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."
(Hint to foolish wannabe kiddiez: stick to posting 'me toooo!!!!111' on the warez channel du jour. They won't send your sorry ass to prison for that.)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
A smarter system would have this kid be a digital janitor for a year or so. Disinfect this computer, now disinfect that one. You know, like an intern, and maybe he could get a job out of it when he's done.
More productive than license plates, and more likely to pay society back.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
i can say this: if you don't know enough to keep from getting caught, well, enjoy the penalty. On that note, no, i don't condone doing such a thing, but with the many ways to get online anonymously (no, not some crappy online anonymizer or some such...i mean, the real ways...if you don't know, i'm sure as fuck not going to tell you) you should never be caught....
...unless you are stupid, reuse code, code with the wrong tools (read up), and release from your own fucking email account, etc. The ways to get away with this shit are many, the stupid take-the-easy-way-out folks get caught and the normal user will click away like there's no tomorrow regardless of the source (ask your local IT guy if you don't believe me on that one).
Sorry, no remorse for those that act without knowing enough.
He pled guilty, so he's guilty. good. send him to jail. I've got no problem with that.
But as for the millions, who actually get's the money?
an IT profesionals JOB is to deal with problems, much like blaster caused (and still ocasionally does).
What other costs do these companies incur, as a result of a worm/virus?
Do these companies want money to pay the wages of these tech's?
if the worm did it's job through the use of an OS exploit, why isn't the OS creator picking up part of the bill?
legal fee's I can ken, but the rest doesn't quite make sense to Me...
I'm not the only person who's happy that the asshole that made me waste hours fixing the dozens of idiot-owned unpatched boxes is going to jail?
You can go ahead and blame the user all you want (a popular thing to do in the Slashdot crowd, because of course, us IT people NEVER MAKE MISTAKES), but the user didn't "write" the virus.
There's a balance somewhere inbetween these two statements. It will always be illegal to unleash a virus, just as it will always be illegal to murder. However, just as civil suits can and do win against negligent manufacturers of equipment for failing to include adequate and reasonable safety measures, so should civil class-action suits win against makers of software who haven't done their due diligence on the security side of things. I'm not a fan of punitive damages against the manufacturer, but I think cost-of-purchase would be in order, covering the product bought (or the whole cost of any bundle containing the product). IOW, consumers should be able to sue Eudora for the cost of their mail client if they get penetrated and virused through it, and should be able to sue M$ for the entire cost of Windows since Outlook Express was a bundled component. (And again, not just because there was a bug - those are inevitable - but as a class action suit alleging that they were completely negligent in the area of security as evidence by the pattern of recurrent successful attacks on their software).
11*43+456^2
I'm sorry, but how did he not cause damages with a virus which disrupted work and forced companies to disinfect their machines?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Saying that this guy wrote a virus is like me changing the names in The Lord of the Rings and calling myself an author....
That's one way to look at it.
One could also argue that this kid modified and released a piece of software that he knew for a fact would run rampant and infect countless systems worldwide. He'd already seen it in action, and he knew exactly what it did to an infected system. He can't even run the Morris defense of 'it was released accidentally and I had no idea it would be this bad'.
This punk got his hands on a very nasty computer virus, made changes to it, and released it back into the wild knowing fully well what he was doing and would happen as a result of his actions. That it was a mind-numbingly simple change doesn't make his actions any less malicious or criminal. Throw the book at him.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Well, if they can charge a kid with gajillions of dollars in unsubstantiated damages, then why shouldn't we be able to sue Microsoft and others for whatever damages we can dream up and somehow connect to their crappy software?
Because you perfectly knew their software was insecure, it's been commonly known for years. You also waived all your rights to Microsoft when you clicked OK to the EULA.
People should take responsibility for their own actions, not sue left and right too..
This is just to show there is more to this argument..
So by using this logic, any victim of a crime deserves what they get if they did not take every effort to prevent it from happening. Example, a person leaves on vacation and locks their home. They stop their mail and have someone take care of their dog. However, they forget to stop their paper, and thus, a criminal notices they are gone and breaks into their home and steals their belongings. By your definition, it is the homeowners who are at fault, and the burglar, if caught, should not be punished. Also, in that same situation, if a person noticed that the house had been broken into, and went in, and stole a painting that been left by the previous burglar, does that mean the individual wasn't guilty, because he hadn't broken into the house originally? By your logic, he isn't. I would argue he is just as guilty as the previous burglar. This kid committed a crime. He deliberately caused harm to people's property. It doesn't matter if he wrote the original virus or not. He needs to be punished. And I don't think the punishment is off base.
but he didn't did he, he showed no compassion for his victims so why should we show him? He wanted to play with the big boys, cause discomfort to countless people, be the though guy. Well now he can be though in jail. Something tells me he is going to be crying for his mommy.
I don't agree with many things american but the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" I can get behind. This guy was no victim of society. He was not a poor man stealing bread for his family. He was nothing more then a little punk who went around smashing peoples car, a thief stealing every bike around because he is to lazy to walk, a parasite.
Sure he was an idiot but an idiot who deliberatly set out to cause other people harm. What do you suggest we do? Give him a 50 dollar penalty? Slap on the wrist? Then he will be boasting in seconds on the net on how the pigs couldn't touch him and his leet hacking skills brought down the net.
No let him rot for a couple of months. I doubt it will send a message to other script kiddies but there is always the element of revenge. Ghandi may have a thing or two to say about revenge but Ghandi also left a country wich now has been at war for 50 yrs with itself and its neighbour. (tamils and pakistan)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.