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."

141 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Waste of tax dollars by poptix_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, it would be something *near* "cyberterrorism" and a danger to public safety if it were self propgating, but this relied entirely upon the studity of the
    user to not only run it, but manually propogate it to other people, which is kind of hard when it makes their system unusable after having run it.

    Another example of the DOH'S trying to justify their existance.

    --
    Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
    1. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      which is kind of hard when it makes their system unusable after having run it.

      If it made the system unusable after running it, then how did it email the hardware serial numbers anywhere?

      Obviously, it must've dialled 911 and then connected to the internet anyway.... unless 911 are offering PPP services now!

    2. Re:Waste of tax dollars by allism · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So...If MyDoom had caused every modem it found to call 911, would you not have considered a danger to public safety? The qualifier here is more that it didn't spread rapidly - which is more an indicator that the author should have been smart enough to make it wait several days before calling 911, so that it would have more time to spread before being found.

      If it had waited a while, and, say, jammed a city's 911 call center because several hundred people tried to call in at once, over and over (yes, I know hundreds of people don't use WebTV, but go with the hypothetical here for a minute), would it have been considered more of a danger then?

      I think calling anything cyberterrorism makes most people in the tech community take it less seriously - could they have come up with a more asinine label? Makes me think of TRON.

    3. Re:Waste of tax dollars by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 5, Funny

      but this relied entirely upon the studity of the user to not only run it, but manually propogate it to other people

      They were using WebTV.....

    4. Re:Waste of tax dollars by notque · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So...If MyDoom had caused every modem it found to call 911, would you not have considered a danger to public safety? The qualifier here is more that it didn't spread rapidly - which is more an indicator that the author should have been smart enough to make it wait several days before calling 911, so that it would have more time to spread before being found.

      So a person is a terrorist because they didn't spread the calls out over a couple of days?

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    5. Re:Waste of tax dollars by secolactico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please, it would be something *near* "cyberterrorism" and a danger to public safety if it were self propgating

      I guess what matters are the author's intention. I don't know much about 911, but I believe they would investigate a series of call with the same origin and that would amount to wasted police time. I think that's what they do when somebody calls and nobody talks (it might be someone having a heart attack or otherwise unable to speak).

      but this relied entirely upon the studity of the
      user to not only run it, but manually propogate it to other people, which is kind of hard when it makes their system unusable after having run it


      According to the blurb (didn't RTFA) some people did re-distribute it (I guess before they used it).

      I suppose they'll want to make an example out of him, and quite frankly, I can't feel sorry for him. He is 43 years old, so this would hardly be a "harmless child's prank". He did endager public safety (911 has a finite number of lines/operators) and while he probably didn't have terrorist intentions, he should have known better.

      --
      No sig
    6. Re:Waste of tax dollars by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      the author should have been smart enough to make it wait several days before calling 911, so that it would have more time to spread before being found.

      According to the story, he was targetting specific individuals; he wasn't trying to release it indiscriminately.

    7. Re:Waste of tax dollars by allism · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it were blocking the use of the 911 services for a city, yeah, I think I might call that one terrorism. I consider 911 a public utility sort of thing, so cutting off the service for a city would be similar (in my mind, anyway) to killing the water service or the power for a city.

      However, IANAL, etc., this is my opinion, which does not necessarily mean that it reflects the letter of the law.

    8. Re:Waste of tax dollars by notque · · Score: 5, Informative

      If it were blocking the use of the 911 services for a city, yeah, I think I might call that one terrorism.

      "Terrorism - 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."

      Was his intention to intimidate or coerce societies or governments? Yes or No?

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    9. Re:Waste of tax dollars by intertwingled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    10. Re:Waste of tax dollars by allism · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One person repeatedly calling 911 could tie up a good portion of the resources for a *small* 911 call center, I would think - not to mention, the police have to come out and investigate. Can you imagine the load of shit a police department would get if, shortly after this happened, someone was getting severely beaten, tried to call 911 but couldn't speak, and the 911 call center decided that it was just another one of those damned prank calls and ignored it?

    11. Re:Waste of tax dollars by ffub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it wasn't a major threat to public safety because it didn't spread rapidly, so that is a good qualifier of whether it should be classed as a threat to public safety. It was clearly a malicious act aimed at serveral people in particular. The script doesn't seem to have been very well equipped for, or directed at, propogating itself arouind the net.

      Now I agree it was nasty, and a pain to the 911 operators as well as being perhaps an act of terrorism, but it should be applied to anything that can scale up to meet terrorism.

      Your hypothetical premise is to suppose the script was more threatening, and then ask if it would be considered more threatening then. Well, yes it would.

      Seems to me the major terrorism has been renamed to terror anyway, so the word terrorism can be applied blandly to anything subversive, with more than one victim, that a government wishes to attach more stigma to.

    12. Re:Waste of tax dollars by allism · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think (and no, I can't read his mind) that he might have thought it would be intimidating to the people he spread this to (which would be a small part of society, but still a part of society) to have the police show up on their doorsteps, claiming that they have been repeatedly calling 911. Course, that's assuming that he THOUGHT about this at all - which I haven't seen any evidence of.

      So, yeah, I think he was intending to intimidate people. He wasn't doing it on a mass level, but I don't think there's a petty terrorism charge available.

    13. Re:Waste of tax dollars by notque · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, yeah, I think he was intending to intimidate people. He wasn't doing it on a mass level, but I don't think there's a petty terrorism charge available.

      Exactly, there is no petty terrorism charge. This isn't terrorism.

      It is not terrorism. At all. Not even a little bit.

      It is a guy screwing with several people who chose a stupid, and by all means illegal way of doing it.

      But it wasn't terrorism. We're talking the difference between a fine, or a small ammount of jail time, and a ton of jail time.

      There is no way in hell this is terrorism. That is obvious.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    14. Re:Waste of tax dollars by nehril · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that the rationale is this: while this 43 year old man thought he was targetting a few people, the target actually turned out to be against the 911 system (via an admittedly small DDOS), which serves *everyone* in the area. by tying up lines, police and firefighters, anyone who had a real emergency at that time was also a victim of this attack. there are only so many emergency personnel resources available to the system.

    15. Re:Waste of tax dollars by notque · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One person repeatedly calling 911 could tie up a good portion of the resources for a *small* 911 call center, I would think - not to mention, the police have to come out and investigate. Can you imagine the load of shit a police department would get if, shortly after this happened, someone was getting severely beaten, tried to call 911 but couldn't speak, and the 911 call center decided that it was just another one of those damned prank calls and ignored it?

      I agree. This was a horrible thing to do. Could cause additional problems in the more likely senario that someone who legitamately was calling 911, but couldn't get through as it was held up through people calling.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    16. Re:Waste of tax dollars by allism · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but I just have to ask - at what number of people involved does an act actually become terrorism? There's not a numeric qualifier in the definition you quoted in your earlier post. If only part of a society feels threatened by a terrorist act, does that mean it's not really terrorism? For instance, if you didn't live in OKC at the time of the Murrah building bombings, you probably didn't feel the same emotional response that many people in the area felt - just as I doubt that I felt the same response that people living in New York felt after the WTC attacks. Since the Murrah building bombing only affected a small portion of American society on a personal level, does that make the attack not terrorism? Does every act of terrorism have to kill hundreds of people?

    17. Re:Waste of tax dollars by allism · · Score: 2, Insightful

      scale up to meet terrorism

      how many people have to be involved to make it terrorism?

    18. Re:Waste of tax dollars by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But i am not talking about experts, i am just talking exactly about the opposite!. If someone goes to a doctor and the expert poisson his pacient, the doctor, that is murder. If someone turns on the radio, and listens that someone is saying that it's good to drink gasoline, and he take a litter for breakfast, then it's his own fault.
      The Same happends here, if symantec is distributing some program saying that it's an antivirus, and it's actually a virus, you can sue symantec, but if some scriptkiddie sends you an email saying "install this", and you do, then you are "Too stupid to own a Computer (TM)"

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    19. Re:Waste of tax dollars by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't terrorism. It is not terrorism. At all. Not even a little bit. There is no way in hell this is terrorism. That is obvious.

      You are amazingly astute in your ability to extract a criminal's intentions from the limited information provided in that article, especially since you can conclude with such amazing confidence.

      I'm anxious to learn how I can be that quick to understand the intent of someone I've never spoken with and about whom I have very little information, so please do fill me in on the work you did to achieve your remarkable understanding. I'm sure you have excellent proof for wholly disregarding the possibility that this was a test-run for a large-scale 911 DDoS attack. Please share. Oh, and I'm also interesting in learning how you predicted the outcome of all possible futures to ascertain that there's no way this wingnut might have had so much fin the first time that, had he not been caught, he absolutely positively wouldn't have done it again, on a larger scale, or decided that it's too much hassle rely on his manual-install technique and just decided to program a virus that changed the number to 911 and then mailed it out to every email address in the user's address book (where have we seen this before?) to automatically "infect" all of his enemies' friends' friend's . . .

