Slashdot Mirror
Blaster Variant Creator Pleads Guilty
Hello Kitty writes "Robert Parson, the 18-year-old who modified and re-released a version of Blaster last year, is on his way to being made an example of, after pleading guilty Wednesday in a Seattle courtroom. According to AP, he can now look forward to 18-36 months behind bars and -- shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages -- may be expected to pay millions in restitution. And then there's that lifelong 5cr1pt k1dd13 title. of course."
He could have been shot at dawn under trumped up terrorism charges.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
I don't want to be on this luser's side, but at the same time the punishment should fit the crime. People shouldn't be forced to pay damages that they didn't cause.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Next thing you know murder will be legal and the victim will be held responsible for not wearing kevlar.
A Minnesota teenager known online as "teekid" was arrested and placed on electronic monitoring Friday for allegedly unleashing a version of the "Blaster" computer worm that infected thousands of computers.
First for writing the damn thing in the first place
Idiot
Parson apparently took few steps to disguise his identity. As a byproduct of each infection, every victim's computer sent signals back to the "t33kid.com" Web site that Parson had registered in his own name, listing his home address
Second for putting in a direct trace back to himself
Idiot
In court, the high school senior wore a T-shirt that read "Big Daddy" on the front and "Big and Bad" with a grizzly bear on the back. He sported a metal stud under his lip and his hair was dyed blond on top and shaved close around the sides and back
Third for showing no humility in court
... but I think in this case, he *should* be made an example of. Virus writers need to *STOP*. Now.
On the other hand...
The fact that unscrupulous companies will bill in phantom damages just makes it worse. How are these kids supposed to have any role models when the establishment distances themselves from morality for profit? Phantom damages and those who issue them, ought be fined and sent off to jail with just as much enthusiasm as virus writers.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
is on his way to being made an example of
This is not justice. He should get what he deserves, period. Whenever they try to make an example of someone, he or she becomes some marty/icon and the only lesson learnt is: don't get caught doing what you'll do anyway.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Yea, cause hes just the type of person that I would want working on my computer. I also think that convicted child molesters should be put to work in day care centers. That'll teach em.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Harsh sentence, but I don't have a lot of sympathy. Idiot makes virus, idiot gets caught, idiot gets punished.
Next please.
The kid knew what he was doing was illegal and wrong. Get over it. He deserves whatever he gets.
Then he'll write a book and become CEO of a startup security company. There's no sense in not profiting from a few months of jailtime.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All he did was change a little text in the virus. The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself. They just want to make an example of someone. They've spent a lot of money to put someone in jail for much longer than they deserve simply to save face in the public eye. Our legal system is supposed to be just, not popular.
He took a worm and modified it and released it. That's not much different in spirit from what many of us did at his age, playing with tech, poking at it, learning how things work. He just picked something that caused massive headaches to all concerned, so we have little sympathy for the kid. And he seems suitably contrite since his arrest, as well he might since that event probably shook him. But what do we do with such kids? We don't want worms being released, and we want to discourage this behavior. And yes, money is involved when businesses spend time to fix the problems. But asking him to repay "millions" is an order of magnitude wrong. Let's see Kenny Boy Lay repay millions, yes. But this kid?!
Those of us who poked and prodded tech at his age, but did so in a way that didn't cause headaches to everyone, understand a little of his motivation. He was a dope, but a curious dope, and now he's learned a lesson. Will all the other script kiddie types learn from this? No way. What if he is told to pay back "millions"? Nope, they still won't care. We need to rethink how we deal with this sort of headache so that we encourage kids not to mess with worms and stuff, without treating them worse than violent criminals. I don't have the answers, but I can't see how throwing the book at this kid is going to solve much.
Modifying a pre-existing "worm" .... big deal. It only affects a certain operating system -- the holes exploited were very well known, the creator himself did not intrude into anyone's system, the worm did. I say the government should pay 60,000.00+ (the cost of housing an inmate for 3 years) for antivirus/worm software for citizens. Big businesses should be PATCHED already, that's what the IT department is for!!
3+ years served because other people screwed up and didn't keep their systems secure, give me a break.
The worm of course should be sentenced to death with McAfee or the security patch that is made available by the loveable operating system maker.
When the case is made against Microsoft (or "M$") and how "Windoze" is insecure and should be replaced by Leenucks, the argument is always "the worms and the viruses and malware cost businesses trillions and gazillions of dollars".
But when they nail a dumbass kid who thought he was 1337 and releases a virus (or a variation of one) then it's "phantom damages".
That's great.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus, hit send, and get caught.
Yes, and you know the saddest thing? Most talented hackers, like Morris or even Mitnick, can look forward to full time employment as a security expert at some IT company, due to their fame, after they're done being punished for their deeds. It's an expensive way to get famous, but at least they're famous, at least in computer circles.
This moron on the other hand can look forward to be punished, like hackers, and then apply for a job at Wendy's, because in the eyes of any employer, he'll always be less desirable than a failed CS student, until his script kiddie fame fades away slowly.
