Slashdot Mirror


Does Hacking Grades Warrant 20 Years in Jail?

While there have been many students who decided they would rather change their grades than come by them the usual way, the punishments for the most part have been pretty reasonable. However, the latest chapter in this type of behavior finds two culprits facing a $250,000 fine and 20 years in jail based on the number of charges leveled against them. "The guys have been charged with "unauthorized computer access, identity theft, conspiracy, and wire fraud." Obviously, these guys did a bad thing, but it's hard to see how the possible sentence matches with the crime. Of course, it seems unlikely that any judge would give them the maximum sentence, but even hearing that it's possible just for changing your grades seems ridiculous."

8 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Confusing The Issue by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA and the post author confuse the issue by saying that these guys are getting punished for the end result (changing their grades), rather than the method (hacking an admin account, using that access to hack other accounts, stealing privileged information, AND taking cash to change someone's grades).

    Imagine some jerkwad walked into a 7-11, got a Slurpee, tried to walk out without paying for it, then shot the clerk when the clerk confronted him. Then imagine the Slashdot article saying "this guy could get the death penalty just for stealing a Slurpee."

    That's an extreme example, but it gets my message across. They're being prosecuted not only for what they did, but how they did it.

    Also, if you read the original press release from the DOJ, it states: "The charged counts carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. However, the actual sentence will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables, and any applicable statutory sentencing factors."

    So even the Feds, while stating the maximum possible sentence (probably for the deterrence value), are admitting that the actual sentence depends on a lot of factors and probably won't be the maximum. Although giving these guys double-dimes in the pen would send a message.

    1. Re:Confusing The Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For a better analogy, picture, "Hey John, I'll give you $5 if you steal Mrs. Smith's gradebook, change my grade in it, and put it back." This sounds identical to the list of crimes you made, only committed with a pencil rather than a computer. The problem here is that old lawmakers are more afraid of computers (because they don't know how they work), and thus are making equivalent crimes more severe if they involve a computer instead of a pencil.

      Now ask yourself if getting paid $5 to steal Mrs. Smith's gradebook and change a grade is worth 20 years in jail. Does it become worth a longer sentence if you have to be smarter to accomplish the same task?

    2. Re:Confusing The Issue by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right. The grandparent might be wondering what happened to his brilliant legal career, but I'm not.

      Bottom line -- it doesn't matter why he did it, it only matters what he did. We don't go easier on defendants who murder someone because they were only trying to keep everyone from finding out about their secret extramarital love affair.

      OTOH, we do go easier on defendants who steal a $100,000 car to go joyriding. Technically, they could be charged with grand theft auto, but because joyriders generally return the car from whence it came, we call it a misdemeanor and give them a little community service instead of 15 years in prison.

      There are complex legal issues that need to be sorted out and dealt with when it comes to computer criminal statues, especially becuause they are so new. On one hand, kids who break into a system just to prove they can should get an easier sentence, just like the joyriders, IMHO. OTOH, changing grades, while juvenile, is breaking into a system for purposes of committing fraud. It's technically no different than the guy who breaks into a computer system to produce a fake id or to alter financial records.

      Public policy on criminal penalties usually boils down to legislatures and jurists deciding severity based on the amount of damage to society.

      The real question is -- is the kid who changed grades damaging society as much as the guy who breaks in to the bank computer to transfer $1 million into his personal account, a few cents at a time over the next 10 years?

    3. Re:Confusing The Issue by NiceGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Bottom line -- it doesn't matter why he did it, it only matters what he did. We don't go easier on defendants who murder someone because they were only trying to keep everyone from finding out about their secret extramarital love affair."

      Incorrect. Motive and mental state are often used to determine punishment. Manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, etc.

    4. Re:Confusing The Issue by moronoxyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being smart isn't so much of an evolutionary advantage now, is it?

      If they had been smart, they wouldn't haven been caught.
      If they had been smarter, they wouldn't have done something that stupid.
      If they had been really smart, they wouldn't have had the need to change grades...

      It's not only what you are able to do, but being able to choose wisly when to use your talents.

  2. Like it says, the maximum penalty is unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Complaining about the maximum sentence shows lack of experience with matters of law. There are many, many laws in various countries that carry a substantial maximum penalty for a crime because the crime _can_ be severe but it can also be ridiculously petty.

    For example, most countries carry the crime "theft" on the books and if that country only has one statute for any sort of theft, the maximum penalty will look harsh if it would be applied to someone stealing a candy bar. However, one has to consider that the same statute also covers stealing millions from a bank in which case a sentence closer to the maximum could be justified.

    That's why we have HUMAN judges, with all their faults, instead of just a computer that checks if all the conditions for the crime is met and just prints a "default" sentence, because not every case is the same even if they are punishable under the same law.

  3. Standard MO by Steve+Baker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the standard MO of DA's these days. Pile on charge after charge until someone is looking down the barrel of 50 years for jay-walking, until they're very willing to take the plea-bargan slap on the wrist. Essentially torturing someone until they admit guilt. This way the DA doesn't have to actually work to convict someone while padding their resume with lots of convictions. Who wants to risk going before a capricious and tough on crime public, or worse, a tough on crime judge, to plead their innocence when they're looking at that much time? After all, if you were innocent you wouldn't have been arrested, right?

  4. Re:Times have changed. by habig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, times have changed - people used to use their SSN's in public all over the place. Now, we know that this is like handing out keys to your bank accounts. Privacy about personal information is suddenly a (rightfully) important topic.

    If TFA had been about someone at the school who let his laptop get stolen with all that sensitive information on it, slashdot would be full of people calling for his head. These guys break in, sell their access, and are suddenly martyrs because they got caught quickly, limiting the damage to changed grades? Bogus.

    Also, beware the hyperbole. The court's job is to make sure that the sentence fits the crime, the listed penalties are maximums.