      It's like Christmas -- I'm so excited! It's not often you get to learn an entirely new sort of logic that lets one make 100%-confident conclusions without the traditional hassle of actually having adequate available information. Please don't keep me waiting too long for the explanation!

      --
      everything in moderation
    20. Re:Waste of tax dollars by 36-bitter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, someone who deliberately abuses the 911 system should be smacked down, *hard*. But it's quite reasonable to ask whether the USA PATRIOT Act is appropriate to the case. Isn't there some law against frivolous police reports, or something, that would let us put this idiot in jail for a while?

      Hey, I know! 19 false reports is a *pattern* of banned activity, so we could get him with RICO. No, wait....

    21. Re:Waste of tax dollars by cyt0plas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How's this for a number: 1. As in the number of people you actually attempt to control through terror.

      This involved no fear, no terror. It placed a few prank 911 calls, but there is no evidence that anyone was physically or emotionally hurt.

      It didn't even scare one person. So, just like many laws have a threshold (civil versus criminal traffic tickets, fraud, etc.), this isn't terrorism if you set the threshold to even one person.

      I guess you could just set the threshold to zero people, but then we are all terrorists.

      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
    22. Re:Waste of tax dollars by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 4, Funny

      "unless 911 are offering PPP services now!"

      It doesn't seem to connect, you just get this gurgling tone from your modem, and in the background you can almost hear a little voice going "hello?..." or something.

      Dit.. dee.. nEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE... "sir?"

    23. Re:Waste of tax dollars by cyt0plas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > You are amazingly astute in your ability to extract a criminal's intentions from the limited information provided in that article.

      Ok, if I blow up a mailbox, how do you know that it's not a test run for a large-scale plan to blow up half the buildings in town? You don't, and the law doesn't either. And unless I leave some compelling evidence lying around that is my intent, the law will prosecute me for whatever is appropriate, but I would be no more a terrorist than this guy is.

      In this society, people are innocent until proven guilty. What he did was not an act of terrorism, plain and simple. If they can show an appropriate amount of evidence he _was_ planning a terrorist attack, and convince a jury, then he would be a terrorist.

      Regardless, this is still not an act of terrorism. What it's a precursor to is a completly seperate issue, and up to the courts to decide.

      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
    24. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Clemence · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once again, a legal issue rears its head on /. and the /.'ers miss the point. Whether or not DOJ, the media, or /. attaches the "cyberterrorism" label is completely irrelevant. First because it's meaningless and second because the law says its "terrorism" for the purposes of the law. (IAAL)

      The law this putz was charged with violating makes it illegal to: (1) intentionally damage (which he obviously did); (2) a "protected computer" (which the 911 system obviously was); (3) causing a threat to public health or safety (which multiple fraudulent calls to 911 obviously does). Look up 18 U.S.C. 1030 - it's online and it defines all this.

      The statute never actually uses the word(s) "cyber-terrorism" anywhere. That is a stupid label attached by Congress (and subsequently the media) but it is not in the law and it's not really the point. What IS in the law (the USA Patriot Act) is an amendment to 18 USC 2332b, which defines "federal crime of terrorism." Among the things that the law treats as a federal crime of terrorism (which some here have tried to explain) are any offenses that violate, among other federal statutes, 18 USC 1030.

      Being a "federal crime of terrorism" has two effects: (1) it places the investigation squarely in the jurisdiction of the federal government (primarily FBI, but in this case also Secret Service); and (2) it means the guy is eligble for a harsher sentence.

      The argument about whether this is "terrorism" or not is purely semantic. The law says it is - so it is. Whether it's properly labeled "cyber-terrorism" is meaningless. That this idiot let his personal vendetta put innocent third parties at risk is the heart of the issue. Instead of debating labels, consider how utterly stupid and dangerous this stunt actually was and just how hard this yahoo ought to be slapped.

    25. Re:Waste of tax dollars by cyt0plas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).
    26. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may not have been terrorism, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't throw the book at him (with something other than the patriot act). You really shouldn't fuck with 911 service; he could easily have contributed to loss of life if someone couldn't get through to emergency services.

    27. Re:Waste of tax dollars by cyt0plas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The guy was a victim of drunk driving - sad, and whoever made the call is at least partially to blame.

      Regardless, terrorism is a matter of intent, not circumstances. There are no "accidental" terrorists. You can hardly say "this man would have been a terrorist, but nobody died" any more than you can say "this man should have _known_ that a drunk driver would kill that ambulance driver". You can blame him for the lack of foresight, but whether he's a terrororist or not does not depend on the victims out of his direct control.

      --
      Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
    28. Re:Waste of tax dollars by randyest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What he did was not an act of terrorism, plain and simple.

      Yeah, I know you think that. I was kinda looking for the logic or evidence behind your certainty. Your mailbox analogy was not quite what I was looking for. But I (and the federal government) would treat an exploding mailbox as a possible terrorist activity. See, it's terrifying to check one's mail when such things occur. Mail is part of our infrastructure. Blowing up a mailbox, regardless of your intent, constitutes a use of fear to impede infrastructure use or operation (or both, in the exploding mailbox case, since not only would I be hesistant to check my mail, I'd assume letter carriers would be hesitant to deliver them).

      If they can show an appropriate amount of evidence he _was_ planning a terrorist attack, and convince a jury, then he would be a terrorist.

      OK, here we agree. If there is some evidence that he was planning a large-scale 911 DDoS attack, then he's a terrorist. Check. We don't know what evidence exists. That was my point.

      Regardless, this is still not an act of terrorism.

      But wait a second, we just agreed that there he could be a terrorist if there's evidence to that effect. A small test-run of a terrorism attack perpetrated by a terrorist isn't terrorism? It's at least attempted terrorism. And it's relevant, and should be pursued -- I don't see how it's a problem to charge someone under terrorism statutes while investigating something like this. It could be, and should be up to the court to decide if it is or not. I wouldn't grudge a cop for charging as such.

      What it's a precursor to is a completly seperate issue, and up to the courts to decide.

      Again we agree. That's just what I said. We don't know, the courts will decide, charges != conviction. See, isn't that easy? All you have to do is not make outrageous unprovable claims with the confidence of the omniscient.

      --
      everything in moderation
    29. Re:Waste of tax dollars by PjotrP · · Score: 3, Interesting
      well if you beat up one person, would you call that terrorism? i wouldn't. if you beat up like 1 every night in a certain neighbourhood with the intent of intimidating the people in said neighbourhood to stay in doors? then i would call it terrorising the neighbourhood.

      It's even possible to "terrorise" one person, but it would be weird imo to call that "terrorism". i mean even threatening one person would then be considered to be terrorism. I guess in the US loads of things have gotten the terrorism tag.

      anyway, all im saying is that it's quite a slippery slope if you begin calling all illegal actions which involve one person in some way damaging or negatively influencing another with the big word "terrorism". why not arrest all trolls on ./ for terrorising this site... hmmm might not be a bad idea...

      --
      PjotrP
    30. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMO, the attorney bringing this charge is the actual terrorist. He's a public official responsible for upholding the law. By abusing his authority and undermining the rule of law, he damages our society in a much more serious way than did the accused. He is making a threat against all Americans by using this guy as an example of what can happen if you break the law, any law.

      I'm in no way condoning what the cracker did, but his actions don't amount to jack squat compared to those of the prosecutor.

    31. Re:Waste of tax dollars by EvilAlien · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It isn't terrorism without meeting the definition, and this clearly does not meet the definition: "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

      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:

      Although strong, the provisions of the War Measures' Act are necessary to meet a crisis such as war. Evidently, a democratic state must be able to take all necessary steps to protect itself and to act quickly under crisis situations. Such was the argument made by Pierre Trudeau during the October Crisis of 1970. However, the Act allows for invocation of these strong measures even in times of peace, in particular when there would be an "apprehended" insurrection. In this instance, there is clearly a need for reform as the invocation of such measures can easily lead to clear violations of our most basic freedoms and rights as was shown in several instances in Canadian history
      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)'
    32. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Nurseman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It placed a few prank 911 calls, but there is no evidence that anyone was physically or emotionally hurt.

      And if your family member died because 911 was unreachable would you still consider this a "prank". How about if I mailed you some talcum powder with "danger anthrax" inside ?. Would you still consider it a "prank" ?. Would you feel any less scared or "terrified" ? Having lived through WTC on 9/11, this is not the kind of prank that EMS workers need to put up with. Next time have it dial Microsoft Tech Support.

