Slashdot Mirror
Hack a Million Systems and Earn a Job
An anonymous reader writes "It has been a number of years since the fantasy that hackers will be offered a job by those who they hacked was even a potential reality, but this might still be the case in New Zealand. An 18-year-old hacker responsible for writing a number of applications used by an online group called 'the A-Team' that allowed the creation of a million-plus machine botnet and a range of credit card fraud activities to take place, has walked free from court sans conviction despite pleading guilty. And to top it all off, the NZ police force were interested in talking to the hacker about working for them, and 'several computer programming companies' were also chasing him for his skills."
...so I'll be driving everywhere with my foot to the floor, hoping for a drive by 2010!
This has been on the news for awhile in NZ, the funny thing is the paper the other day said tens of thousands, then another one said hundreds and now it's a million!
Awesome.
This is a great step forward for black hats everywhere! And a great step forward for aspiring CS students ... and a step back for mankind. *siigh*
at least it was 2 forward and one back...
This guy has already proven that he will break the law. By working for the police department, he can write the systems for them, then later leave and hack their system. The guy has already been proven that he can't be trusted, so why work with him.
Oh great. I'm twenty and I'm comparitively useless and old. That's so depressing. :(
Now you just have to grow your hair long and look depressed and you too can be like him.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
According to a local story he was discharged without conviction because he didn't show criminal intent, rather he was he motivated by proving his abilities, and conviction would be unduly detrimental to his future prospects.
The NZ Police force have stated they are not offering him a job, yet somehow all the NZ media are saying companies are lining up to offer him a job. I've seen nothing but speculation and rumours.
While it's unfortunate that he has a form of Aspergers, the kid should have been convicted.
...why! This goes against everything my parents ever told me!
Hitting a child was *always* illegal in NZ. There was a defense in law for a parent of 'reasonable chastisement'. This has recently been removed.
Honestly, he's an 18 year old with Asperger's. In other words, he's a lonely teenage nerd, with a literal handicap in the personality department. The only thing to do is give the kid a job.
Asperger's, like autism, makes cause and effect a little difficult to process. That said, people with Asperger's also tend to be very methodical (as his computer expertise can attest.) Setting down a clear set of expectations for him about how to behave in the computing realm is difficult, but it's not the same thing as trying to reform a hardened hacker. He's young, and he's not entirely with it, at least not in terms of personal interaction. I imagine that's exactly why he hasn't been charged.
They're also behind their sheep. *ba-dum-tsh*
Did you know that it is now even illegal to smack your child in NZ?
Did you know, if you smack your wife in the shopping mall, she can press charges? If your wife turns up to the hospital bruised and battered and says that you did it, you'd be fronting the police also.
Those laws aren't in the least extreme, since children are not in a position to press charges on their own behalf.
I tell you what. this coutry is great in so many respects but they are really bad at punishing people.
That is something I can't argue with, but the reasons the system is broken are the same why the health system is broken, education and others. They don't work properly because there are finite resources and judges are forced to give sentences which don't flood the prison system. You want tougher sentences for existing criminality, then you'll need bigger prisons. Then you'll hear "why am I paying $$$ in taxes to support those crims in prison, giving them three meals a day plus free color television, etc..etc..rant rant rant".
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Some more context might be useful. Walker had mild Aspergers syndrome; criminals were paying him to work, but the judge believed that he was unaware of what they were doing with his work. Even the crown prosecutor acknowledged that he had not profited financially, nor had he used the botnet (which, I guess, he helped make) for fraudulent purposes.
Summary: Aspergers kid develops amazing programming skills; gets exploited by bad guys; when it all blows up his family starts paying more attention to him and he gets more sociable. Judge realises that he done wrong, but he didn't mean wrong; sending him to prison would ruin his life and cost taxpayers money, whereas keeping him out of prison will let his family set him straight and turn him into a profitable, functioning member of society.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
In a situation like this, why *not* co-opt them? If the damages can be undone or leave no lasting harm, it surely makes sense to channel and redirect that skill. Sure, credit card scams and phishing attacks can ruin lives in worst case scenarios, or otherwise cause a great deal of inconvenience, but no extraordinary or lasting damage should have been done in this case once things have been set straight. Chalk up another point for the perils of data security in the modern world and put him to work in community service, have him serve a jail sentence, or...make use of his skills to help better the community he put at risk. Criminals are not always prone to repeating their crimes and he wouldn't do anyone much good if he's left uneducatced or put behind bars - the best he can hope for then is a job that won't pay much and leaves room for him to consider using his skills for selfish reasons. Better to put valuable skills to good use in the midst of professionals who could keep an eye on him and train him. It's not their place to try and instill a desire to follow the law, but they can certainly make it to his advantage to do so. And I'd think it more of a deterrent to know you're working with professionals that would be slightly harder to sneak something past than your average law enforcement. You run the risk of just creating a better criminal, but you also have the chance to create a better law enforcer.
