, that couldn't be it.
Or are people just afraid of what they don't understand, as they understand the other two crimes very well?
There is no Justice in punishment. And Deterance is overrated.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I am a hacker.
I discover and use vulerabilities.
I write software to utilize, scan and penetrate systems.
Never will I use it on someones system without permission.
Never will I release this software to anyone under any circumstances.
I am a hacker, this is what I do.
"The new guidelines let victims tally financial loss based on the costs of restoring data, FIXING SECURITY HOLES, conducting damage assessments and lost revenue."
This I don't get. A robber breaks into a house - wide open, no locks on the doors, windows open,etc. Does the financial loss of securing the home factor into his sentencing guidelines?!
Calling Mitnick the "uberhacker" is like calling Mengele the "uberdoctor." Mitnick is a pathetic, attention-starved loser. Everytime I see people in a technical forum rally around him like some kind of demigod it makes me want to puke. Randal Schwartz at least gave something back to the community (the Llama Book.) All Mitnick did was make the word "hacker" a dirty word in the press.
* mild mannered physics grad student by day *
* daring code hacker by night *
http://www.silent-tristero.com
Reading the article reminded me of a 60 minutes piece about credit card scammers.
...or worse still, 20 years will become the minimum for a Felony of any kind and furtherence of the "Prison Industry" into an actual bona-fide and recognized institution where 1/3 of the population can count on spending the majority of their lives in, to the point where "Inmate Living 101" becomes an elective in middle schools and highschools nationwide ... But that's my own FUD :)
Remember those guys?
Yeah... thy're still around, most of them offshore now.
But the piece had this middle aged guy who'd been in Prison for 30 years... I don't remember the story in full but I remember his surmising statement:
"All I did was steal some money and in my time here I've seen murderers and rapists come and go"
Different times, same story.
If it's hip, hot, happening and lots of corporate fingers in the pot, you better expect Big Daddy Guvuhment to get it's panties in a knot and go tits out on the hysteria and hype.
Yeah, maybe in 10 years or so they'll repeal the laws, only because by then they'll be more worried about the hype of of Bio-crackers some other hot new tech sector with lots of money in it.
So it is with software patching. Not very long ago, you could patch a system once every three months or so. Now, a windows system more than 2 weeks behind in patches is no longer networthy. A tiny part of that is microsoft's fault (they make insecure software out of cheapness), but most of the blame goes to the people who intentionally break into other people's computers. If malware-writers/users found another hobby, we wouldn't need to patch our systems once a week.
That said, I don't recomend letting your system remain unpatched or leaving your front door stand open -- Everyone has a responsiblilty to prevent what crime they reasonably can.
Just flash 'em some Tobasco sauce (or anything stronger than black, fine-ground, sat in a warehouse for 18 months, freeze-dried pepper). They'll run home cryin' to mamma.
Yeah, right.
In to consecutive articles, /. reported that a) governments have got more rights to invade people's privacy for whatever purpose, and that b) hackers hacking around, with no particular purpose, can be jailed for years.
Absurd!
-- Juanco
What really gets me is that in the story there is a little thing about the finacial costs that can be figured against the guilty party. The eye catcher is "costs to patch the system". Does this mean that the accused now has to pay MS so that a victim company can get a patch for their "Highly secure and stable" OS?
Kevin's line does not end the article.
Its not even the last quote.
Doubt they would put him on the first page or as the last quoted. "Bad for image."
I have all the answers. You just ask the wrong questions.
The peope that stole their source and released it have taken something argueably worth millions, and released it.
That's not an annoying defacement of a website. That's a premeditated attack on a large viable company. It's the 9/11 of the software industry.
Make them take a math test.....