      --
      Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
    33. Re:Waste of tax dollars by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok..then would it be terrorism if a guy threatened to kick his neighbors' behind if his neighbors' dog took one more crap in his front yard? What if it were 2 neighbors? 3? Or, what if it were just one neighbor, but the fight/threat was over politics? I can see where, unless the law is better defined, the government could use it to charge anyone it doesn't like with a terrorism charge, instead of a normal civil/criminal charge. Theoretically, could Bush charge some of the dems with terrorism, as they have used the tactic of trying to scare people (and not always with facts) into voting against him?

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    34. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Endive4Ever · · Score: 2, Funny

      Back in the late 80's in the era of BBSing, I called a friend up by voice. My call came onto her phone line simultaneous with her modem picking up the line to dial out to a BBS. So 'click' and suddenly my voice was coming out of her PC (out of the modem speaker inside it.) She was pretty freaked out, but we eventually figured out what had happened.

      --
      ---
    35. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Foamy · · Score: 2


      The search for Bin Laden is already over.

      Get ready for "October Surprise v2.0 (R)"

    36. Re:Waste of tax dollars by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was actually a big debate on that during the Beltway Sniper trial. He could have been tried as a serial killer, but I guess people now saw it fit to charge him with Terrorism beacuse it's after 9/11.

    37. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Polymath+Crowbane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A dictionary definition of terrorism is, sadly, irrelevant to this discussion. The only definition that matters, for better or worse, is the definition in the relevant law. If Patriot XII defines cyberterrorism as disagreeing with government policy (see the Alien and Sedition Acts), then disagreeing with government policy will constitute terrorism. It's one side effect of a government based on the rule of law: definitions are sometime ambiguous and counterintuitive.

    38. Re:Waste of tax dollars by earlytime · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just my 2c. This is the most insightful post in the whole thread. I don't really have anything to add to it.
      However, while the question of "terrorism" is important, in this case we're talking about a legal issue. Change the name of the crime to "loitering" and then review the definition of the crime, and see if the act is an instance of that crime. In this case, it's called cyberterrorism, and the crime is defined here:
      http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Ter rorism/ 20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html
      and
      http:/ /www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030NEW.h tm

      I would consider planting/spreading a script that deceptively changes the dialer to call 911 an act of terrorism, in the same way I would consider falsely reporting a fire, or accusing someone of a crime that you know they did not commit, to be terrorism. But I don't consider it at all to be terrrorism in the same way that I consider bombings or murders to be terrorism. It's not terrorism in the conventional sense that we talk about terrorists, and terrorist networks attacking people and nations around the world.

      It is malicous, it is intimidation, and it is uacceptable behavior. If I had to call it something, i'd call it reckless endangerment, a threat to public safety, abusing a public resource, illegal wiretapping, creating/distributing a trojan horse, and unauthorized use of a computer. If you try to decduce the intent, I think you can conclude that the script author had the following intentions:

      a) the victim(s) use the script for an entirely different purpose than changing the dial script

      b) the victim(s) unknowingly placing multiple calls to 911 emergency response

      c) the 911 emergency response operator to dispatch a response to the call(s)

      d) the victim(s) to be approached by law enforcement responding to the call

      e) the victim(s) to feel threatened/intimidated by the law enforcement response

      f) the victim(s) computer to be bugged/monitored without the victims knowlegde

      g) the logs of the monitoring to be transmitted from the victim(s) computer to the author

      So I think this guy is beyond old enough to know better, and should be punished accordingly. The important point about the patriot act is that these acts were already illegal, and that using the patriot act is a hedge be prosecutors against te possibility that the court determines there was less than $5,000 in damages. I think you can easily show more damage by tallying the cost of the 911 response to the bogus calls. Nevermind that MSN may have been required by law to investigate, and they would have been forced to incurr expenses due to the script.
      Making prank calls to an emergency-only system like 911 is akin to throwing rocks onto the freeway. Even if you don't hit any cars, even if there's no cars coming by while you're throwing rocks, it still a stupid thing to do, and more importantly, it's dangerous. Only children are expected to do such stupid things without considering the consequences. This is a 40+ year old man who has no excuse for such irresponsible behavior.

      --

    39. Re:Waste of tax dollars by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    40. Re:Waste of tax dollars by skifreak87 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If what he did constitutes a felony, and then he contributed to a death, he could be charged with felony murder. We have specific laws for that. Like if I rob a liquor store at gunpoint and the owner has a heart attack (and arguably might've had one anyway had I not robbed the store), I can be charged with felony murder.

      However, felony murder != terrorism. We need to get away from the attitude of, what this person did was wrong, as long as he goes to jail I'm happy. He needs to be punished for a law he violated, not simply because people don't like what he did. Being hated is not a crime and being stupid is not a valid justification for calling someone a terrorist.

    41. Re:Waste of tax dollars by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think calling anything cyberterrorism makes most people in the tech community take it less seriously

      Exactly. Nothing about what he did constitutes terrorism. Making crank calls to 911 is already a crime and he could and should be prosecuted for that, but not "cyberterrorism." That's ridiculous.

      Now, if they wanted to put him in jail for using WebTV, de facto evidence of criminal stupidity, I'd be all for it. On the other hand, he rendered some WebTV units at least temporarily inoperable, which was a public service :-)

  2. Terrorism?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys, terrorism is where you like blow up a building or gas people in the subway in the name of a political or religious cause.

    What's going to be next next, kids who make prank calls ending up on death row for "terrorism"?

    1. Re:Terrorism?! by notque · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guys, terrorism is where you like blow up a building or gas people in the subway in the name of a political or religious cause.

      Terrorism is a lot of things, including running a Denial of Service attack on the emergency help number.

      This wasn't a Denial of Service attack. Nor was it a terrorist act, but it is close to be construed as a possible terrorist act.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    2. Re:Terrorism?! by leerpm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guys, terrorism is where you like blow up a building or gas people in the subway in the name of a political or religious cause.

      Initially, I was of the same opinion. But then I thought what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this? Would we still be so quick to deny it as being terrorism? Terrorism can occur by Americans too (i.e. the Unabomber).

      OK, so what you are saying. Maybe you are thinking that regardless of who committed the crime, the incident was still too small to qualify as terrorism. But what if it had been 100 users? 10,000 users? 1 million users? 100 million users> (Though God help us if 100 million people are stupid enough to open and run an email attachment like that!) Where do you draw the line?

    3. Re:Terrorism?! by ePhil_One · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Terrorism is an act designed to throw fear (aka terror) into the mind of the public. Its not safe to walk the streets, because a Bomb might go off. Its not safe to shop in the market, because some idiot might strap explosives to him chest and blow himeself up, Not safe to go to the Olympics because some guy might leave a bowling bag full of Nitro in a public square. Not safe to work for the federal government because some moron has a rental truck, a couple containers of manure, and a few hundred gallons of Desiel.

      It can be employed against societies or individuals. The big problem I have with it is that it is yet another "thought crime". Its changing the punishment of the crime dependant on the intentions of the criminal. Beat up a guy when you're drunk, it assult and battery. Beat up a guy of another race/sexual preference/shoe size when you're drunk, and its a "Hate Crime". Now sometimes this is good; run a red light and kill someone, its Manslaughter; wait to run the red light until you wife is there, its pre-meditated murder.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    4. Re:Terrorism?! by Kelerain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The line is not drawn at a number of people affected. Terrorists have a specific belief or cause they are trying to bring attention to, and change. If al-Qaeda had done this, it would have been terrorism, because of the motive. But it depends on the motive. The Mydoom worm infected hundreds of thousands of machines, why isn't that terrorism? Motive (as far as we know). Suddenly lableing something terrorism because it might affect our emergency services is a gross misrepresentation. Sure it was illegal, possibly dangerous, but unless the intent was to further an ideoligical agenga through terror, then its hard to qualify it as terrorism.

    5. Re:Terrorism?! by interiot · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The reason a government might need broad new powers to fight terrorism is that 1) a small group of people have the ability to hurt a large group of people, and 2) because it's ideologically/religiously/politically based, there's a decent possibility they'll be funded by disparate organazations around the world, possibly including very wealthy people who are protected by national soverenty laws.

      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.

    6. Re:Terrorism?! by mdpye · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Initially, I was of the same opinion. But then I thought what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this?

      OK, so what you are saying. Maybe you are thinking that regardless of who committed the crime, the incident was still too small to qualify as terrorism. But what if it had been 100 users? 10,000 users? 1 million users? 100 million users
      It's the intention to incite terror which makes it "terrorism". This was not an attempt to DoS the emergency services, it was a petty attempt to inconvenience some personal enemies, therefore it was irresponsible, yes, childish, yes, but I'm afraid it was not intended to instigate mass terror and therefore it is not terrorism

      MP
    7. Re:Terrorism?! by nazsco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What the parent said is that your supositions ARE considered terrorism.

