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."
In related news top Microsoft executives are expected to address a grand jury tomorrow morning for betraying the public trust by carelessly releasing software without thorough debugging. Yesterday, Steve Ballmer addressed reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press denouncing the charges. "It's like suing an automaker for selling cars without thorough crash testing and evaluation."
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
(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.
Parson was charged here last August because Microsoft is based in suburban Redmond.
;-)
"We appreciate the fact that the defendant has accepted responsibility for the crime he committed," Microsoft deputy general counsel Nancy Anderson said Wednesday.
He changed Blaster to make it attack the MPAA & RIAA rather then Microsoft.
Microsoft should thank him
My pics.
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.
Harsh sentence, but I don't have a lot of sympathy. Idiot makes virus, idiot gets caught, idiot gets punished.
Next please.
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...
Are you talking about Microsoft or Parson?
My pics.
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.
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
I think he just pleaded guilty to being dumb... I hope he didn't tell them about his next script he has modified to start a nuclear war...
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
Convict: A computer virus killed my family's PC! Now I'll kill you!
Shouldn't the last bit be 'Prepare to die!'?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Well, maybe we should make him re-install Winderz on every box infected using a 1X CD drive, a 14" monitor and a one-button mouse. I think that would satisfy the Mikado that The Punishment Fit The Crime.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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....
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
Unless you don't think time has any value.
While the Mitnick case was unjust in, that I understand anyway, he "stole" code which he might have gotten if he asked very nicely through a student program, but being hit with exorbitant damages, Blaster and variants costed a lot in bandwidth, productivity losses and cost/time of removal.
That reminds me of a case where a caller needed to extract files from floppies, but was missing one. He called back when he'd borrowed one, but he'd borrowed a 3.5" and the rest of his set were 5.25". Naturally, it didn't have the right files as the capacity was different and the disk in question was one in the middle.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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.
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
"he is forever be known as a script kiddy" (which begs the question, Why? Modifying a virus isn't a good way to make yourself popular).
Script kiddies aren't popular (at least outside script kiddie circles) - they are usually considered the lowest form of life.
* Virus writer: understands how stuff works, spends a long time putting together viruses (this is not right but he's put some effort into it)
* Cracker: again, like the virus writer, understands how exploits work, spends lots of time writing the exploit (again, not right but some effort has gone into it and in the long run it _does_ uncover bugs in software, which might be a good thing)
* Script kiddie: Can't type properly, inserts numbers in everything because he thinks it looks "cool" (actually it make him look like a 12 year old tosser). Uses someone else's virus/exploit code and either uses it as-is or makes some minor modifications. This guy has done absolutely no work in writing the code he's using and almost certaionly doesn't havea clue how it works.
Virus writers and crackers deserve some respect because they understand stuff and work for it, even if it is wrong. Script kiddies don't deserve respect because they don't understand anything, just rip off someone else's code and then think it's cool to compromise a few thousand/million machines.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
It talks about Jeffrey Lee Parson. Also the /. story says he's 18. The USATODAY one says 19, though he would have been 18 at the time he released the worm (guessing based on article, I don't know when his birthday is).
Please check the facts before you submit a Slashdot story.
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.
Would you imprison a two year old for, well, anything? Why not? Of course because they are incapable of realising that if they stick a hairpin into a power outlet (ie "investigating their world" aka "trying shit out") they might start a fire that burns down their house.
Similarly teenagers are literally incapable of realising that there are consequences to their actions- the part of the brain required to do so simply does not develop until they are in their early twenties. Simple. Scientific. Fact. They might look like adults but they do not think like adults.
Now, how about this lynch mob turn around and go home.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
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.
Who is really to blame for this? People who run unsecured Windows installs, or the original worm writer? Is cyber-punk really getting a fair shake, when authorities have made it clear they are making an example out of him?
What lawyer is going to let their client walk in to a courtroom dressed the way he was, and expect to sway the judge?
Why is Microsoft not held liable for an OS full of exploits?
Why are /.ers so angry at dumb cyber-dork and not angry at the company that makes the OS that makes these worms possible, or people that continue to use Outlook Express - when there are alternatives for both?
Is it a /. thing that everyone who goes to prison should be raped? Is anal rape rehabilitation to /.ers?
It's certain that moral values are learned differently by different people, depending on their genetic make-up and environment.
... WE LOCK 'EM UP !!!!
By the age of 18 however, we have been consistently tutored into the meaning of right and wrong by our elders SPECIFICALLY to make up for the variations in individuals' ability to learn the concept of themselves.
In fact, you don't learn right and wrong spontaneously, it's what society and family teach you.
Your argument seems to say that no one should be held liable for their unwillingness to join society as one of its functional members. Well that's weird because it's when an individual breaches that contract that
It's not like society just left people to their own devices and then will-nilly locked them up for random reasons.
This guy knew perfectly well what he was doing.
Take him down.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that revenge is absurd is easy to establish. And obvious to anyone with any sense or intelligence beyond the preschool level. No. It is "you" who are simply being contrarian. You are arguing a position that you could not possibly believe in.
Furthermore, you are using argumentum ad vericundiam by deferring to the authority of the 'philosophers'. Philosophers you do not even bother to identify. Philosophers which obviously do not exist, unless they are as contrarian and senseless as you. Your reliance on the authority of these so called philosophers isn't going to fool anyone.
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].
But "deterrence" is already one of the stated purposes for punishment. Therefore courts are free to apply whatever remedy will accomplish deterrence. This may include causing reasonable harm to the convict, that can be justified by the benefit of the deterrence.
Because the court is already free to achieve as much deterrance as it deems to be justified, the kind of revenge you must be advocating, is the kind of revenge that actually does not provide deterrence.
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.
Clearly you must agree therefore that revenge has no place in a socially just society, as capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with justice.
But even though you agree that revenge is not appropriate in a just society, your argument does not favour revenge in a capitalist society.
The victim gets nothing of any worth of the revenge. No capital. Furthermore, your premise that a principle of capitalism is 'making retribution to the value you take from someone' is utter nonsense. The principle of capitalism is making MORE than the value you take from someone, or in the alternative paying less. Buy low... sell high. No capitalist would invest money in an enterprise, if their only hope was to get exactly the same amount of money in return. They could just hang on to their money and make the same return.
No. It is CRIME which is capitalist. And it is CRIME that you are advocating when you advocate revenge.
No one suggests that it makes everything 'even' or 'square', but rather helps appease the pain of loss for your victim[s].
only if your victims are sadists or cruel.
However, when you are on the topic of appeasing the urges of the cruel and the sadistic: couldn't giving the victims a 'free pass' to commit murder and mayhem also appease such urges? Why is it better to inflict unjustified harm on the criminal, rather than on the innocent? That is.. if appeasement (rather than actual justice) is your only argument in favour of revenge.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
"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"