.... without a calculator! bahahahhahahahah
First off let me say I'm not a hacker in the evil sense so this has no real direct effect on me. BUT - don't people realize by now that NO CRIME is really detered by increased sentences? Peopl say the death penalty is a deterant. here's an all too common death penalty case. someone is robbing a gas station at gun point, the clerk reaches for the gun and the perp shoots him/her. do you think the person is actually thinking, hey, I could get the death penalty for this, I better jsut get shot and go to jail. no. Most importantly, just about everyone who commits a crime thinks they are not gonna get caught. why? because if you thought you WERE gonna get caught, you wouldn't do it. no one is that stupid.
I found it all pretty hard to follow. 20 years mandatory for this, double it if they did this, add 50% if they this, double it again if they did this. Man, pretty soon, you're talking real jail time.
Penalties such as these are one of a number of forces leading to the marginalization of the IT industry. Coupled with outsourcing and lack of educational metrics & collective bargaining, IT is on its way becoming a blue-collar occupation. All these things allow lawyers, executives, and other highly placed people to feel a sense of control over a class of occupations they misunderstand and fear.
This is the government's answer to every crime, drugs, guns, and now computer crimes. When will the government learn that criminals don't care about jail time, by very definition a criminal can not have respect for the law he or she is breaking or the consequences that go along with breaking the law.
lose != loose
When will Geeks learn the Feds can warehouse them indefinitely? And probably prefer to do so.
Lots of room down on the farm. (Go write yer Congressman!)
What do you expect neophyte politicians to do? There's no disincentive for lawmakers going after hackers, whereas Microsoft's lobbyists and army of attorneys would make anyone think again about, say, attaching stricter liabilities for security holes in popular operating systems. As long as computer enthusiasts and hackers let politicians push them around, they're going to get pushed around. So why do we let them push us around? I'd bet the average heavy-duty computer user has more discretionary income than the average gun enthusiast, but the NRA is a hughely well-funded lobby, and...what do we have? Nothing. And as long as that continues, it'll be easier for a politician to write an anti-hacking law than it will be to enforce gun-control legislation.
EXACTLY. Locking up non-violent offenders in federal prisons is NOT the answer. For every one who "reforms" (which usually means he was caught in a stupid stunt he wouldn't've repeated anyway), two more get turned into hardened criminals, or so hating of their government as to be certain to do something worse upon release. The "Send a Message!" types never seem to think about the larger societal impact, only the idea of prison time equalling vengance. "What do you get when you lock a whole bunch of criminals together? Concentrated criminality!"
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
"She's made of wood!"
"...and therefore?"
"A HACKER!"
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Murderers continue to get 5 to 10 in some states.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
I think your jail time should be based on the technical merits of your attack. The less technical knowledge required the more time you should get. For example - if you are using a root kit exploiting a bunch of unpatched win98 systems on a cable modem network to ddos the latest enemy of slashdot (RIAA or SCO or something) you should get maximum pound me in the ass time because any monkey can do that. But if you discover a new exploite for a more secure package like QMail, and do something clever with it you should get a light sentance - pick up trash for the day maybe. But- if you discover a new exploite and explain it on slashdot or release a root kit so any monkey can do it you should be punished for that - max pound me in the ass time.
You really want to know?
(There is confusion in the phrase (eg) "a 25 percent increase in their sentences if they hijack e-mail accounts or steal personal data -- including financial and medical records and digital photographs. Convicted virus and worm authors face a 50 percent increase." as only one or both could be used")
The following is as conservative as I could make it, while still following the letter of the law:
20 years * 150% * 200% * 200% * 150% = 180 years to life.
This is a liberal as I could make it:
20 years * 125% * 150% * 150% * 200% * 200% * 150% = 337.5 years to life.
I know I've run into many situations where the authorities simply aren't interested in investigating crimes unless the crime caused over X in damages (usually at least five grand...). I can understand budget issues yadda yadda, but that isn't an excuse.
Maybe if they actually enforced existing laws, they would get the small crimes and criminals before they turned into large ones...
It has gotten to the point where in most cases I advise people it is not worth their effort to try and get the authorities involved -- its like speaking to a brick wall - unless you are a big company that could sue them for not acting.