      When you say: "what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this?" Then you're just saying that "they HAD political/religious motivation", hence: Terrorism

      The parent wasn't refering to "only bombing or mass killing", i think it was only a weak example. The important part there was the "political or religious cause".

      See? So, if al-Qaeda jammed 911 lines, it WOULD be terrorism. If a 9years old jammed 911 lines, it would be a unfortunate accident and a huge fine to the parents.

      But IANA (i'm not american) and you guys already sued a 8years old for "sexual abuse" when he showed his tongue to a class-mate (sorry, don't have the link, but this is notorious news)

    8. Re:Terrorism?! by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are attempting to harm 911 = Terrorist
      You are attempting to harm 18 of your closest enemies (with unintentional side effect of harming 911). = Moron.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
  3. DOS against 911???? by stonebeat.org · · Score: 5, Funny

    Denial of Service Attack against 911??? Maybe 911 should change their phone number just like SCO changd their DNS name to http://www.thescogroup.com/.

    1. Re:DOS against 911???? by Heem · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Yea you got the wrong number... this is.. 9-1...2."

      --
      Don't Tread on Me
    2. Re:DOS against 911???? by WetCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Russia, a 911 is split to
      01 - Fire
      02 - Police
      03 - Ambulance
      04 - Emergency gas service

      A 112 is a number somewhere like Germany (not sure). Also it's an emergency number for cell phones.

  4. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    terrorism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
    n.

    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.

    1. Re:terrorism by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      I guess that makes pretty much everyone in the current administration a terrorist.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:terrorism by Ghoser777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Unlawful" - definitely meets this word.
      "force or violence" - sort of like forced entry into their tv system and forcing the system do something they weren't suppose to do... I'll buy it.
      "against people or property" - seems to meet
      "intention of intimidating or coercing" - I think this is where the application fails.

      The guy wasn't trying to intimidate or coerce someone into doing something - he just wanted to be an a**hole. The ramifications on the 911 system effect public safety, no doubt, but that doesn't make it terrorism. That word means next to nothing anymore, other than something happened/is happening that you don't like. For example, did you know that the NEA, a union of teachers was called a terrorist group by Rod Paige, the Education Security for President Bush?

      Can we use words that describe the situation instead of words that invoke powerful yet completely unrelated images?

      Matt Fahrenbacher

      --
      James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    3. Re:terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, the courts will look at the definitions of terrorism in the patriot act (such as section 802) and tankfully apply their precise legal meaning of "coercion" and "intimidation" and give the prosecutors a thrashing...the problem is that all the government has to do is call someone a terrorist no matter how far a stretch of the definition it is then then automatically, they get all these special powers - many of the checks and balances of the legal system are suspended (in the name of public saftey or national security) and the so called "terrorist" has no due process until they get to make their argument to a judge. Wether labeling someone a terrorist is valid or not dosen't get evaluated until after all the damage is done.

  5. A small handfull of calls to 911... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...may not seem like much, but what if this file found its way onto the net or one of the popular peer-to-peer services? If it were to propigate it would create genuine problems for people who have a serious need to get their call to 911 through.

    1. Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think for something to be called terrorism there needs to be atleast some intend...
      This guy never intended to disrupt 911 services, he intended his 18 victims to have problems...
      While not nice it still isn't anywere near terrorism.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... by telstar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "This guy never intended to disrupt 911 services"
      • How can you possibly claim that? He wrote a script that was designed to call 911 and divert resources from actual emergencies to WebTV users. That's clearly disrupting 911 services.

    3. Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... by notque · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How can you possibly claim that? He wrote a script that was designed to call 911 and divert resources from actual emergencies to WebTV users. That's clearly disrupting 911 services.

      Right, but I'm pretty sure his intention was to get them in trouble, as opposed to hurt the 911 system.

      If you call 911 and hang up, the cops show up. This is obviously a very good way to interactively screw with someone.

      Like when you take resources away from Dominios ordering people pizzas they didn't request.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    4. Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with the original poster, this guys intent was not to disrupt 911. However, using that number instead of about any other shows sheer stupidity on his part.

    5. Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... by pe1rxq · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you be a terrorist through negligence to? I find that a bit hard to believe.
      Yeah he's a moron, but not a terrorist.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  6. A bit excessive, but... by wundabread · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who has worked in emergency response, this could have more consequences than if it called, say Dominoes.

    The 911 system is not a toy; lives are at stake.

    On the other hand, calling it a terrorist act for maybe 21 calls is way overboard.

    1. Re:A bit excessive, but... by DjMd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that this 'trick' is totally short sighted and asinine to the n-th degree...

      Not only is 911, not a toy and most cities 911 lines are understaffed (making every wasted phone call a potential significant distraction).
      But the worse part is what does a dial up program do when it fails to connect... Redial.
      It's not use twenty-one people. Its twenty one computers, all making multiple attempts...
      and it's not like the 911 operator can leave the phone off the hook. Every call has to get answered and recorded.
      Is it terrorism? No.
      Is this guy an ass who deserves sever punishment for abuseing 911? most certianly.
      Don't forget that prob the only reason he chose 911, was most likely to send the police to these enemies houses... further expanding the danger waste.

      --
      DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
  7. I still don't understand... by Gonoff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WTF has this got to do with terrorism?

    A crime - sure, felony - if you like, even wicked. It has got absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Why are your authotities mixing up that with your illegal invasions and war on "terror"?

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:I still don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cause terrorism is the new "in" thing. Back in the 80's it was those damn communists. Now the communists are our friends (well we're on friendly terms with China anyway) so we gotta have another boogyman.
      The sad thing is, the bigest boogyman is our own damn selves.

    2. Re:I still don't understand... by bahwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taking up 911 calls. I admit, it is ridiculous to call this terrorism, but I believe people who put others in danger need to be punished severely. Make it call a 1-900 number or some other number, but 911? Come on, he should think of more than just himself and his humor.

  8. What a Dick by handy_vandal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prosecutors charge that the act meets the definition of cyberterrorism since it endangered public safety.

    The act also meets my definition of "this guy is a total dick".

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:What a Dick by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prosecutors charge that the act meets the definition of cyberterrorism since it endangered public safety.

      By that definition, most Americans are terrorists. If you have broken the speed limit you have obviously endangered public safety therefore you are a terrorist.

    2. Re:What a Dick by randyest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice try, but speeding is not necessarily public endangerment (that's a specific charge for speeding +30 MPH over the limit, I believe). Going faster than the posted limit when conditions allow (no cars on the road, good conditions, good car) seems far less dangerous to me than DDoS'ing the local emergency 911 response center.

      Whether or not it was 27 calls or 2000, messing with 911 service is something we should (and obviously do) punish severely. Speeding, a few MPH over the limit, is more of a revenue generator for local municipalities than it is a serious public danger.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:What a Dick by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      messing with 911 service is something we should (and obviously do) punish severely

      and for very good reason. As I posted somewhere else around here, this guy is guilty of sheer stupidity for using that number.

      Going faster than the posted limit when conditions allow (no cars on the road, good conditions, good car) seems far less dangerous to me than DDoS'ing the local emergency 911 response center.

      I agree, but try telling that to a cop or a judge. Regardless, speed limits are laws made to protect the public safety. If you are dead set against that particular example, use drunk driving instead. That would still mean that something like 30% of the US population is a terrorist.

    4. Re:What a Dick by randyest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives. (NHTSA, 1999)

      You do realize that some alcohol-related traffic crashes involve more than one person, but only one drunk driver, right? You should have your statistics priviledges revoked for extracting "30% of adults are drunk drivers" from "Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives."

      Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that while definitely guilty of something, I am not sure that terrorism is the crime.

      And you don't have to be. Neither am I. The courts will decide. What bothers me are the posts in this thread proclaiming with 100% certainty that this is not terrorism. They don't know all the facts, yet they're knee-jerk response is anti-anti-terrorism, for some reason.

      --
      everything in moderation
  9. I hate defending this crap by notque · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't justification for use of the Patriot Act. It did not have the intent of anything remotely considered terrorism.

    Now, I'm not saying he should go to jail, however it's a sad look at the United States when anything that you could mildly construe as something that a terrorist might do, becomes a terrorist act.

    --
    http://use.perl.org
  10. what the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    there a kiddiess about there with hundreds of thousands of DDoS bots, kiddies out there releasing viruses costing billions.. and this guy gets arrested for making 21 people call 911 ?

    Only in America ._.

  11. getting on a plane while sick.... by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    isn't getting on a plane with the flue or even just a really bad cold purposfully spreading biological weapons? The flue can kill people.....
    breathing is a terrorist act!!!

