Slashdot Mirror
WebTV 911 Hacker... Cyber Terrorist?
Mastab286 writes "Federal agents have arrested David Jeansonne, 43, of Louisiana on cyberterrorism charges under the USA PATRIOT Act for a malware attack against eighteen MSN TV (formerly known as WebTV) customers. As part of an online conflict in July 2002, Mr. Jeansonne wrote a script to change the dial-up number of MSN TV equipment to the 911 emergency number. He disguised the script as a tool to change the colors of the user interface, and sent it to his eighteen foes; the next time they tried to log on, they would end up calling the police instead. Several of the customers sent the tool to friends, bringing the total number of victims up to twenty-one. The script also posted the users' browser history to a website and e-mailed hardware serial numbers to a free webmail account. Prosecutors charge that the act meets the definition of cyberterrorism since it endangered public safety."
... to justify the existance of the Orwellian Patriot Act. Not only did OBL manage to kill 3000 people and two buildings, it seems that he managed to kill common sense and reason as well.
When all else fails, run.
It seems to me that the punishment does not fit the crime here. Yes, I know he hasn't been convicted yet, but if he is, how do think that will affect his life? That will go on every resume and permanent record or whatever for the rest of his life. Would you be willing to hire a convicted Cyber Terrorist? I think it's safe to say his life might be ruined. Sure he should be punished, but not of Cyberterrorism.
Does anyone else think this is cruel/unusal punishment? You know, that 8th ammendment thing?(IF he is convicted of course! But appears he likely will be!)
I know this is really stupid, and the person shouldn't be labeled a cyber terrorist but what if this was a real act of terrorism? What if a terrorist decided to do something like this on a much larger scale?
If some sort of worm was on the internet changing peoples dialup numbers to 911, would we then claim it was an act of terrorism? How large does an attack have to be before it's labeled as terrorism?
Keep in mind I am NOT saying what he did was terrorism, I am just asking, if this affected 21,000 computers instead of 21 would we still feel it wasn't terrorism?
Right, I worked at an ISP years ago and that's what would happen when one of the 28.8k modems in our stacks would run amuck (probably from overheating) and start dialing random digits, eventually including 911. Two policemen would arrive, and we'd have to trace the number, tear the stack apart, and replace the offending modem. And when I say "stack", I mean exactly that. These were external 28.8k modems that were stacked on top of another. That's the high class way that this ISP ran it's computer room.
-- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
We don't need broad new powers to fight one guy who does a random criminal act just to show he's smart/cool. He didn't plan it for years and years, didn't get overseas funding and moral support, and didn't try to choose a crime that would scare the crap out of the most people.
Bush/Ashcroft's "trust us, we won't misuse it" line was always BS, it's just easier to convince the rest of the population now.
Let's check the dictionary
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Nope, no force or violence, no real intimidation (annoyance perhaps), no attempt to coerce. Seems fairly straightforward. Since not even one person was intimidated, coerced, or threatened, it doesn't matter how many it takes - it still wasn't reached.
Also, if we make the definition of terrorism apply to one person, we make pretty much all major crimes (murder, extortion, rape, etc.) into terrorism. This is not the way it should work. Sometimes there is no logical place to draw the line, and it's up to the law (or the judges) to find a reasonable one.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
The attack was against individuals, the government is only involved as a means to that end. This is a case of government using over-broad legislation to hack together charges against someone where older statute would do (but maybe not set as big of an example). This is a great illustration of the danger in bad law, bad administrators of the law, and the erosion of freedoms in the name of national security... except there is no national security issue here, only the erosion of freedoms.
Canadians have lived with this fear for some time thanks to the War Measures Act, especially after Pierre Idiot Trudeau's invocation in the 1970s in response to Quebec separatist terrorism:
At least we only had that one very scary incident... the US has an administration that seems intent on turning everything since 9/11 into a scary era. Good luck guys, the whole world is going to need it if Bush, Ashcroft, and others have their way.perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
We don't know what evidence exists.
Did you read the story? He had a spat with the people he sent the script to.
I don't see how it's a problem to charge someone under terrorism statutes while investigating something like this.
You do not charge someone with something unless you already have evidence and reason to believe that is the crime they committed or intended to commit.
If I get in a span and cut down my neighbor's tree, you crage me with valdalism or destruction or property or something. You do NOT charge me with attempted murder simply because it might have been a "small test-run" of killing someone by dropping a tree on them. You only charge me with attempted murder if you already have evidence that was my intent.
But this argument misses the actual point. The outrage here isn't that he is being charged with an absurd crime he didn't commit. The outrage is that he is it being charged with a crime he most likely DID commit. Under the law he most likely DID violate the PATRIOT act and most likely is guilty of "terrororism" as the law defines it.
The outrage is that the law is fuxored. It's like a law defining "murder" as causing the death or a person or a part of a person. Under that law someone could be charged and convicted of murder for simply scratching someone and causing the death of a couple of skin cells. Accidentally scratching someone and causing the death of a few skin cells would be manslaughter. Scratching a police officer would open you to death sentence.
The PATRIOT act is a horrendous law passed in a fit of lunacy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.