That is what is criminal...
SSL Certificate
Pretty soon Americans won't be able to compete in the lucrative malicious black-hat hacker market. The government is just sending more jobs out of the country. It's hard enough to get a job doing legit work, let alone cracking corporate and government servers. Now I'll have to raise my rates to cover the added risk of getting caught. I'll be lucky to get simple web site defacement jobs now.
How can I compete with people from India or China who can hack away with impunity?
It is interesting to note that a whole city could simply pay the inquisitions to pass them by. This did prove that all the inhabitants were god fearing, and no further inspections were necessary. With a fresh wad of cash, the inquisition moved on to the next village. If the city didn't pay, a few citicens would be killed and their property got confiscated.
This became so profitable that it got totally out of hand. All kinds of rogue mercenaries terrorized the land, declaring to be inquisition parties.
Moral: Law enforcement must never be profitable.
I've wondered what happens when a prisoner begins to suffer from advanced stages of Alzheimer's Disease.
He is not likely to be much of a danger to society any more and he is not likely to remain aware that he is being punished. And it would be difficult to argue that he he is paying his debt to society.
On the other hand, with advanced Alzheimer's Disease, the prisoner probably doesn't really care where he is.
So is there anything to gain by leaving him in prison? Is there anything to gain by releasing him early?
Could it have been the time in prison?
The latest Slashdot meme.
I mean really, this say it all :
"The person who's carrying out the act doesn't think about the consequences, and certainly doesn't think they're going to get caught," Mitnick said.
"I really can't see people researching what the penalties are before they do something."
That is why they are criminals. Rational people think before they violate the law.
I, in fact, disagree with this premise. Chucking some idiot in the klink for a couple of years for creating a virus or worm ought to settle those people that think "OO this should be fun".
Just like anyone wishing to go around and committing FRAUD, BURGLARY, and LARCENY should think twice before pulling a Kevin Mitnick.
Repeat : KEVIN MITNICK IS A CONVICTED CRIMINAL, BY EVERY MEASURE OF THE LAW.
"Some computer crimes are more serious than others, and these new guidelines reflect that critical infrastructures need to be protected and that invasions of privacy need to be treated as seriously as invasions of our pocketbooks," said Mark Rasch
That is definetly the way to protect your important things. Not by making them more secure, but by making the punishment worse.
Nyh
Isn't the point of all punishment to deter the criminal and/or others from committing criminal acts?
Punishment has several purposes:
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
Improve your reading skills. If the criminal is in prison, he cannot go out and commit any crimes, can he? Therefore, crime has been deterred.
Before you accuse anyone of beeing unable to read you should make sure you've got it right yourself
Someone is in prison and can't commit a crime they otherwise would, the crime has been prevented
If something makes committing a crime less attractive, so that it isn't performed, the crime has been deterred. (eg the criminal doesn't want to go to jail so he doesn't rob someone)
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
I don't have it in front of me, nor do I have a link, but here it goes: Dilbert: Studies show that putting criminals in jail doesn't reduce crime. Dogbert: So, you're saying that when bad guys go to jail, good guys start doing crime to bring up the average? Dilbert: Statistics don't Lie, Dogbert. Dogbert: Unless bad statistics when to jail, then the others would lie... Yeah, it's pathedic, I know...
And you know what? They would deserve it too. If I were harassed as some people have been, even without jail time, I would find some way to exact some kind of revenge. Now if I wasted away in jail for several years, I'd get out and have no job, no future prospects, etc. What would I have to lose?
For $DEITY's sake, do politicians even consider what it means to "lock someone up" for a couple years anymore? I think not, as most seem to believe they are above the common man's law.
Consider this, the U.S. has over 2 MILLION prisoners, out of a population of ~280 million. We're nearing 1 percent of our population being in prison. What other countries can claim that? China? Also, the population of the U.S. prison system has doubled in the past couple decades.