  12. well they have to do something.... by Whammy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... 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.
    1. Re:well they have to do something.... by trmj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wasn't that one of their goals? Kill the feeling of safety, security, and common sense to the point that we give up what makes our country the "land of the free?"

      Even though the above pargraph was most of what was preached after 9/11, and we all said, in a somewhat collective voice, "We won't let it happen," it still did, and it's still happening.

      This is more than the music industry saying we copy their cds, this is more than sco saying they are going to file another law suit, this is more than the microsoft monopoly. This is what you can and can't do, and it is justified that the government gets more attention now, but not the kind it wants.
      </offtopic>

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
  13. There are some things you don't mess with by prichardson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Messing with an emergency number is really stupid. Not only do you waste people's time, but you may end up causing a real emergency to be left unheard. I don't think it's terrorism, but definitely criminal negligence. I honestly feel that this person should be put into prison.

    --
    Help I'm a rock.
    1. Re:There are some things you don't mess with by bahwi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you! Everyone else on this is just posting "it's not terrorism" or "it was just a joke". I agree, this guy should be thrown in the slammer or put adrift at sea or something. If he hasn't learned that 911 is an EMERGENCY number by now, he has a serious learning disability. He could have had it dial up a 1-900 number or something. It would have been much less damaging to everyone else in the city.

    2. Re:There are some things you don't mess with by vegetablespork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree that he should go to prison. But not under a "cyberterrorism" provision.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    3. Re:There are some things you don't mess with by leerpm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. There is also another argument, that they are trying to make an example of this person too. If he gets off with a light sentence, then other people with not so great intentions might get the idea of writting an email virus that does just this too. Imagine a MyDoom, that caused each computer it affected to dial up 911 (obviously it would have be not on broadband). The thought of that happening scares me.

  14. Actually This Is A Great Example by ellem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Ahh! Ahh! The Government is run amok! My library records, my library records! Patriot Act! Ahhh ahhh!"

    Guess what. If the 43 y/o dimwad had the WebTV call Domino's Pizza no one would care. He chose 911.

    This has ZERO (0) effect on me. I'm never going to break the law this way. (Beside who the Hell has WebTV anymore anyway? Were those the last 22 people?) This guy broke the law in a stupid way; fuck him. Don't break the law and you won't go to jail. There is no slippery slope here -- just one assclown going to jail because he should.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
    1. Re:Actually This Is A Great Example by freeweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This has ZERO (0) effect on me. I'm never going to break the law this way.

      With all due respect, that is quite possibly the stupidest argument for deciding the fairness of our judicial system.

      I'm sure I can find *something* you do that can be construed as illegal. Ever speed by even as much as 5 mph? I don't. Ever spit on the sidewalk? I don't. There. I can come up with 2 laws where you should be put in jail for life. They have ZERO (0) effect on me, I'm never going to break them. By your reasoning, I should support laws like that, and not worry about any ramifications.

      If you don't see a slippery slope with pretty much ANY law, you're just not thinking about it very deeply.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  15. Terrorism is the flavour-of-the-month bogie by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... so I guess he gets charged under the Patriot act. I don't condone what he did - he deserves a damn good kicking (metaphorically speaking, of course) for taking time from the emergency services, but a TERRORIST ? WTF ?

    I can't believe there's not a more-appropriate crime to charge the guy with. Is there some sort of requirement to charge him with the most-serious charge you can, in the USA ? Perhaps that would explain it ?

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Terrorism is the flavour-of-the-month bogie by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you think what he did (wasting the time of the emergency phone service) is deserving ot some punishment, then you should listen to the 911 tapes at some media-frenzied event such as Columbine or after an earthquake.

      Television news reporters call 911 to get interviews and information. They tie up this operator for sometimes 5-10 minutes asking questions. In that same span the operator could probably have taken 3-5 legitimate calls.

      If a news media reporter calls 911 as a source for a report or interview, that person should at a minimum be fired, and should serve a manditory jain sentence of 15 days. Also the responsible entity (TV station, newspaper, etc) should be fined; $1 per average daily viewer/reader... the proceeds to be used exclusively for emergency telephone service improvements for the department they abused.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  16. These the only online criminals the FBI can catch? by baseinfinity · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to an FBI affidavit filed in the case, Jeansonne was undone when cyber sleuths at Microsoft's MSN unit searched e-mail logs and found that the "Timmy" account had previously sent beta versions of the malware to Jeansonne's MSN TV account.

    Heh, the script kiddies need to learn not to incriminate themselves in public places.

  17. Very clearly "cyber-terrorism" for lack of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since there isn't a good descriptive phrase yet for someone who deliberately seeks to damage emergency infrastructure (which just happens to be based on a computer in some manner), I'll find "cyber terrroism" acceptable for this.

    Technically speaking, it's about as 'cyber' a crime as splashing a hospital with gasoline and lighting it on fire is a 'chemical' crime, but it's still a deliberate act which put other people in harm's way.

    His penalty? Well, it has to be severe enough that folks learn this is completely unacceptable behaviour and far from a simple prank. Jail for 10 years should do the trick.

    If my own 911 call was blocked because of this goof, I know I sure wouldn't find it harmless. This was potentially life-threatening and served no purpose other than to be maliciously harmful.

    Time to stop treating 'cyber kiddies' as something special just 'cuz they didn't think through the consequences of their actions.

  18. *sigh* by jedi_odin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    will it ever stop? people definately tend to go crazy once they learn they've been owned or cracked, however this whole thing is more of a prank than terrorism. I wonder, if I was to press one of those call button boxes here on campus for the police and just run away, if I was caught, would I be arrested for terrorism? how about if I pulled the fire alarm in my dorm during a drunken stupor? would I be a terrorist then? overreaction isn't good, just try overreacting when the roads are covered in snow and ice, you'll end up in a ditch.

    --
    may the source be with you
    1. Re:*sigh* by drwav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In many cases, if the operator can't make contact, a police care is dispatched, which is obviously what this scumbag had in mind.

      I am very hopeful that he goes a federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison.


      As mentioned in the parent post, what do you think the fire department does when a fire alarm is pulled?

      That's right, a fire truck is dispatched and arrives in a reasonably short period of time. They get to the building, check everything out, see it is a false alarm, and go back to the firehouse grumbling, but probably relieved that they don?t have to risk their lives this time. If they manage to find the person who pulled the alarm, they will receive a stiff fine and that's it. No one goes to prison or any of that bullshit. People should go to prison for assault, murder, rape, maybe some types of robbery, and that is it!

  19. Re:M$ by intertwingled · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or at least sued into oblivion. I don't understand why a massive class action lawsuit has not been brought against Microsoft for all of the hundreds of thousands of computers that have been infected with worms and viruses and cluttering up the internet with packet white noise.

    --
    -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
  20. In case you were unclear on the subject by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative
    people are working on a TV series so that you are properly educated:

    D.H.S. - The Series. ... a multimillion-dollar episodic series, will explore the inner workings of the Department of Homeland Security, teaming the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and National Security Administration (NSA) together with first responders such as local police, fire and safety administrators.

    The series is being pitched to prospective networks and has the full support of President Bush and Tom Ridge. They love it. They think it is fantastic, say the series' producers at Steeple Productions. Not familiar with Steeple Productions? Well, perhaps you might find their four-episode Creation Vs Evolution series enlightening.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:In case you were unclear on the subject by qtp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      perhaps you might find their four-episode Creation Vs Evolution series enlightening.

      Not only do I find it enightnening that these are the guys hired to sell DHS and the Patriot act to us, I find it downright scary.

      --
      Read, L
  21. Patriot Act really does violate Constitution... by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Every time "those wackey liberals" make this claim (the one in the subject) the conservatives call it alarmist crap and that civil liberties won't be violated.

    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!)

  22. Who is Really at fault here? Maybe Microsoft? by hillct · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While you can certainly argue in favor of prosecuting someone who endangers public safety, I'm more concerned about the company that allowed such a security hole to exist. Why isn't there a PKI infastructure around configuration changes in the MsnTV firmware? Why aren't scripts that change user settings required to be signed? At some point the vendors who provide these infarior and dangerous products must be held liable. Recently, slashdot had a with a quote from one of the heads of Microsoft security who said that in the case of Windows (where patch application is optional) We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known'. In the case of NsnTV, firmware updates are not optional, and the fact that an update still doesn't exist which would authenticate scripts that change user settings, is extremely telling. Is it that it never occured to Microsoft that settings changes should be validated? That scripts which perform cuch changes should be signed or otherwise secured? Unbelievable...

    --CTH

    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  23. What if this was a real attack? by Zakabog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:What if this was a real attack? by gerardrj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This wasn't an "attack"
      Any number of modified systems should not be labled terrorism. Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified. I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.