As a New Zealander, I can assure you that, despite what has been represented in the media, it is not illegal to smack your child here. What happened was that the defence of 'reasonable force' was removed from the crime of child abuse. What that means is that you can smack you child, but you can not beat the crap out of your child and then claim you were just disciplining them.
What they really should have done is force him to work for them. The logic for most crimes should be: commit a crime, be forced to work with police to prevent crime. The more they get, the easier it is to catch others, the more they get etc. Of course if he doesn't even have to do that, then I just hope he'll get murdered.
Help fight spam
Typical, they are a decade behind the rest of the world.
Yeah the "world" is so ahead isn't it. Poor Kiwis, why haven't they got all their troops in the middle east already, and a mortgage crisis, and incalculable foreign debt and nuclear power and massive prisons and... and when can I move there?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Without going into details, I got my start as a software engineer by hacking into a well known corporate system and being offered a job. I didn't get caught, but rather let them know about it (in a very nice way!) This was more than 20 years ago now, so I dare say the climate towards benign systems hacking is probably a tad more hostile today. Intent and methods probably saved my bacon, even then.
}#q NO CARRIER
Assault is illegal. There is a legal defence of self-defence. So you may defend yourself against a 'street thug' but not continue to beat him (to the point of e.g punishment or to 'teach him a leasson'.)
I worked as tech support for a small local isp a few years back, and this kind of thing happened to a guy who was hired with me. When we were all sitting in the conference room getting the legal brief, one of the stipulations was something like, "You cannot work here if you've ever been convicted of a computer hacking-related crime" or something to that effect.
The lady said it with that haha-I-know-no-one-in-this-room-is-that-smart kind of way, but the guy sitting next to me got real quiet and asked if he could talk to her outside. Turns out he cracked into a bunch of university computers down in georgia or someplace and it was a pretty big deal, and he had used this local isp as his springboard. It was iffy for a while but they gave him the job anyways, since he did the crime when he was a young teenager.
Reubens, if you're reading this, feel free to correct me if my details were wrong.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Followed this case closely.... especially the thing that brought him down: a UPenn student named Ryan Goldstein, aka Digerati...
http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2007/11/29/penn-student-enters-the-matrix/
A wannabe hacker who got kicked out of an IRC group frequented by a group called Splinter Security for being a pedophile:
http://www.scriptkitty.net/files/Digerati-Exposed.zip
[NSFW]
Whose teenage angst could not be contained... and hired a NZ skript kiddie named AKILL... who agreed to use his botnet to do a DDOS against TAUnet... as this would somehow make Splinter Security Group realize how much of a mistake they'd made in banning Ryan for being a pedo and beg for him back.
IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS: Ryan offered up some bandwidth on an engineering lab server so that AKILL could update the code on his botnet.
The way they got caught: As it turns out, people notice when your 40,000 node botnet tries to download an executable off of a server that normally sees no activity.... ALL AT THE SAME TIME. As it turns out, that server crashes, the traffic doesn't stop, people notice something's wrong and call the feds.
It's all quite funny.
As a society, we need to realize that criminals or 'outcasts' (for whatever reason) can be extraordinarily intelligent. As a society, we need to learn how to harness their skills.
Frank Abagnale (the main character of said movie) turns from a check-forger into a designer of secure checks... by using his knowledge of what's hard to forge. We're all better off as a result.
There was a kid a couple of months ago who had the creative and technical skill to make a CounterStrike map of his school. I sure as hell can't do that. Now instead of letting him do an independent study in game design or 3d modeling, or even teach a class (after school or whatever), they sent him to a 'special' school (where they send all the stupid bullies).
