Slashdot Mirror
LulzSec Suspect Arrested By UK Police
An anonymous reader writes "The UK's Police Computer e-Crime Unit (PCeU) has arrested a 19-year-old man in Wickford, Essex, in connection with the series of LulzSec attacks against organizations including the CIA, PBS and Sony. The man, who has been arrested under the Computer Misuse and Fraud Act, has had his house searched and a significant amount of material taken away by police for forensic examination. The PCeU worked with local Essex police and the FBI on the investigation."
It's important to note at this point that it has not been confirmed that the arrested man is suspected of being involved with LulzSec by the authorities. But many observers are speculating that that could be the case.
So this "news" article is nothing but speculation?
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
How about some due process, first?
I'm gonna need a spec.
Opening arguments next month:
Judge: "Can the defendant please state, for the record, why they felt it was necessary to take down several high-profile website, costing those companies hundreds of thousands in lost income, cleanup costs, and angry support calls?"
Defendant's Lawyer: "Ah, your honor, let the record show... they did it for the 'lulz'".
Judge: "I see. Well, in the spirit of their crime, sentencing will be 'for the lulz'."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's important to note at this point that it has not been confirmed that the arrested man is suspected of being involved with LulzSec by the authorities. But many observers are speculating that that could be the case.
How can you go from that to "Lulzsec suspect arrested?"
Give me a break. If it is THAT vulnerable where a hacker can access a system then they are going after the wrong person. It isn't like this guy is in the country. You can't just go after anybody you please. It isn't reasonable. They can't catch guys operating out of North Korea, Sudan, Iran, or Cuba. There should be standards that developers have to live up to or I should say the products. If they don't then the companies selling said products should be the ones held liable. Yes- it means increased costs. That is what would be reasonable. Just because you catch a handful of the people who can exploit these systems because those systems are so easy to exploit does not fix the problem. It is stupid to go after the very people who are finding the holes rather than fixing the damm holes.
Yeah, you try breaking in to a house and after that try to explain it with "well, they should had armored their door and made better locks".
It's lulzier without it.
Sounds like you hate America, son.
You're missing the point. The parent is criticising the grand parent for automatically labelling him as guilty and already saying what his sentence is, before any due process has taken place..
Yeah. On the internet, we call that 'tuesday'.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I know it makes for boring news but apparently Ryan Cleary did nothing except host the IRC where lulzsec had a channel.
LulzSec has already responded on Twitter. "Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it's all over now... wait... we're all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?"
They've been arrested. The public is watching. There will be a trial. How much more due process do you think a criminal deserves?
Alleged criminal.
If the courts are as quick to jump to conclusions as you, then all the publicity in the world won't buy him due process.
There are two separate issues: did the hackers make unauthorized use of a computer, and was the computer adequately protected. These are independent. There are laws against unauthorized use of computers, and they do not specify some 'degree of difficulty' before they are effective, nor should they. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use, period. There may or may not be laws regarding protection of data. However, even if there are, violation of THAT law would be a separate crime, and in no way would excuse someone who violated the unauthorized use law.
And your analogy is much worse than the house analogy. The hackers actually did damage - they released account info, DDOS'd servers etc. To complete your analogy, the bomb must actually be detonated. If that were the case, I doubt anyone would be defending the person who did it as some kind of hero for pointing out a security weakness.