      This does however bring up a very good point... I've always hated that these "cunsumer devices" like WebTV and my satellite reciever don't display the phone number they are dialing on the screen.

      Issues like this would be eliminated if the system displayed "dialing 867-5309" then waited 5 seconds before doin g so, with a "press any key to not dial" message.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    2. Re:What if this was a real attack? by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified.

      Huh? I can think of few things more terrifying than someone "messing with the public infrastructure"! Tainted water supply. No 911 response. No dial-tone or even cell-signal to even try to dial 911. No electricity.

      These of the sorts of things that can cause mass confusion, panic, and death. Sounds pretty terrifying to me.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:What if this was a real attack? by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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? This is why the government is supposed to exercise good fricking judgement in the prosecution of cases. OF COURSE if it was a deliberate attempt to disable 911 through thousands of prank calls, that would qualify as terrorism. There are degrees of scale here, and also of intent.

      That's sort of like saying, if it's not terrorism to blow up a small firecracker in a men's room, then it shouldn't be terrorism to blow up a large load of TNT.

      This is one of the things that truly scares me about our country at the moment. We have an Attorney General who has directed state prosecutors to always seek the maximum sentence possible, and to never plea-bargain unless it's a case where the person is rolling over to indict someone bigger than him. The Justice department is trying to make laws into absolute things - no sense of jurisprudence, no making the punishment fit the crime. Just, these are the laws, and THEIR rule is absolute, with no possibility of human compassion or understanding entering into the system. Don't bother trying to rehabilitate or teach a social lesson, just lock up anyone who transgresses.

      In the long run, an attitude like that will always lead to absolutism, and therefore, authoritarianism. This progression has been followed in pretty much every applicable case in history. It's just started leaning that way in America, and it's far from the point of no return. But it's still something we have to watch, and have to fight against, lest the problem grow.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    4. Re:What if this was a real attack? by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.

      In a mugging-gone-terribly-bad, you've been shot and you have two broken legs. The perpetrators think you're dead, but you're really just lying immobile in the next room, near a phone. The perpetrators are in the process of raping and torturing your wife; your mother is next. You quietly lift the phone receiver and dial 911 as silently as possible. Busy signal.

      Terrified yet?

      --
      everything in moderation
  24. This Guy Got What He Deserved by tealover · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He gets pissed off at people so he decides to interfere with the 911 system? What if the delays in taking those misrouted calls prevented help from getting to someone who truly needed it?

    I am glad that they are throwing the book at idiots like this.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  25. just over the line enforcementwise by jpellino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yes, this guy's an idiot.
    yes, he should be prosecuted for what he did
    however, there are plenty of existing laws on the books that can punish him for screwing with 911 - use them.
    this is too-bad-cop - a bit like the teacher in whale rider who tells the boys their dicks will fall off if they don't obey him - just deal with the situation and let the laws work.

    but a few years down the line, the hs dept is going to have to show some deliverables - and one of them will be how many people were prosecuted under terrorism laws, and this sort of thing helps raise the count.

    in that regard patriot could end up being the rustproof undercoating of the law enforcement world - make sure you try and tag it on top anything you can...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  26. Even if this managed to spread to EVERY WebTV user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    911 would really only have to worry about an extra 10-15 calls a day.

  27. Sort of kinda terrorism by portwojc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the calls going to 911 it can easily be put in the category of endangering public saftey. Since it's easy to assume that the machines make the calls late at night.

    3:21am
    911 operater: Hello
    caller: Dead air

    In this situation what do they do? They dispatch.

    So with this great new wonderful bill they get to tack on more to something that already had a stiff penalty.

    What possesed this guy to do this anyway? Come on "I'll hack it to call 911". That's just asking for them to hunt you down.

  28. Willkommen zur Buschwelt von Terrorismus by segment · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like they'll have to add 'WebTV' to the next Computer Attack and Cyber Terrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress revision.

    When will some of you guys learn it's not about the act, nor the group, nor the victim, nor the attacker. It's about the ability to control perception. The spookier the 'villain' the more money gets funneled to 'groups' like the Department of Homeland Insignificance. It's how they justify their budgets at the end of the year. "By golly Mabel them be terrorists, maybe we should pay more taxes to them mighty fine boys at the DOJ they be tough on terrorists" Nothing less, nothing more. It's about stats. Sure the guy was moronic, and now he will pay for being an idiot, and the sinful part is many - if he goes to a jury - will be blinded by pseudo sympathy spin on terror. To quote that old annoying song "It's all about the Benjamins baby"

  29. cyberterrorism? how about no, scott. by chrisopherpace · · Score: 2

    This isn't cyberterrorism. This is instead a classic case of someone writing a malicious script, that does not spread by itself, that alters dial-up settings. Yes, it does dial 911, but a load of 18+ people calling 911 isn't likely to put a major load on the 911 system. If it had, then by all means, call it what you will. It didn't though. The potential doesn't mean that it should be charged as if it had. If I shoot someone, it isn't murder. I shouldn't be charged with murder unless they die. That's what ATTEMPTED murder is for. He should be charged at the most with attempted cyberterrorism.

  30. In other news... by op00to · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A 3 year old was sent to Guantanamo Bay after mashing random numbers on a telephone and reaching 911.

    Overboard a bit? Not EVERYTHING is terrorism. Shit, this post is terrorism. Shit, that last statement was terrorism. I better hide.

  31. Bullshit by zachjb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it funny that something like this, in the past, would have not been considered terrorism? This was just a prank that went too far. It wasn't fair to the police for getting the prank to their 911 line. Their business line, yes, but not the emergency line. Does anyone think this have a different outcome if he had it go to their "business" line instead?

    Also, I have seen others say the script relied on the stupidity of the person's foes. The guy had no motive to do anything after the fact, so how did it endanger public safety? Shouldn't the police be able to handle a few false calls to their emergency system? You think that prank calls to 911, as sad as they are, would be built into the equation of deciding how many people they need on shift in order to cover their district.

    I guess this is just another overreaction by our lovely government.

    --

    --If only there was a license required to use a computer.
    1. Re:Bullshit by cookiepus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't it funny that something like this, in the past, would have not been considered terrorism? This was just a prank that went too far. It wasn't fair to the police for getting the prank to their 911 line. Their business line, yes, but not the emergency line. Does anyone think this have a different outcome if he had it go to their "business" line instead?

      No, it's not funny. And yes, it would have been different if the script dialed a non-emergency number. He's being charged with endangering lives because having a punch of people rediling 911 with their modems could do just that. He's not charged with murder because obviously his activities didn't lead to some frantic call for help being ignored. 911 is serious business and the authorities are right about beeing serious about prosecuting it severely.

      Also, I have seen others say the script relied on the stupidity of the person's foes. The guy had no motive to do anything after the fact, so how did it endanger public safety? Shouldn't the police be able to handle a few false calls to their emergency system? You think that prank calls to 911, as sad as they are, would be built into the equation of deciding how many people they need on shift in order to cover their district.

      And this is probably the case. However, I am willing to bet that 911 has followup policies, ie, when someone calls them and doesn't speak (like a modem that doesn't hear another modem) they probably have to call back to investigate, log it in some special way, or whatever. Maybe there's even some script that says "if you get calls from a certain number a few times but the person is not speaking, assume they are having a hear attack and send an ambulance" or something like that. The bottom line is that messing with 911 is stupid and dangerous.

      I guess this is just another overreaction by our lovely government.

      What would you like them to do? Give this guy candy and pat him on the back saying "we know you're a good guy. we really don't mind a few hundred random phonecalls. those guys are dicks anyway"

      ?

  32. That is not in question. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative
    What some people are questioning is wether the right crime is being used. You don't convict a shop lifter of arson. A speeder of drinking and so on.

    He committed an attack against 911, took over peoples pc's, released a trojan, waster police time. Plenty for a judge to send him to jail. This guy sounds more like an idiot then a hardened criminal and for idiots even a week jailtime is enough.

    Terrorism sounds a bit over the top. Yes the attack was potentially serious but during a recent "flood" (few centimeters of water) you had idiots on tv claiming that 112 (our 911) was unable to respond when they called to have their cellar drained. Hello? Flooded cellar ain't an emergency and all these idiots DID overload 112 and stopped real calls from getting through. Are they all terrorists? No. Deserving a night in jail with a guy called bubba sure. But not terrorists.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  33. Re:"endangered public safety." ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    how the hell did it endanger either the public, or their safety?

    I don't know about you, but I would construe a Denial-of-Service attack on the local authorities' emergency dispatch number endangerment of the public safety. Suppose a catastrophic fire had broken out in the local theater and the first responders were ten minutes late getting there because all ten or fifteen 911 lines were tied up by 21 hacked WebTV boxes auto-dialing the emergency line. Dozens of people could have actually been killed or seriously injured... if that's not a threat to the public safety, then what is?