For crying out loud, our country is now locking people up for showing others how to decrypt files that they own!
Hell in a handbasket... Heh.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It will be interesting to look back on these types of discussions 20 years from now.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
People who drink 2 beers and then go home don't kill people.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Sorry if you took it personally, 'cause I didn't mean it personally. Yes, somebody who maliciously reboots my machine deserves to do jail time (not probation or community service). The stuff on my machine (especially my unsaved work) is important and time-critical to me, and maybe to the 10,000 other people who got BSOD'd. It's an invasion of my space and personal dignity. I'm disappointed that Slashdot readers don't get this.
If a contractor builds a building, should people be allowed to move into it for free just because he's successful?" From LL Cool J
Come on LL use your head. You buy anything without looking at it or trying it out?? When people are downloading your music their just finding out you really suck and now they know they don't want to buy your CD.
Reading your post, I had this vision play out in my head...
Scene: prison yard
Prisoner #1: What are you in the joint for?
Prisoner #2: I drank too much Wild Turkey and then ran over a family of four.
Prisoner #3: Wow! You're a real piece of shit! How about you, Prisoner #1?
Prisoner #1: I sold a kilo of blow to a high-school kid. Got caught, and here I am.
Prisoner #2: And I'm a piece of shit? What a scumbag...
Prisoner #1: Yeah, ok what did you do to get here Prisoner #3?
Prisoner #3: I wrote a DVD player for Linux, and was busted under the DMCA.
*laughter from prisoners 1 and 2*
Prisoner #3: What's so funny?
Prisoner #1: We'll both be out and back before you get out!
Prisoner #2: Speak for yourself. Next time I'll drink some peppermint schnapps before I leave the bar to clean up my breath! I won't get caught again!
Seems a little rediculous in this context.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Part of what is scary is that, to lawmakers and average individuals alike, hacking hack somewhat of a mystique which makes it not overly well-defined.
Gaining unauthorized access to a computer? Hell, I've seen everything from root exploits to a kid guessing a teacher's password that qualify as this. While the first may require some expertise and the afteraffects are more-or-less quite different, in law and common opinion they sometimes seem to fall in the same boat.What about if the teacher hid his paper gradebook in an obvious place and a kid pencilled something in, is that hacking?
I think, what we really need, is a clearer definition of the crime, the penalties, and moreover the steps leading to catching and positively identifying the perpetrator.
The malaise of ignorance surrounding computers is astounding, and as GUI takes over most people find that my text console is an uber-hacking-tool. Ignorance is breeding fear, and in so leading to consequences quite often above and beyond the scope of the act committed.
That being said however, I have little problem with nailing somebody who hacks a CC system or something similar and steals money, but really you should be able to prosecute under the non-digital equivilents: vandalism, b&e, theft, malicious mischief, and for major cases I'm sure there are other equivilients (somebody running amok through your system being the same penalties as if a bulldozer had been taken to the office/servers).
When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime?
When/if somebody demonstrates that to be true?
Or are you making the classic "less than 100% deterrence == 0% deterrence" mistake?
The piece ends with a quote from uberhacker Kevin Mitnick saying just that.
It's deterring him pretty well.
> So send the press an anonymous letter, genius.
I'm surprised that one A.C. had to point this out to another A.C.
Here is how to put a final stop to the Windows viruses once and for all. Or at least a big dent.
Have a big jail time or financial penalty for....
Software Piracy!
None of this settlement nonsense. Let's have RIAA style $150 million lawsuits for pirated Microsoft software.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to connect the dots.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
The people you SHOULD be worried about on the road are people who think their SUV was made to drive 80 mph 5 feet behind the car in front of them.
Yes, drunk driving is bad and should be dealt with. But decreasing the legal limit isn't fucking helping.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
We had to tell them we replaced the "chips" so they didn't think we were forcing them into a complete upgrade. (A $30 "complete upgrade")
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.