Honestly, that's the kid's real punishment...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
While this particular kid may be an idiot and a copy-cat, his perpetuation of the virus (intent and implementation) is nearly as bad as the original writer's efforts. He took a virus and re-wreaked it on the world (or whomever he coould).
I manage a small reasearch lab server and infrastructure. And of course I do tech support for my family. Virus protection, et al, does not always cut it, especially in the first 24-48 hours. That said, we all know security is integral, but people like the original writer and these copycats make the digital envronment dangerous/evil/[choose your favorite adjective], it doesn't start that way fundamentally. (Let's not get in to a discussion of the "nature" of the internet.)
Even with what I consider to be an above-average skill set, an outbreak can waste anywhere up to 30 hours of my time depending how serious and how fast it is. You call my lost time, resources, and users' data "phantom damages"? I most strenuously disagree. Extrapolating these factors to the world's populaton at large and I have no compassion for the guilty, whatsoever. Their terms should be measured tens of years, not months.
MrCool80s
It's a fireman's JOB to put out fires-- that doesn't make the arsonist any less guilty.
As matter of fact, salaried employees in USA are expected to work overtime when the need arises. Only hourly paid employees are entitled to paid overtime; the rest works for free, in their own time, away from families and friends. Pretty much everyone who is paid a sum above $25K/yr. regardless of how much he produces is such a salaried worker. Anyone who doesn't like the way things are is free to complain to the Congress.
In other words, noone got hired to clean the mess if at least someone in-house was capable. Existing people were forced to work overtime instead, with no extra pay. They didn't like any of it.
The guy wouldn't be in jail for mere compilation of the virus, or for any changes as such.
You don't know much about class action suits, do you? Google a bit, then come back and tell us if you can find evidence of a class action lawsuit where anyone but the lawyers won. I think you know which way I'm betting on that.
They're not sending him to prison for typing any more than they send rapists to jail for feeling good.
He took a known computer virus, designed to cause damage. Modified it so that he would know which computers were infected and then willfuly and purposefully released said virus back into the wild to cause havoc.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Being rehabilitated doesn't imply working in IT. In fact, he might do better to get out of it anyway. He's young and can train for anything. He could retrain as a plumbe when he gets out, and if he's any good at it, he'll make more than most people in IT.
He might also want to look into being a mechanic, if he has the talent for it. Mechanics will need to know more and more about dealing with computer systems on vehicles every year.
There are lots of things he can do when he gets out. It doesn't have to be on computers. I'm in the email security field, and I will tell you flatly that there is no way I would consider hiring him. It's not a matter of the fact that he went to prison; it's a matter of the fact that I could not trust him.
If I were running a plumbing company, it wouldn't matter. But of course, I'd never let him near the office computers.
He was in court to plead guilty. He probably knew he was looking at a stretch. Why does it matter what clothes he was wearing?
I used to get stopped regularly by the police. Normally I was just walking along the pathment minding my own business. I was stopped because of my hooded top most of the time - it's cold and wet in the UK. What a world to live in when people judge you by the clothes you wear.
I've heard geeks here complaining about the stick they get... because they look like geeks? So sad.
For the record I've never been arrested or convicted.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Grow up, people.
The "Virus writers are cool heroes" attitude usually comes from non-professionals who would never, ever be allowed to touch a real installation...
Breaking and entering is illegal - even if the victim knowingly employs bad locks.
The main issue here is not the fact that the idiot just changed some lines, but that he knowingly released it into the wild again.
If you use petrol and a lighter to burn down a house and people die, you deserve to be punished. The house could have been a fire trap - but that does not reduce your guilt. (Whoever built it will be sued, too, but the flaw in "virus lover" thinking is that the arsonist should go free because not all houses are fire proof.)
Because you perfectly knew their software was insecure, it's been commonly known for years.
Granted. It's a shame there weren't more commercials stating that from competitors.
You also waived all your rights to Microsoft when you clicked OK to the EULA.
It's often the case that a judge will rule that sufficient negligence on the part of the contractor can void any "do not sue us" clause. Given the shear number of security flaws found and where Windows advertisements have stated Windows should be used (servers), it seems like gross negligence.
People should take responsibility for their own actions, not sue left and right too..
Right, this guy variant creator should be punished. The question was should MS be sued for making Blaster so possible. A simple analogy, from the start of this thread, is the case of Ford finding a defect in their car. Now, Ford has to go out of its way to fix this defect; they don't just tell the consumer "here's the part, you install it". They do this precisely because until the defect is fixed (or there's been a sufficiently long period of time for which the fix was easily accessible), consumers can go out and sue Ford and win the case.
Now, at this point you might state that Blaster variants didn't start until 2 months after a patch was released. You'd be ignoring, though, that MS didn't mail out letters to its consumers. They didn't mail out CDs either. They didn't have local technicians to install the patch. So, while it's reasonable to say that a competent administrator for a server should never have let Blaster spread--MS did the equivalent of the first two for the technical user while the admin is the third--laying this charge on *all* computer users is like blaming all car defect victims for not being mechanics.