    As other people have mentioned, if the author had simply chosen to dial phone-sex line in Japan, then the public safety would not be relevant here, and eighteen people would just be getting really large phone bills :) But he chose to attack a designated police emergency number instead. Frankly, I have little sympathy for him.

  34. It's stupid to mess with emergency numbers by nazsco · · Score: 2

    OK, the guy had this quarell and all, but to direct the calls to 911 was plain stupid. I hope he couldn't get a line when he was being raped by five guys that break into his place...

    You're writting a script to mess some people life (people that already use webTV, so you need to annoy them big time to even be noticed) and instead of redirecting the calls to a porn number, or even the house of the others webTV owners he wanted to annoy... noooo. He choose 911. Very clever. Period.

  35. "endangered public safety." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Such broad definitions would result in including speeding as part of the definition of being a terrorist. Speeding does indeed "endangered public safety."

  36. Unbelieveable? by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What exactly is so hard to believe? Does my Red Hat box refuse to let a script edit ifcfg-ppp0 until it sees a GPG signature? Does OS X prevent you from installing a modem unless you're dialing an Apple-approved phone number? Could any company sell a product which refused to let users make arbitrary changes to their own settings, and not be rightfully reviled for it on Slashdot?

    Are you just hunting for the (+1, anti-Microsoft) mod points?

    1. Re:Unbelieveable? by hillct · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is why is there no PKI infastructure in place to require SCRIPTS that run on the MsnTV embedded hardware platform to be signed so the user can make an informed choice? My proposal is relates only to scripted changes to user confuration changes. Manual changes made by the user to his/her own settings should be made through a secure interface, whether that be done through PKI or some other means.

      As for the previous poster's examples of a Linux box or a Mac OS X, neither of these system are embedded system designed for the non-computer user. They are not designed to be limited in scope and functionality. They have mechanisms which facilitate selective patch application and security optimization by users directly.

      --CTH

      --

      --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  37. 18 Foes? by mikeboone · · Score: 4, Funny

    sent it to his eighteen foes

    Wow, I don't know anyone who has WebTV and this guy knows 18, all of whom happen to be foes!

    Oh yeah, and if you're dialing 911 for your internet access, how is the evil program supposed to post your browser logs to a website?

  38. Re:cyberterrorism? how about no, scott. by flosofl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What don't you people get about the word endangerment

    When Michael Jackson dangled his kid over a balcony, the kid wasn't hurt... but that was still endangerment. Endangerment is not that something bad happens. It means the probability of something bad happenning is raised to unacceptable levels.

    This asshat created an environment where someone's life could have been in grave peril if emergency services where responding to "MSN TV in distress" (and 911 always dispatches when no-one talks to them) instead of being available for a truly life-threatening emergency.

    I am all for this guy rotting for quite a while. I have no tolerence for people who endanger public safety in a fit of pique.

    Clowns.

    --
    "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
  39. Terrorism? Wtf? by Epistax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't "terrorism" imply a very specific intention in the crime? I'm not going into whether the reason for a crime should affect the sentence, but surely it affects what you call it! This is like confusing manslaughter with wrongful death with first/second degree murder.
    Terrorism is disruption of public services? So if bus drivers in a city strike, they're terrorists. If someone plays a prank on a local pool causing them to close, they are a terrorist.

    This is one of the many words that take on new meanings every week. Someone define this thing before it goes even more out of control. While the person did interrupt emergency services, what was their intent? Or is every public nuisance now a terrorist act?

  40. Re:"Microsoft pillaged Jeansonne's e-mail" by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Informative
    Do I have this wrong or are searches supposed to be done by law enforcement?
    Yes, but the police can hire experts for this kind of searches.
  41. Re:Terrorism?! (Reign by threat of body-slams) by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative

    > But what if it had been 100 users? 10,000 users? 1 million users?

    There is a difference between body-slamming some one once, and body-slamming someone a million times. (I've body-slammed well over 100 people in my career, but that's all legit.)

    You're talking about a hyopthetical, alternate crime. In *this* instance, 21 people we involved/victimised. So: is *this guy* a terrorist?

    webster:
    Terrorist Ter"ror*ist, n. F. terroriste.
    One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically,
    an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the
    Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

    Doesn't quite seem to fit the bill.

  42. prank calls by nut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing this guy is guilty of is making a large number of prank calls to 911. Does this really count as cyberterrorism?

    --
    Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
  43. yea .. and I have one for you by Ozric · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some dude cut me off in traffic and because I am a law minding citizen I deem it was an act of Domestic Urban Terrorism. I was so frightened by the way they were driving. It put the fear and terror in to minds of anyone driving on that public throughfare.

  44. Terrorism?! by tehanu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This doesn't even match the US government's definition of terrorism.

    From a Science article:

    According to the U.S. Department of State report Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001 (1), no single definition of terrorism is universally accepted; however, for purposes of statistical analysis and policy-making: "The term `terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Of course, one side's "terrorists" may well be another side's "freedom fighters" (Fig. 1). For example, in this definition's sense, the Nazi occupiers of France rightly denounced the "subnational" and "clandestine" French Resistance fighters as terrorists. During the 1980s, the International Court of Justice used the U.S. Administration's own definition of terrorism to call for an end to U.S. support for "terrorism" on the part of Nicaraguan Contras opposing peace talks.

    For the U.S. Congress, "`act of terrorism' means an activity that--(A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (2). When suitable, the definition can be broadened to include states hostile to U.S. policy. ...The concept of "terror" as systematic use of violence to attain political ends was first codified by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. He deemed it an "emanation of virtue" that delivers "prompt, severe, and inflexible" justice, as "a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most pressing needs."

  45. He's stupid by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He should have programmed it to call 411 or 611 instead. And a real sonavabitch would have programmed it to call a $65 per minute sex line...

  46. "Patriot" Act passed without reading by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The "Patriot" Act was passed without some Congressmen and women even reading it. It was named that to intimidate members of Congress. Vote against this bill and you will be against patriotism!

    The "Patriot" Act was supposed to protect us against people who want to destroy our entire society. Now its being used to harass citizens who do something stupid, and have no political motive. If they get away with this, you will see more and more extensions of government police power. History has shown that, even if they don't get away with it, they will try again.

    More and more we are seeing examples of prosecutors who don't want sensible justice, but who just want other people to hurt, because of their own personal mental issues. Last week the Oprah Winfrey show provided another example: An 18-year-old man had sex with a 16-year-old woman at his school. (Big surprise, there.) Later she accused him of rape, and he was found NOT guilty. But he was put into prison for 10 years anyway. The prosecutor said that was entirely justified, and that he had no problems with the punishment.

    The U.S. government is rapidly becoming more corrupt. Here are just a few examples:

    Killing people and destroying their property:
    N.Y. Times editorial
    "... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."

    Lying about scientific facts:
    "The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
    N.Y. Times
    The Guardian
    Wired News
    Union of Concerned Scientists

    The present terrorism against the U.S. people is partly the result of the U.S. government's secret violence:
    About a year ago, I hastily put together a short, incomplete history that shows what has happened: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.

  47. Re:Very clearly "cyber-terrorism" for lack of... by Lordofohio · · Score: 2, Interesting


    His penalty? ...Jail for 10 years should do the trick.

    ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE? It makes me want to crawl out of my skin when I hear jackasses say things like this. Today everyone's solution to problems is "We need longer jail sentences. More jail time now!". You are advocating 10 YEARS for writing a script? Everyone knows that white collar criminals are scared just by being taken to court, let alone jail time.

    If this guy went to jail for even two months I'd bet you all the money I have that he would never do something like this again. After being in jail for two months, his job would probably be gone, he'd have to suffer the embarassment of telling his friends, his family, his wife's family, his children, etc, that he has to go spend some time in jail because of a stupid thing he did.

    10 YEARS!! You've got to be kidding me. I'd like to ask anyone that has ever thought that putting someone in prison for 10 years to think about what they were doing ten years ago. Think of what you were doing ten years ago, and what's happened since then. The people you've met, the girlfriends you've had, places you've been. Now replace that with the inside of a concrete room. Every day. For 10 years.

    You are in idiot and an asshole for suggesting 10 years for a scripting prank. I guarantee you any jail time he gets will cause him to lose his job, he will lose his right to vote, he will lose a fortune on legal costs, and countless other things. If anyone here on slashdot had to suffer through all that, we would all be crying "Why? Why?", and it would be enough to straighten our fellow slashdotter out.

    Before screaming for 10 years of someone's life to be stolen from them, think about what the hell you're saying. I'm sure the simple fact that he has been caught and is involved with the police and the courts will make this guy never do anything like this again. Don't make it obvious what a jackass you are by putting him in jail for a decade while ignoring real criminals like, say, the president.