We need to give people who possess this intelligence another outlet.... otherwise they'll continue to eat our lunch. Being on the wrong side of the law is obviously more interesting, which is presumably the appeal - a Google-style approach of 'work on cool projects on a flexible schedule' ought to keep them interested enough to do productive work.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
letting some criminals off easy due to their "usefulness", then yes, it's a step backwards for justice.
damaged by dogma
So did he say to himself on the way to the interview, "I just love it when a plan comes together!"?
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
Personality disorders such as Aspergers can be debilitating, but at some point we must all take responsibility for our own actions. No one else can.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I'm sorry, what was that? I was too busy looking up electric bus timetables with my second-gen iPhone.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Corrective justice > Retributive justice.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
The crown will plainly show the prisoner who now stands before you, was caught red handed 0wn1ng people, 0wn1ng people of an almost HUMAN nature.
This will not do.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
1. Nothing is stopping him from doing a little work "on the side". You hiring him does not mean he is not going to write rootkits. It also doesn't mean he's not going to take money to work against you.
2. He's gaining knowledge of your systems. When someone later outbids you, he's not only working against you, but doing so from a stronger position (while at the same time denying you any benefit you might have gotten from him).
Assault is illegal. The crimes act defines what is and what is not assault.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html
Is self defence legal? According to section 48 yes.
Is using reasonable force to prevent someone from stealing my property legal? According to section 52 yes.
This business of saying something is illegal yet one has a "legal defence" is muddleheaded. Either an act is legal or illegal.
To defend oneself from an attack from a 'street thug' is not assault. To physically injure the 'street thug' for the purpose of revenge or punishment is an assault.
At the risk of extending this rather off-topic fork, I feel its important to correct a mis-truth in the above.
By removing the defence of reasonable force there is no longer a defence for smacking your child; how is that NOT illegal?
For clarity, the truth is that it has always been 'illegal' to smack your kids (ala 'assault anyone') but reasonable force has always been a valid defence for parents, in the course of disciplining their kids. No longer the case, making prosecutions much more likely to succeed. Net result is that we now have busybodies and narkers stepping in...
News coverage from when it became law: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440080%5D
Noted as the most extreme law in the world on the subject: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00223.htm
A father gets a warning put on his police record for flicking his childs ear:
http://stuff.co.nz/4354765a10.html
The latter occurred because a bystander 'took umbrage' and an off-duty police officer phoned it in. The guy then winds up surrounded by 6 cops!
Sorry but I couldnt let you spread mis-truths about New Zealand Law. It is illegal to smack your child here, because there is no legal defence for what essentially is an assault in the eyes of the law. Splitting hairs further has no value.
-.-. --.-
Why is this modded Funny? In this case it's a perfectly reasonable justice system. He's already been fined NZ$15,000 (~US$11,000) which would likely be a lot for him.
The judge looked at the situation and the context (including the fact that he's autistic), took into account that the police weren't too interested in seeing him in jail (NZ police are interested in actually preventing crime rather than simply locking people up), decided he's young and is probably unlikely to do it again if given a second chance, took into account that he's received other forms of discipline already, noted that he'd actually realised and accepted the consequences of what he did and was willing to try and pay reparations, noted that an on-the-record criminal conviction would limit him in a lot of ways for the rest of his life and probably put him in a position where he'd more likely offend again, and determined that all of this information outweighed the possibility of a discharge-without-conviction encouraging others.
This seems like a very good justice system to me. The judge is actually considering the case on its merits and taking into account that throwing someone into jail will just make it more likely they'll re-offend when they get out.
Do you see prison and tougher sentances as a deterrant? I don't. Unlike what I hear quite a lot of, I'm not personally convinced that the possibility of longer sentances even occur to most people before they commit a crime. Many are probably not even considering the possibility of getting caught, or just thinking it's unlikely.
Personally I'd prefer that people didn't offend in the first place, and that people didn't re-offend when they got out of prison. There are much more fundamental and more complex issues to deal with in that respect.
Like I wrote back in 2001 Hiring hackers - why it might not be a good idea
There has been a long, ongoing debate about this issue, and recently it has resurfaced in public. Should companies hire hackers convicted of computer crimes? The general theory is that these "hackers" are elite commando style computer security experts that can tighten up your network in a weekend marathon of pizza and pop. Often nothing is further from the truth.