This is why MS has pushed for their autoupdate tool as it can optimally fulfill all parts (ignoring it can't reboot).
I can imagine in the future, MS try to claim not using the autoupdate tool to its full extent (ie, d/l *and* install) is paramount for grounds not to sue. But, will MS take responsibility for when one of their patches kill the network connection on a few million users and someone has to reinstall?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I'm such a geek. Normally I don't really give a damn about what people think of what I wear.
(It's decent. I'm not wearing a crotchless S&M outfit to work, or anything. If anyone is fundamentally offended the sight of a clean pair of jeans, they're just stupid. And I have better things to do than worry about stupid people.)
However, in this case we're talking a court of law. You don't want to piss off the judge who might, on a whim, give you a suspended sentence or community service or send you behind bars for a few years.
You _don't_ want to look like an unrepentant "fuck you all" rebel to the judge. You don't want to look like you're damn proud of what you've done. (Which is the impression that such a "Big Daddy" t-shirt would have given even me.)
I'm not even saying he should have worn a suit and tie or anything. But, you know, even if you're gonna wear a t-shirt, make it a plain one.
I mean, geeze, wear that t-shirt to school. Wear it at a party. Wear it even to a job interview if you honestly don't give a damn about the outcome. But a court of law is more serious: unlike a job interview, you can't just try again somewhere else.
Basically all I'm saying is that there's difference between not caring about stupid people, and _being_ the stupid one. Freakin' big difference.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
What you're doing here is just being contrarian. Its always been agreed by philosophers that revenge was as potentially valid a reason for punishment as rehabilitation or protection. The reason for picking one over the other two (and of course, you needn't only pick one) is always going to be your larger overarching ethos.
You simply assume that revenge is an invalid reason, without providing any argument thereof. Worse, you call it 'absurd' to believe in vengeance, almost definately creating an ad hominem argument since you [again] haven't provided an argument.
You want a valid reason for vengeance? One is that it can be preventative, i.e. a deterrant. Obviously it cannot be in one-hundred-percent of the cases, but thats why most justice systems are hybrids [of two or three of the purposes for punishment]. Want another reason? Vengeance is capitalist: it suggests that there is a value to all things, i.e. goods and services including people and property, and that you are responsible for making retribution to the value you take from someone: if you take their hand, you deserve to pay the price you unfairly exacted from them. No one suggests that it makes everything 'even' or 'square', but rather helps appease the pain of loss for your victim[s]. Want still another? In some cases [such as literally plucking an eye out, removing a hand, or killing the criminal], the vengeance may accomplish one or both of the other goals [protection or rehabilitation] by preventing the criminal from even being capable of recommitting the crime.
Here's the thing: I'm not advocating vengeance as a purpose in justice, but rather suggesting that it is no where near as cut and dry as you want to believe.
"Stumble before you crawl"
"Just out of curiousity. Which philophers argue that revenge is a valid reason for punishment? I would argue against those philosophers as I will argue now against you."
Offhand, I can name a few. Plato, Draco, Hamurabi and others. The pragmatists (incl. many utilitarians) such as Mill also discussed such a possibility [as vengeance being appropriate], and accepted if there could be a demonstrated increase in utility due to the vengeance. If the vengeance accomplishes deterrance, as I suggested, then it would be acceptable.
"Dismissing an argument by simply labeling it ad hominem then name-calling the arguer as being "simply contrarian" is an ad hominem argument itself, and far worse, it is ad personum."
You're completely wrong, and clearly don't understand the words you're using for several reasons: first, the phrase 'ad hominem' is an argumentative term and one of the most dangerous logical fallacies. It refers to when you attack the person without addressing the argument, which is meaningless since an argument stands on its own merits, not that of the person giving it. Second, 'ad personum' is not a phrase with similar meaning: ad personum means "on a personal basis" and refers to the method by which you determine whether someone violated a rule. Try looking up things you don't understand before using them in arguments. Third, when I called the poster "contrarian" I was not suggesting that was a flaw in the argument, but rather commenting on the apparent motivations of the person. My disagreement with their stance was based solely on my logical points.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your points, since I don't feel any of them are anything but repetition of your claim that revenge is automatically bad. I will however mention that you again misuse a few terms: "prima facae" means "on first glance" or "without analysis", and refers to problems with a hypothesis (or claim) that are apparent without any discussion. In other words, they're points that can be made immediately, without argumentation, from the initial claim. In the way you use it, following two argumentative steps, its innapropriate. Further, you misuse the terms "cruel" and "sadistic": the former is an adjective/adverb which primarily refers to people/behaviors which are defined by a purely malicious character, while the latter is an adjective/adverb referring to people/behaviors which are defined by the character of enjoying the unrighteous suffering of others. You misuse them in the following way: a victim inflicting revenge is being neither cruel (since the revenge is not malicious, but rather extracting fair payment and punishment) nor sadistic (since, again, there is no malicious or unrighteous behavior).
"Stumble before you crawl"