  48. Another flagrant abuse of the Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Patriot Act - unconstitutional powers that were promised only to be used against terrorists.

    BULLSHIT!

    This guy obviously commited a crime, but that crime is prank calling 911, as well as illegally entering another person's computer system - both serious crimes - but would probably warrant 30 days in prison, tops, or probably a fine and community service.

    Thanks to Ashcroft, NO terrorists have been prosecuted, but plenty of regular Americans have been.

    F*ck that fascist c*cks*cker.

  49. Guilty as charged by libra-dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    People, it isn't like he just affected one or two MSN TV users. He affected all 21 users of MSN TV.

  50. Quotes support the theory of major corruption. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Aexia, thanks for the link to the story about Marcus Dixon. But the story does show corruption: "The prosecutor, in what can only be perceived as an act of complete disregard for the law, facts and justice in general, ...

    and, "In the jurors own words, the look of horror across their faces when the judge sentenced Marcus to ten years minimum could be seen by everyone. They never knew the consequences. They could not fathom that a boy could go to jail for consensual sex, and certainly not for 10 years with no possibility of parole."

    When the government does something completely screwy because of deliberately pursuing some purpose other than good government, that is corruption.

  51. "The terrorists won" by freeweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sitting up in the Great White North (Canada), the general consensus up here is that OBL achieved his goals quite nicely. The terrorists have in fact won, at least as much as they attempted to win from 9/11.

    The very existence of the Patriot Act, the hysteria that resulted from the anthrax scare, the massive delays going on with some flights, the incredibly annoying security checks, the fact that quite simply the life of the average American seems to have changed greatly...

    You folks down there may not realize it, but what we see up here is that the US has changed, changed dramatically, changed permanently, and changed for the worse. The fact that the word "terrorism" even came up with this guy hacking WebTV is pretty much proof of that.

    Yup, you (and we, in the larger global community) let the terrorists win. Now it's up to us to try to reverse some of the damage before it's too late. And I have no idea how to do that, sadly. The best I can come up with is "stop being so damn scared of your own shadow". I think we'll be dealing with these issues for decades to come.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  52. Under your def, every crime is terrorism by clickster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since you and the government seem to feel that doing something bad to someone else or doing something to intimidate them or influence their decision qualifies as terrorism, schoolyard bullies could be arrested, armed robbers are terrorists, stalkers, drug dealers, and anyone who threatens someone else could all come under the technical definition of terrorists. The problem is that the definition is far too vague and broad. A lot of people (i.e. Ashcroft) would say that is because terrorists don't always walk around wearing "I am a terrorist" shirts. So the vagueness is there to make sure that they can apply it to terrorists who don't necessarily have 10 pounds of TNT strapped to their waist in the obvious terrorist fashion. Sure, I could accept that if the government would stop applying terrorism laws to crap like this, to drug dealers (they charged a guy with a meth lab of terrorism), and to all kinds of other crimes so that they could have increased powers in those cases. There are reasons that they don't have increased powers in those cases. If they were meant to have it, it would have been granted to them. The FBI has a tendency to abuse the law by stretching them beyond their intended scope. I think this should be considered a terrorist act since the purpose in most cases is to intimidate the accused and influence their decision on how to handle the case. "Plead guilty and we'll drop the terrosim charge (20 years in jail) and you'll just get the 3 years that the other charges carry (the ones actually related to the crime you're charged with). If I were innocent and charged with a 3-year crime, and faced with the prospect of doing 20 years if I lose (yes, sometimes innocent people can lose) I might choose to take a guaranteed 3 years over a possible 23 years. Terrorism I tell you - terrorism. :)

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  53. Missing the point. by dangermouse · · Score: 3, Informative
    The guy is not a terrorist, but he should absolutely be charged under the "cyberterrorism" provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. If you read those provisions (Section 814), you'll see that they amend the US Code in a way that is perfectly reasonable and valid for combatting cyberterrorism. However, the acts proscribed need not be committed by terrorists to be harmful to society, so what the hell is wrong with charging him under this law?

    If you look at the US Code as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, you'll see exactly what he's being charged with:

    Whoever intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and by [such] conduct [causes] a threat to public health or safety ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

    And it seems to me the punishment prescribed in section (c) for the crime above is reasonable and fitting:

    The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is ... except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph

    In other words, the guy broke a bunch of computers in such a way that he endangered the public safety. If convicted, he gets a fine or up to a year in prison (or both). I fail to see what the problem with this is.

  54. poorly applied by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This whole "terrorism" law is poorly applied. We already have sufficient laws on the books to cover any mishap without adding Terrorism laws. We already had "secret evidence" provisions before the Patriot Act. In fact, that was one of Bush's campaign promises, to dismantle them.

    What really gets me mad is that a podiatrist named Dr. Goldstein with the JDL was arrested for plotting to destroy up to 50 mosques and Islamic schools in Florida, and was caught with explosives, assault weapons, and maps and plans. He didn't get sentenced under the Terrorism statute, though many wanted him to be.

  55. definitions by stimpleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The word "Terrorism" has been hijacked like the person who eats chicken calls themselves "vegetarian".
    The families of Lockerbie, Sept. 11, IRA bombings, etc do not deserve to be disrespected in this way by a government deciding on an emotive term like "terrorism" in the same way a marketing dept would come up with a product name that "captures the public imagination".
    Don't car pool to work? Then you aren't irresponsble with regard to the environment. You slaughter jews for a living.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  56. easy by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your Red Hat or OS X box is not an appliance. WebTV is. You can't tie down a Linux, Windows or Mac box too much without severly limiting its functionality. WebTV has only one function, so you can lock down and white-list it up the wazoo. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    Are you just hunting for the (+1, anti-Microsoft) mod points?

    Hunting for cheap anti-anti-Microsoft points isn't any better, you know.

  57. "giving" vs "taking" by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Wasn't that one of their goals? Kill the feeling of safety, security, and common sense to the point that we give up what makes our country the "land of the free?"

    Yes... though we're not "giving up" these freedoms, they're being taken from us. By Bush, Ashcroft, and the congress. If Bush gets re-elected, THEN the phrase "giving up" will truly apply.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  58. Prediction by Gorimek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The term "terrorism" is essentially undefined beyond a certain gut feeling. So anyone faced with a borderline case where it's hard to tell if it is "terrorism" or "regular crime" will choose "terroism" or risk being called soft on terror. So the definition will keep expanding until "terror" and "crime" are synonymous.

    The only change from now will be that there will be a new word invented for what we now call "terrorism", and all "emergency" legislation meant to apply to terrorism will apply to all crimes.

  59. Ob. Family Guy Quotation by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... Osias Griffin, who owned one of the first dozen telephones.

    "Hello, Johnathan?"
    "Nope. What number are you trying to dial?"
    "Seven."
    "Ah, well this is three."

  60. You've got the order wrong by idontneedanickname · · Score: 2, Informative

    The program is run, then it sends the data to those email addresses. Then it changes the settings so that the next time the machine is turned on, it dials 911.

  61. You aren't thinking like cops! by danieleran · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All these comments sound like senators in togas debating what a word like "terrorism" word means.

    This isn't a trial or question of law. He's only been arrested.

    Cops are not judges. They don't think a lot about Why, they just grab people doing what they see to be stupid or bad things and then find a reason to hold them until the courts either agree to lock them up or let them go.

    So this guy was not only 'hacking' (something that bothers cop type people) he was also out-thinking stupid enemies (another thing that bothers and threatens cop type people) and worst, he was bothering the cops who answer 911.

    As much as I ha..ve difficulty dealing with cops, I can certainly see why they would go nuts trying to find a law to lock this idiot up.

    It's almost totally beside the point that 'terrorism' and 'freedom' are words that are getting abused into new nebulous and meaningless ideas.

    Additionally, why did this retard have his script calling 911? That's about as stupid as crank calling someone and then starting a 3-way call with the cops. Or stopping off for doughnuts after robbing a bank.

    The proper nerdy thing to do would be to have them dial up SCO. This would annoy idiots on both ends, and neither would know what's happening. That would be funny.

    Unnecessarily calling 911 is as lame (and as dangerous to others) as not getting out of the way of an ambulance.

    Cops wouldn't need to be arresting him on 'terrorism' charges if we simply had laws against being too stupid. Ever since America became the bastion and protectorate of all things stupid, the normal course of natural selection in weeding out idiots has been slowed to the point where society is choking to death on pure stupid-people-overload.

    And so cop type people respond by retrenching into fascism, just as abstract thinkers retrench into pointless dialogues (like mine) and people who are neither really thinkers or really cops retrench into watching sports and shopping.