The first concern I would have is: are these people really any good at computer security? Now this may sound like a rather silly question, but it bears asking. The most obvious clue would be that they have been caught and convicted of a computer related crime. If they are such great "hackers" why did they get caught? Kevin Mitnick, a very famous hacker, was caught several times, and spent time in jail. Most hackers possess very little actual skill. They simply follow in the footsteps of others. It is very easy to download precompiled exploit scripts from sites such as rootshell and then use them to break into systems. Even assuming for a moment that this person has any advanced computer security skills related to breaking into networks, this does not mean they have the skills needed to secure networks. It is one thing to find a weakness and exploit it, but it is an entirely different matter to fix it properly.
Securing a network takes a lot more then plugging a few technical holes. Even if I were to walk into your network and fix every single existing problem, it would not make your network secure. Security is a procedure with many steps, assessment, definition of needs, planning, implementation, review, and so forth, which amounts to a never ending cycle. Even if you hire a brilliant hacker that secures you against all known attacks, new problems will crop up. Even if your hacker has these qualities, their ethics are extremely questionable. There is a famous saying among lawyers: "never put a perjurer on the stand", which boils down to "if you know he's lied before, chances are, he might do it again". How can you trust your newly hired hacker not to slip backdoors into the system that they might later exploit. While it is true that any trusted employee might try to do something like this it certainly seems silly to put yourself in a higher risk category.
A company has a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders. They are entrusted with their stockholders' money and are expected to make decisions that will increase it without unnecessary risk. Engaging in high risk behavior means legal liability. For example, would it be reasonable to sue the corporation for not taking proper care and responsibility in hiring someone they know to have offended before? Considering the position of trust most security administrators are placed in (they have administrative access to servers, monitor users' network usage, read incoming and outgoing e-mail and so on) is it really wise to hire these people? A person with administrative access to a server, or physical access to the network can break into systems and leave backdoors with nary a trace. Would you expect a bank to hire criminals convicted of armed robbery to transport money on the grounds they know what to look out for? Would you hire a burglar to install the alarm system for your house?
While it would be nice if all criminals that got caught were rehabilitated, used their skills for good rather than evil, and never offended again, this is not a perfect world. By breaking the law, for whatever reason (curiosity, maliciousness, etc.) they have chosen to violate rules generally accepted in most countries and societies. They have (at a bare minimum) shown poor decision making, and while they may not specifically want to re-offend, they may be tempted by a short term gain and take a chance (as they have in past).
Summary
While it is possible to find a convicted hacker with the skills you want, it is exceedingly ra
Aspergers isn't a personality disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#List_of_personality_disorders_defined_in_ICD-10_.28F60-F69.29
It's a neurobiological disorder.
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
We are all, of course, ultimately responsible for our actions. ... Except that some neuro-atypical people may not be. But I think the judge had the right idea here.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Perhaps that's because the NZ system knows that punishment doesn't really do much to prevent crime?
Firstly, we don't have mortgage crisis. We've had a few high-risk property investment companies collapsing, sure. But it's a long way from a crisis yet. And to compare our woes with what the US is experiencing is to really underestimate their situation.
As for our "third world" power generation, two thirds of our power is generated from renewable sources (mostly hydro and geothermal). Which means, sure, we have times (like now) when the water in our hydro lakes is getting a little low, and we have to conserve. On the other hand, it means that we're that much less reliant on oil, a power source that's going to become more expensive, rapidly.
Oh, and the rise of youth crime is a myth. A pervasive one, sure. But in reality, crime rates have been falling for twelve years now, and youth crime as a percentage of offending has stayed steady across the same period. Combine that with an increasing population (which you'd expect to see raise per-capita crime rates), and the rise of cellphones and associated crime reporting levels, and we're looking pretty damn low on crime at the moment.
=w=
Yep, this makes me sick. Let's see, hire a hacker to protect your systems. What a great idea! I mean, what are the chances that he will steal all our sensitive information and sell it? What are the chances he will steal our customer's data and ruin our reputation as a business so no one will ever deal with us again? I have a better idea, we will be proactive about it and make the whole thing public, so people can stop doing business with us now rather than after we get screwed! Hire a professional. Hire someone with ethics. There are a lot of people who know how to hack. Some of us choose not to because of this, umm, ethical thing. We realize that we should do the right thing. Next thing you know assassins will be hired to protect people, and bank robbers will be hired as Brinks truck drivers. When will business "get it?" Wait, that was a stupid question. Morons.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide