Slashdot Mirror
Former Student Gets Year In Prison For College President Election Fraud
Gunkerty Jeb writes, quoting Threatpost: "A former Cal State San Marcos student was sentenced to a year in prison this week for election tampering by using keystroke loggers to grab student credentials and then vote for himself. Matthew Weaver, 22, of Huntington Beach, Calif., stole almost 750 students' identities to try and become president of the San Diego County college's student government. His plan went awry when the school's computer technicians noticed an anomaly in activity and caught Weaver with keystroke loggers as he sat in front of the suspicious computer."
in national politics. But who will get him, the Dems or the Republicans?
He did receive a job offer from the NSA afterwards however.
A year in prison for the crime of fixing a vote while not being a professional political operative. At least the kid knows he's got a shot at a good job when he gets out. Better prospects than if he had finished his program at Cal State San Marcos.
all he needed to do was use a keystroke logger to work his keystroke logger.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
He's small time, he cheated, he got caught and made an example of. If only we could have this sort of efficiency and insight into real politicians.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I did something similar at "Canada's Premiere Undergraduate Experience"
Long story short, one of the people running for Student Union President won my House election the year before. He did so by getting the competition kicked out on technicalities. No, I wasn't running, and No, I wasn't friends with anyone who did. Since every day a poster is up is a "violation" they racked up fast. This guy was going out with the person who's job it is to notify people of potential violations, and they were never warned.
Fast forward two years, and I logged in as every. single. student. from a MacDonalds down the road. Didn't actually vote, just logged in, logged right back out. Then repeated 8k times. Once a student logged in, they had an hour to finish. Since everyone's hour was up at 9AM, almost no one voted.
Somehow, there was still a landslide win. Not only did he have 90% of the votes, he had more votes than there were students in the entire university.
The whole election should have been thrown out. People complained on official forums, topics were deleted as fast as they went up.
It pays to play dirty apparently.
On the one hand, fraud is bad. On the other, student government is usually a joke that deserves to be pranked. At the college level it is, AFAIK, not much better than HS. Our Class President gave a friggin' 15 minute speech at commencement. Holy Crap! That was the only real debacle at graduation. I'll never forget it. That's all I remember about the class president.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I think this kid's ready for the big time! Future statesman, you heard about him first on Slashdot!
I'm not sure mentioned on slashdot is any kind of endorsement. You don't see Wil Wheaton in the DC, do you?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
He could work for either voting board and do well!
Choose wisely where you go to school
When I was in college my roommate and friends successfully ran a campaign to get Gumby elected student President, highlighting how useless student government really is.
Aside from his 15 minutes of fame, I don't really see how the reward justified the risks he took, although encore proved a significant lack of common sense.
What's wrong with Hwil Hweaton?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I think this kid's ready for the big time! Future statesman, you heard about him first on Slashdot!
I'm not sure mentioned on slashdot is any kind of endorsement. You don't see Wil Wheaton in the DC, do you?
Nope. Because Wil Wheaton :
UPS Sucks
I'm sure he'll be a perfect candidate for a Republican or Democrat governor, congressman, or even Presidential candidate. His future looks very bright indeed!
FTFY
DC is not a freeway, therefore you cannot call it "the DC".
sudo make me a sandwich
You only go to jail for election fraud when the election officials do not get paid by the elected office of which you have just stolen.
sudo make me a sandwich
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cal-state-student-year-prison-rigging-campus-election/story?id=19682401
In a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy said, "If privacy is to mean anything in a digital age, it has to be protected. A 12-month sentence adequately warns men and women like Weaver that they cannot hide from the consequences of their actions behind youth or privilege."
But I guess you can hide from the consequences of your actions if they are hidden behind secret rulings on secret laws by a secret court.
If only they would take the real elections half as seriously, maybe then we'd regain a (small) measure of confidence in the election process.
He's probably going to prison for accessing the students accounts, not for the election fraud itself.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What a waste.
"The reason academic politics are so bitter is that so little is at stake." -- Henry Kissinger
Stupid joke.
If you're being serious "The District of Columbia" makes more sense with the "the."
that is to bribe the IT people first to look the other way.
Yet another American deprived of his right to a trial. No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.
A year in prison is probably a fair outcome if the story is as described. But he deserves to have a jury decide that, and not face absurd amounts of time in prison if he wants a jury trial.
He chose not to fight the charges. He was not deprived of his right to a trial. He could of plead not guilty. How about maybe he felt bad about what he did and actually plead guilty because he is in fact guilty. Maybe he decided to actually take personal responsibility for his actions and acknowledge in a court of law that what he did was wrong. Since your not his lawyer all you can do is speculate on his reasons for pleading guilty.
Then the original should say "the D.C."
sudo make me a sandwich
The last couple of guys who did the election fraud thing... Got to be president.
And this one goes to jail?
Talk about double standards...
I guess his mistake was he was smalltime.. You have to go HUGE if you're going into crime. Then you're too big to fail!
Where is your proof of that claim that there was election fraud in the last presidential election? Once again some AC spouting crap with nothing to back it up. Let me guess, you read it on Facebook so it must be true.
No, it is quite conventional to omit periods in full caps. Most people would accept "guns are common in the USA" and not require it to be "guns are common in the U.S.A." or "guns are common in USA".
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Yes, a year in prison is fair given the nature of his crime given that he pleaded guilty.
Yet I wouldn't agree with that being a fair sentence if he decided to "exercise his rights". Exercising your rights is appropriate when your rights are being trampled, such as when you're being prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit, you are being charged under the wrong law, or when you're planning to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Exercising your rights because you hope to get off for a crime that you committed is an abuse of the courts and deserves to be punished more harshly.
Pleading guilty avoids certain un-pleasantries.
That's extortion. If someone were bullied by the government out of their right to criticize the government, would you say "Not criticizing the government avoids certain un-pleasantries"?
The whole point of having rights is that the government cannot make your life more unpleasant for exercising them. Getting extra charges tacked on for exercising your right to a trial is no more just than getting extra attention from the IRS for exercising your right to criticize the government.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's not that he rigged an election, it's that he stole and impersonated many students identities.
and did it like a raving N00b. Even hackers want this idiot to go to jail
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm guessing that you have never served on a jury in the USA. I have twice and it just left me completely cynical about the entire US justice system and the use of juries in general. Literally anything can happen on a jury. A lot of ugly horse trading goes on like "OK, that guy over there wants a conviction on all counts, that woman over there wants him found innocent on all counts but she admits he may be guilty on one count... can we just agree on a guilty verdict on that one count and call it a day?" As the joke goes, juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of serving. The last time I served, I sat in stunned silence in the jury room before we went into court as 3 male members of the jury got onto a contest and tried to top each other as each insisted in turn that he was far stupider about technology than the other 2 and each provided examples to support his contention. The case we heard was a criminal case involving a black defendant and what I could basically describe as property damage and we had a black guy on the jury who was a reverse racist and was very strongly prejudiced against the defendant simply because he was black. It took some smooth talking and pleading by the white foreman to get this guy to agree to our verdict of guilty on 2 counts, innocent on 1 count, as I think the black guy would literally have voted for the death penalty if he could against the defendant. These are the kinds of people in the USA who serve on juries. Do you honestly think that any sane person would roll the dice on that when maybe facing 10+ years if the jury convicts? Plus, a lot of people in juries are obsessive about punishing "evil doers" as they see them and they want the most severe punishment possible given, sometimes arguing for punishment way beyond what the crime should involve, like 10 years for stealing $5 worth of merchandise. The only thing I took away from my service as a juror is that juries are made up mostly of idiots who aren't fit to judge whether the sun will come up tomorrow or not, let alone someone's life or freedom.
By that token, everything the government does is "Extortion". Taxes included. In other words, you're opposed to this form or extortion, but probably happy about others. Or are you an Anarchist?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No matter where he did this, he stole people's credentials (illegally), and used it to access system (illegally).
CFAA is a federal statute, so he broke federal law -- and therefore gets federal prison.
I have no sympathy for him. None at all.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"Getting extra charges tacked on for exercising your right to a trial is no more just than getting extra attention from the IRS for exercising your right to criticize the government."
Except for one little detail. One was optional, the other was not. IRS Scandal was not at the option of those being scandalized by the IRS, while this one was. He had a chance to go to trial, he chose against it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What! He used a computer to commit a crime and didn't get the death penalty? Seriously, a year in prison is gross overkill for this stunt. A hefty fine would be much more appropriate assuming that he only rigged a meaningless election. The feds have much more important things to do like run guns across the border, spy on citizens and close down marijuana dispensaries. . tiocfaidh ár lá
Exercising your rights is appropriate when your rights are being trampled
Such as being denied a jury trial.
such as when you're being prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit
You don't know, in a legal sense, whether someone is being prosecuted for a crime they didn't commit until they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. If you can deny someone of a jury trial because you "know" they are guilty, what's the point of a jury trial at all?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You know, if he had been some independent student who fucked with the results as a means of protest, I might agree with that.
But no - he was a candidate, and he rigged the election in his own favor. Thus, dude was not an activist making a point, he was an ego-maniacal douche-bag that wanted to secure power for himself and cheat his fellow students out of a free and fair election.
Fucker deserves to be punished.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
One was optional, the other was not. IRS Scandal was not at the option of those being scandalized by the IRS, while this one was. He had a chance to go to trial, he chose against it.
The tea party groups had a chance to avoid extra attention from the IRS, by forfeiting their right to free speech.
This fellow had a chance to avoid extra charges from the DOJ, by forfeiting his right to a trial.
The situations are exactly analogous.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How is this informative?
He pleaded guilty
There was no trial, he plead guilty, probably part of a plea bargain. He wasn't deprived of anything. Pleading guilty avoids certain un-pleasantries.
Unpleasantries such as having the book thrown at him for daring to exercise his right to a trial by his peers.
Personally I think the douche got what he had coming, but let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that plea-bargaining is anything other than what we all know it to be.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I have no sympathy for him. None at all.
My sentiments exactly, I have no sympathy for any crooked politician. Corruption in politics should carry a 50 year sentence and the corrupting influence 100 years.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
By that token, everything the government does is "Extortion". Taxes included.
Yes, everything the government does is extortion. The whole purpose of government is to apply force to encourage certain behaviors. The difference is that we have a constitution that limits what the government is allowed to extort us into. The right to a trial by jury is one of those limits.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yet another American deprived of his right to a trial. No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.
A year in prison is probably a fair outcome if the story is as described. But he deserves to have a jury decide that, and not face absurd amounts of time in prison if he wants a jury trial.
There was an $8000 stipend for the winner. This wasn't just a simple resume builder. He committed fraud to attempt to win a monetary prize due to the fair winner. Something he'd planned out the year before with four of his fraternity brothers running for the vice-president slot and it's $7000 stipend. This was planned for monetary benefit. Hell, his attorney's statement that wasn't even planning on staying at the school is even more damning in that light.
Worse, after he was caught, he set up Facebook pages with the names of real students to manufacture evidence that they were conspiring to frame him and sent it to various news stations. This is what the judge referred to when he said, "Heâ(TM)s on fire for this crime, and then he pours gasoline on it to try to cover it up,â
Frankly, a year in prison is a little light considering all the facts. Based on the facts, I wouldn't disagree with the prosecutor's description of him as being an "incredibly entitled" kid. The kid sounds like a budding narcissist to me. If it had just been rigging an election as a protest, maybe a year would be fair. But planning ahead with financial motivation and then attempting to frame others for his crime shows someone society needs to deal with more harshly. I'd have given him 5-10. God forbid this guy get a job where he could do some real damage to people.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well, as others have pointed out, it was the identity theft that did him in.
However, keep in mind that depending on the school, significant amounts of money flow through the office. When I was in college we had a scandal where the president and vp embezzled tens of thousands of dollars from student government.
Was doing it himself. No Politician today woudl do that, they woulrd hire someone else to do it and pay them under the table with tax payer money.
This is a freaking school election...not a federal / city/state election..it is college, it means NOTHING....
I can see them being punished by the school, but WTF...Federal Prison?!?!?
Well you would have a point if all he did was rig a school election by distributing flyers telling people the election date has been changed or something of that nature.
However you seem to have missed the part of TFS that says he put keyloggers on other people's computers and stole their id/password. That's illegal and a jail-able offense. Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?
Dear AC... Sorry, don't listen to their drivel... Bigot? Sorry again... Legal immigrant from Peru... Ooops!
Or, you're actually guilty and you know the prosecution has enough evidence to prove it. Nah, that never happens, people only lose in court because the defense messed up or the jury doesn't like your suit.
I only have crappy teen dramas to go by but isn't being college president some kind of big career boosting deal as well? Something you can put on your CV. It sounds like there may have been financial gain too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why yes, yes I am an anarchist. Unless you think that all people who rule will rule well (and by extension, there will never be a bad ruler), then you too should be an anarchist.
Let's start with monarchy. Monarchy is a great system, if the monarch is fair, just, not prone to being petty, etc. But actually, you still have to deal with the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy needs to be good, and the individuals within it need to either be good, or be prevented from being bad by rules that are enforced.
But, what if the monarch is a bad person? The whole system is bad. End of story. That's why monarchy is not suggested as a good system, because monarchs can not be guaranteed as good.
We can take this analysis and extend it to all forms of government. It doesn't work quite as well for "democracy" (where the people elect their rulers), but it still works. Especially, when the elections and the electoral system are absurd as they are in the USA (and the UK, and any place with first-past-the-post voting).
I think you get my point (even if you don't agree).
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Wow...just wow.
I can understand him getting kicked out of school, but freaking federal prison for a year for just messing with a STUDENT school election?!?!
[...]
This is a freaking school election...not a federal / city/state election..it is college, it means NOTHING....
Read the full article (especially the utsandiego.com link). He committed wire fraud -- the winner of the presidential election gets a $8000 stipend, and the vice-president gets $7000. He planned ahead (even putting together a PowerPoint presentation the year before for his frat brothers to run for the #2 slot) to "win" these prizes. Fraud over wire for financial gain is a serious federal crime with a maximum of 20 years in prison.
He also attempted to cover up his crime once caught *red-handed* at the machine he was entering the votes from in a computer lab by later creating Facebook profiles in other real people's names and generating a lot of fake comments intended to make it look like those people had conspired to frame him, and he sent it to local media outlets. It was stupid in way that shows how much smarter he thinks he is than the people around him.
This kid is a budding con artist. He was acting for financial motive to defraud the school, and he was willing to trash the lives of others to try to get out of paying the penalty for something he did. This kid has displayed blatant, selfish disregard for others and a willingness to hurt or exploit them for profit.
This isn't a harmless prank. These are the actions of a malicious liar with an inflated sense of his own capabilities who doesn't seem to grasp the idea that consequences should apply to him for his actions. They should have thrown the book at him. Imagine the harm he could have done if he'd waited a few more years to "ripen" as a criminal and landed himself in management somewhere.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
if you RTFA, it states that the fake facebook profiles he created AFTER he was caught to blame other students irrated the judge so much that he didn't get probation.
While I agree that the punishments in the U.S. are getting out of hands, one year seems appropriate in this case. What a stupid asshole tries to turn others in for his own crime and hopes for probation? One year is harsh, but not inappropriate - he and his collegues would have gained 8000 or 7000 Dollars.
I can understand him getting kicked out of school, but freaking federal prison for a year for just messing with a STUDENT school election?!?!
Typically student presidents are paid a salary from the student union (it's usually a role for people once they've graduated). This isn't just some 'student election', it's an attempt to defraud the university students of $20,000+. Jail is the right punishment for this crime.
Election tempering is one of the vilest crime one can commit.
Stealing credentials and installing keyloggers is illegal, also.
If you took out the word "Republican" you probably would have gotten +5 Funny. But since you decided to make it partisan, it just looks sad because you think that only Republicans cheat.
Wow...just wow.
I can understand him getting kicked out of school, but freaking federal prison for a year for just messing with a STUDENT school election?!?!
Geez, we're getting out of hand here...I've been hearing of small school children getting kicked out of school and having the cops called just for playing in the school play ground using their hands and fingers as 'guns' yelling bang bang at each other.
This is a freaking school election...not a federal / city/state election..it is college, it means NOTHING....
I can see them being punished by the school, but WTF...Federal Prison?!?!?
You are one gynormous ignoramus of the law. He stole people's credentials and broke into a system. These two are federal felonies. Do you live in some alternate universe version of the US where federal law doesn't include computer fraud and identity theft? Or are you simply being obtuse, seeking an opportunity to cry about the abuse of powah!!!!?
Exactly. This is hardly a case of a kid doing something stupid without thinking it through. This guy had plenty of time to examine his actions, he had plenty of opportunity to back out, and he was repeatedly shown that his actions had consequences. And yet, at every step of the way, he chose to proceed. Even after he was caught he chose to perpetrate a cover-up! These are not the actions of a silly kid, they are the actions of a criminal. This kid deserves the punishment he received.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
And we need to consider more than the financial motive. Imagine the damage that could have been done to the reputations of the students whose identities he stole if even a single media outlet had picked up on his "news tips".
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Allowing vote verification also allows vote selling and voter coercion.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
He didn't go to jail because somebody gives a damn about the class president, he went to jail because he compromized hundreds of access credentials and used them to gain unauthorized access to systems(and, unless the school's IT office is fairly conservative, the odds are increasingly good that you can hardly touch their system without crossing state lines).
His pitiful attempts at hiding probably didn't endear him to anybody, either.
Its likely this they charge him with identify theft and fraud .then they tell him to plea out to like one count and he will serve a year and a day.
Or he can plea not guilty and they charge his ass with 700+ counts and the fed work on a point system more counts enhance the time
Google federal sentencing guide lines
And find out what he was charge with and how many counts and you'll see it add up fast
They force you to take the plea the DA gives or you suffer badly for it in sentencing ,making apologies to the court, taking responsibility for your actions, these thing take point off which lower your points.
Plus you get points off for cooperating with the government
This is the sentencing table.
http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/5a_SenTab.htm
This is the manual
http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/index.cfm
When I as charged and sentenced the guidelines were mandatory sentencing the judge did not have any leeway to interpret. the sentencing is now discretionary
Wikipedia
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines
BTW the year and a day is the only way they send you to jail unless you violate federal probation they don't really send you to jail for 6 month though they may send ya to a halfway house or maybe a boot camp
Civilization is expensive. If it's not worth paying for a trial, it's not worth imprisoning someone. The cost of a jury trial should be incentive for the state to imprison as few people as possible.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
- A chance to lose in court = up to 10-20 years.
FTFY
There is another option
-A chance to lose in court = Jury still imposing 1-2 years.
These long sentences are generally maximums run consecutively. Juries can decide to impose lesser sentences, in some cases a suspended sentence, and they can run concurrently. So that 10 years for 10 counts of a one year offense could turn out to be a suspended sentence, 1 year (10 one year terms run concurrently) or ten years (10 one year sentences run consecutively, The prosecutor does not decide that the jury does.
Yeah, for someone who "Spent months" planning this, he didn't think that IP Addresses and/or cookies would be logged...or the fact that he got too greedy and had too many students complain would not attract the attention of the engineers to his deed? How he isn't a computer science major.
...in bed
Note to self: When rigging an Internet voting election stealing student ID's, use Tor...
...in bed
Makes you wonder what the anomaly was.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Weaver, 22, of Huntington Beach was a third-year business student ...
Well, that explains it. I wonder if he'll sue the school for prosecuting him for using what it taught him?
Student Presidents of large public universities draw salary, typically between $15,000 and $30,000 annually. They are employed by the state. The payroll check comes from the state of California. That makes this crime more than "nothing".
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
... A Joke of a College Election.
He stands no chance in a real election.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Every charge does not deserve a jury trial. Obviously guilty people should plead guilty and be given reasonable sentences. Even you admit that a year was reasonable. This case is definitely not a poster child for proprietorial misconduct.
No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.
There may be no doubt in your mind but you have no proof to that effect.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He HAS A SOUL
No he doesn't. He lied to Sheldon to win the Magic competition then manipulated Penny into leaving Leonard then used his stardom(?) to jump the line in front of everyone else who was waiting for the re-release of the movie.
Sorry, that's just soulless on many levels and borders on sociopathic.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.
I think breaking into my house and tampering with my computer should be illegal.
I realize this is not the way the law works now, but this is how I think it *should* work.
Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?
Just because someone thinks the punishment is excessive, doesn't mean they think that the crime should be legal.
Likewise, just because someone thinks the punishment was excessive in one scenario, doesn't mean they'd think it excessive in other scenarios. You wouldn't punish someone for stealing a snickers bar as harshly as you would if they'd stolen an iPad, would you?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
No matter where he did this, he stole people's credentials (illegally), and used it to access system (illegally).
CFAA is a federal statute, so he broke federal law -- and therefore gets federal prison.
I have no sympathy for him. None at all.
I think it is important to note that the position also came with and $8,000 dollar stipend. So, not only did he steal identities of people, he also used the stolen identities to steal $8,000 from the school. If there was no money involved, I think the school may, and I stress may, not have referred the matter to the police.
AlphaA
Civilization is expensive. If it's not worth paying for a trial, it's not worth imprisoning someone. The cost of a jury trial should be incentive for the state to imprison as few people as possible.
So if the prosecution is willing to avoid a trial in exchange for a guilty plea on lesser charges, and the defendant is willing to avoid the risk of a trial in exchange for a guilty plea on lesser charges, and the courts are willing to accept the plea deal because it seems to be a fair and balanced compromise (courts have to approve plea deals generally), everyone involved wants something and you're the person that's going to deny them that thing, all because you have a warped sense of "rights?"
It would be much simpler, actually, in your world, to simply make it a constitutional requirement that all criminal defendents plead innocent. The guilty plea itself eliminates the prosecutorial requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not force all defendants to plead innocent to all crimes, from parking tickets to murder?
I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.
I think breaking into my house and tampering with my computer should be illegal.
Then why would it be illegal to break into your house? Shouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your locks, doors, windows, and walls are all impervious to any kind of attack?
A hefty fine would be much more appropriate assuming that he only rigged a meaningless election.
Then you assume much by not actually reading the fine article. The wire fraud charges are appropriate (since he stood to win an $8000 stipend), and he also tried (poorly) to frame others for his crimes after being caught red-handed. (That what the judge meant when he said, "He's on fire for this crime, and then he pours gasoline on it to try to cover it up.")
If anything, he got off too lightly.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
50 years isn't enough! He should be drawn and quartered for cheating in his school election! Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Why are my tax dollars going to imprison this cheater?
I look at it 2 different ways:
1. Locks on doors and windows are not sufficient to keep out a burglar. Even alarm systems frequently just minimize damage and theft rather than preventing it. You're operating system has the ability to simply refuse to grant unwanted requests for access. Any time it doesn't is because of misconfigured security settings or actual security holes. "breaking in" to a computer system is more like tricking a housekeeper into giving you all the owners jewelry voluntarily. Yes this would still be fraud, but it seems like a better solution than fraud laws, is having housekeepers that don't give away your possessions to strangers.
2. Even with computer hacking illegal, it is rampant. It is rare to catch people who do it. When people do get caught it is bright and socially awkward kids living in their mom's basement, not the Russian mafia guys, or Chinese intelligence, (i.e. we throw the book at the easy targets). We spend our money on litigation rather than innovation. If the only way to combat hacking was better security, then that's that much more money spent on better security innovations. When these innovations happen in open source software, it is beneficial to everyone.
Obviously hacking is bad. The question is whether laws are the best way to remedy the situation. I see the only solution to hacking that works is better security. Are we better off if we put the few people we catch in jail? I don't know, maybe. But we must also look at the cost of resources we put into trying to catch hackers and the benefit of the catching x% of them and see if it's worth it.
On a more emotional level, there are a lot of really smart and successful people who started out hacking as teenagers, and I don't think society would be better off had they been imprisoned rather than allowed to form companies like apple.
Obviously if you steal a bunch of money with hacking, that money should be returned because it doesn't belong to you, but I think the responsibility should be placed on institutions to have better security rather than on people not to explore/exploit weaknesses in security. It's not because I think the don't deserve responsibility, it is because I think we will be better off as a society if we have a strong immune system rather than if we try to eradicate diseases by making spreading them illegal.
Because the US didn't implement the death penalty correctly so court appeals can drag on for decades.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.
Can I beat you up? It's your responsibility, after all, to ensure that you're in proper shape and well-enough trained or armed to defend yourself.
I think breaking into my house and tampering with my computer should be illegal.
Okay, so I can't break into your house and beat you up, what if I beat you up in the streets instead of breaking in first? After all, you did voluntarily step into public away from the safety of your own four walls.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.
So it should be legal to hack into the computer of every non-IT professional? Because they're the only people who are going to be competent to adequately secure their systems, and even then only a minority of them would do it completely. And have you never heard of that little thing called a "zero-day exploit"? It should be legal to crack your computer simply because there isn't a fix yet for a security hole?
I don't believe you've really thought that through. I personally don't think that my mom's PC should be available to every script kiddie out there just because I haven't been by to patch that obscure security hole in Photoshop.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
If he had gotten away with it it's almost certain that his next step would have involved bank or securities fraud with the credentials he had already stolen. It's fortunate for the other students that he was stupid enough to get caught right away.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
This is hardly a case of a kid doing something stupid without thinking it through.
Well, technically it was. Committing fraud is stupid (as is getting caught), whether or not you use a computer to do so, and he didn't seem to think through the consequences of getting caught. If his actions don't prove a certain level of stupidity, I don't know what does (did he think he'd be able to spend that money freely on whatever he wanted, no questions? Stupid! Stupid!). The only open question is whether you consider him a kid or not. To be pedantically correct about it all, of course.
He certainly qualifies as scum though. It's not mutually exclusive with being stupid, a kid or an adult, or generally lacking in the ability to plan things through properly. I suppose we can hope that he will learn his lesson and become an upstanding member of the community in future. (Hey, I'm sometimes an optimist!)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Kindergarten student sent to Hague Tribunal for pretending to use chemical weapons while playing soldiers.
Worse, he's a Libertardian. The only function of government is to protect the 'haves' from the 'have nots', since if you're not rich it's your fault for having selected the wrong parents.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The Teabaggers could have avoided extra attention from the IRS by not violating the laws regarding the non-profit status they wanted until after it had been granted. MoveOn and the like at least waited until they had their status before openly politicking for candidates (prohibited by the laws regarding charitable non-profits), the Teabaggers were just too stupid to wait.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
You must be from Callao then. None of the provicianos that I know are stupid enough to make a statement like that.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I see why you might try to extend my position on one particular area to every other area where it might not make sense, but I don't advocate taking this view or any other view to this kind of extreme. I'm not an ideologue. I believe in treating different situations differently.
That is my question too...
What did they detect? Who was watching the network so closely as to notice this? Why? Is there an ongoing privacy violation going on by schools to keep their networks clean? It just kinda leads to more questions... Who's watching the watchers?
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
So it should be legal to hack into the computer of every non-IT professional? Because they're the only people who are going to be competent to adequately secure their systems, and even then only a minority of them would do it completely. And have you never heard of that little thing called a "zero-day exploit"? It should be legal to crack your computer simply because there isn't a fix yet for a security hole?
1. Not even IT professionals can always adequately secure their systems. Every corporation that gets hacked has an IT department.
2. It is not that I think hacking is bad. I just don't think the cost of enforcing anti hacking laws by government agencies that know every little about computer security is worth the benefit of capturing and punishing the handful of people who actually get caught.
Imagine a world where there are millions of beatings by bullies every year. Every year we spend billions of dollars trying to catch bullies, and we only catch a few on average. In this situation, I would say it is probably a better strategy to start investing in self defense courses. This is a matter of practicality not principle. We as a society would be better off if everyone could defend themselves than if 1 or 2 bullies are brought to justice.
Obviously the problem of bullying or assault is not like how I described in my hypothetical example, which is why I don't think my solution to hacking applies to bullying.
I don't believe you've really thought that through. I personally don't think that my mom's PC should be available to every script kiddie out there just because I haven't been by to patch that obscure security hole in Photoshop.
If your mom's computer has a security hole in it, it will be hacked by script kiddies or more likely viruses whether hacking is illegal or not. Even if you lived at your mom's house you are not going to know about every newly found security hole in the thousands of bits of software running on an average computer.
100% of the emphasis of stopping hacking should be on improving security. This means finding security holes sooner, pushing out patches sooner, doing a better job of getting people actually do their security updates or get them to turn on automatic updates. We need to educate people on how to stay safe on the internet.
The internet is not a civil society. The internet is worse than the wild west. You can make whatever you want illegal, but you'd be far better off getting a gun and knowing how to defend yourself. This is the only reasonable course of action when the law is not capable of defending you.
Personally, I think laws against malicious hacking are good and necessary. I don't think the CFAA is narrowly enough tailored to that task, but it's better than the wild west.
They are not good, and they are worse than unnecessary. They are 99.99999% ineffectual. The internet is already the wild west. Every single dollar or man hour of effort spent trying to catch a hacker, is infinitely better spent improving security to make hacking more difficult.
You only call for rule of the strong in computing because you see yourself as strong.
I am not confident in my ability to secure my computer at all. Numerous experts in the private sector and in the government have said that in their opinion we are powerless to stop an advanced persistent threat.
Nobody is string. Everybody is getting hacked from threats all over the globe. Our only hope is to make security better. You don't need to be a computer expert to benefit from better security. The same grandmas that have a windows 7 computer have an order of magnitude more secure computer than when they had a windows xp computer. Unfortunately the hacks are also getting more sophisticated. It's an arms race.
Legislators, law enforcement, lawyers and courts are expensive. Rather than putting a few hackers in jail, we could use that money to research security holes and fix them for billions of people.
Interesting to see the difference in reaction between this incident and Aaron Swartz...
Okay, it seems I really did misread the intent behind your words, and I apologize for that and for unfairly maligning your position.
Every single dollar or man hour of effort spent trying to catch a hacker, is infinitely better spent improving security to make hacking more difficult. ...
Legislators, law enforcement, lawyers and courts are expensive. Rather than putting a few hackers in jail, we could use that money to research security holes and fix them for billions of people.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but I can't quite get up on my high horse about that one. :-)
I don't think the legal costs of sending hackers to jail is more expensive than the costs of subsidizing security, nor do I think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the costs of fixing sloppy programming. Writing solid, secure code is hard and expensive. It seems like any such policy would be nothing more than a trough for companies to feed off the public dime without provably improving their products like so many other subsidies.
And really, I do think the government should be in the business of discouraging bad actors; nothing makes computers all that special. Simply making the "game" more challenging without any penalties for failure would just encourage people to try harder when what we really want is for people *not* to break into systems with malicious intent.
At risk of hyperbole due to dipping into analogies again, you could make the same argument that we shouldn't be penalizing burglars when we could instead be spending money on making houses more secure. At some point the economics and the incentives for good/bad behavior fall apart.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Locks on doors and windows are not sufficient to keep out a burglar. Even alarm systems frequently just minimize damage and theft rather than preventing it. You're operating system has the ability to simply refuse to grant unwanted requests for access. Any time it doesn't is because of misconfigured security settings or actual security holes
Unfortunately they're not sufficient to keep out a lot of things including mother-in-laws, but that's what vacations are for :). The purpose of laws is deterrence; and security is defense. Even kings of old recognized the wisdom of a layered defense. While not infallible encrypting all the stuff you don't want accessed and securing things in a safe and/or offsite are within the reach of the common man. Ultimately there needs to be trust involved at some layer, this is how business occurs over the internet. What do you do when you are unable to trust your system? A prime example is Microsoft (and I'm sure there are others) sitting on 0days for the NSA. Absolutely disgusting.
Even with computer hacking illegal, it is rampant. It is rare to catch people who do it.
So is filesharing, littering, j-walking, failure to signal, texting while driving (as an aside, during my morning commute I encountered someone entering my lane on the way to work this morning, head down, eyes transfixed on her steering wheel where the phone was, instead of on the road) in some places talking on a phone whilst driving is illegal. All of these are rampant and some can result in death. I hack things and contrary to your earlier implication that the mere act wrong, it is not immoral or unethical. What do I hack? Things I own ;). It's work/fun when you've isolated a pointer for a particular feature and can modify it at will. Or I extend something by adding some new functionality to it (10 years ago it was XBMC, today it's an embedded voip server) just because I can.
We spend our money on litigation rather than innovation. If the only way to combat hacking was better security, then that's that much more money spent on better security innovations. When these innovations happen in open source software, it is beneficial to everyone.
You're sadly right about the litigation vs innovation. Seems systemic does it not? Combating hacking is as much a social issue as technical since behind most systems there is a fallible human being. Even if more money is spent on security than features, wouldn't that be a wise move if it contains sensitive information Conversely hacking things also results in better stuff, look at the DVDs with all that garbage unskippable stuff now able to be bypassed because of dvdjon. Beyond that, look at all the cool things done with unofficial mods to products. Who are they to tell you what you can do with something you purchased, would you tolerate this with your car? Can you imagine food coming with approved uses? "This orange may only be used to garnish approved plates in a private setting, absolutely no public performance or juicing! You may not take pictures of this orange. Any pictures are owned by ACME, Inc. Also, trace elements known to the state of Elbonia to cause cancer are present in this fruit. You do not own this fruit, but have one (1) single seat home limited license to consume this fruit. You must call a number to register, activate, and authorize the fruit prior to garnishing. Obtaining this fruit is acceptance of ACME, Inc's license."
Obviously hacking is bad. The question is whether laws are the best way to remedy the situation. I see the only solution to hacking that works is better security....On a more emotional level, there are a lot of really smart and successful people who started out hacking as teenagers, and I don't think society would be better off had they been imprisoned rather than allowed to form companies like apple.
I don't usually chime in on these things but you must
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
That is my question too... What did they detect? Who was watching the network so closely as to notice this? Why? Is there an ongoing privacy violation going on by schools to keep their networks clean? It just kinda leads to more questions... Who's watching the watchers?
Don't be so dense. Some people probably complained when they went to vote but the computer said they already voted. A few more of those complaints and it would not be difficult to figure out what's going on. At this point they only needed to see which IP address is casting all the votes generating the complaints.
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Stealing an iPad is like bigamy; the crime contains its own punishment.
George Bernard Shaw, I think.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
LA is. A great big one, or so the say.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The difference is that we had a constitution
FTFY
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Better than being extorted by thugs to give up hard earned wealth to people too lazy to work for it.
Life isn't fair. Get over it. Trying to make it "fair" is not "fair" in and of itself. If you do no have the rights to the fruit of your own labor, you live in a totalitarian serf society. Which is exactly what you're advocating, you just don't realize it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What "labor" does Paris Hilton reap the fruits of?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
In the Ohio Republican Party Headquarters.
(used to be Florida, but Florida is getting a tad to brown for the GOP.)
Geez, if they had zero tolerance when I was growing up a kid, I guess I'd have been branded a terrorist long, long ago.
This doesn't deserve a federal prison sentence....and record.
College isn't the real world.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
College isn't the real world, this did no real world harm.
No, I don't see this essentially college prank, warranting punishment of federal prison, and record to follow him through life.
The punishment is way overblown for the crime.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The purpose of laws is deterrence; and security is defense. Even kings of old recognized the wisdom of a layered defense.
Layers are good when they are cost effective. Everything has a cost in resources (e.g. time, money, etc). Some kings probably spent resources on hiring wizards to cast magic spells to protect their castles and curse their enemies. To say the least, this was probably not cost effective.
What do you do when you are unable to trust your system? A prime example is Microsoft (and I'm sure there are others) sitting on 0days for the NSA. Absolutely disgusting.
Well one thing you can do is use an open source operating system. It isn't going to be 100% secure (nothing is), but at least the source code has millions of eyes on it looking for holes, and you aren't reliant on some central authority to make fixes available after the NSA is done exploiting them.
So is filesharing, littering, j-walking, failure to signal, texting while driving (as an aside, during my morning commute I encountered someone entering my lane on the way to work this morning, head down, eyes transfixed on her steering wheel where the phone was, instead of on the road) in some places talking on a phone whilst driving is illegal. All of these are rampant and some can result in death.
While all these things and hacking are all rapant, the difference is that filesharing littering and jaywalking are easy to catch. If you want to catch someone breaking the law on the road, just go out there and watch any random person for 5 minutes and they will have probably broken 10 laws.
If you want to catch a file sharer, join one torrent for game of thrones and you've got thousands of IP addresses of guilty people.
I hack things and contrary to your earlier implication that the mere act wrong, it is not immoral or unethical.
I didn't mean to imply that I think all hacking is inherently ethical. I meant to imply that not all hacking is necessarily unethical, even when hacking someone else.
The amount spent on these things is a fraction of what is spent elsewhere. There are companies which exist solely to distribute 0days and profit massively from them. As a byproduct of three letter agencies and our communications network overlords all of the relevant information transmitted can be/is logged and aggregated. For them to say that its expensive, is it really so? The tax payer already paid for it and HD space is cheap and becoming cheaper.
Yes it is expensive. To say the tax payer already paid for it is a cop out. Even if the NSA has proof that a guy hacked into a computer to become student president of a state college, they aren;t going to allow this info to be used in a trial. They are only supposed to be finding terrorists, and even if they are going beyond their scope, they aren't going to expose their program on small fish like 2bit hackers.
I think we should be buying info from these companies that sell 0 day exploits, and use this info to create security fixes. If we actually do a really good job, they will find that they can't make any money selling 0 day exploits because the don;t stay good for long enough to be marketable. I think a world where 0 day exploits are rampant is preferable to one where all these holes exist but are yet to be discovered. The more holes we find the better. Even if the bad guys find them first, the good guys can usually know shortly after.
First off, Strawman. Second, she does "work" for a living, even after being wealthy by her rich parents/grandparents etc.
THIRD, why do you care about how wealthy Paris Hilton is. What is it any of your business? Would you like it if a poor Delhi looked at you with envy because your parents were born in the US while they were born poor in the streets and point at you saying "YOU ARE THE 1%"? You know you are in the 1% ... right?
Envy is such an ugly color. I don't envy Paris Hilton's wealth. I WANT to be wealthy like her, and my kids to be wealthy like her. Fuck you if you think wealth is wrong, seeing that you are "wealthy" compared to 99% of the world . So, whatever disdain you express, only makes you self loathing or hypocrite.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Some kings probably spent resources on hiring wizards to cast magic spells to protect their castles and curse their enemies. To say the least, this was probably not cost effective.
Modern spells like "Authorized Use Only" and curses like "Full extent of the law" are nearly as effective, especially when obtained from and managed by a lowest bidder wizard. Not all wizards are created equal ;)
Well one thing you can do is use an open source operating system. It isn't going to be 100% secure (nothing is), but at least the source code has millions of eyes on it looking for holes, and you aren't reliant on some central authority to make fixes available after the NSA is done exploiting them.
Yes, this is an excellent suggestion and one of the most reasonable responses to the attack we're under. A thing about these millions of eyes is they are millions of unqualified and non-programmer eyes. The domain specific talent required is supplied mainly by commercial companies, each with their own agendas. I understand the sentiment and even with opensource you're still running it on someone else's hardware, even if you paid for it and possess it you do not own it.
Even if the NSA has proof that a guy hacked into a computer to become student president of a state college, they aren;t going to allow this info to be used in a trial.
Initially you mentioned cost, that it's "expensive" and my point was that the system is already in place and is paid for (by us, also those fees that get tacked on to cellphone bills) and seeing use. Compared to the cost of the network, the $20 million USD annually, it's cheap just like storage space. I'll give you another comparison, Youtube (estimated) costs $2 million USD to operate daily. Location information with handsets specifically is a byproduct of the system; see the value of accurate billing information. The way this guy "hacked things" was done locally with keyloggers negating the need to snoop on traffic. No need for the NSA, just simple admin work.
I think a world where 0 day exploits are rampant is preferable to one where all these holes exist but are yet to be discovered. Even if the bad guys find them first, the good guys can usually know shortly after.
"Bad" guys finding them first would be hackers, no? Is it only bad when hackers sell them to others? Or is it when they don't tell people about them? Or is it only when they're exploited? Wouldn't supporting one of these companies where you buy 0days make you complicit in supporting the "bad" people thus making you one of the "bad" even if you're doing it for the perceived greater good?
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
"Bad" guys finding them first would be hackers, no? Is it only bad when hackers sell them to others? Or is it when they don't tell people about them? Or is it only when they're exploited?
I would say that it is bad when you unjustly harm someone. If you hack into someone's google account and steal their naughty cell phone pictures and post them on the internet, that's bad. If you penetrate a company's security but don't use your access to do any further direct harm, and the harm that is done to this company's reputation is just considering that it is based on truth, then I wouldn't say that is bad, but the law would.
You claim that your hacking is ethical because you only hack your own property. Many products these days (e.g. game consoles) are still owned by their manufacturer and you are only buying the license to use them if you read the fine print. Also by opening the packaging you are agreeing to the license. I personally do not agree that I can be bound to a contract by opening a box, so I choose to ignore these sorts of licenses, but this is technically illegal many would argue.
Wouldn't supporting one of these companies where you buy 0days make you complicit in supporting the "bad" people thus making you one of the "bad" even if you're doing it for the perceived greater good?
I am a utilitarian of sorts. I believe the ends justify the means.
I would say that it is bad when you unjustly harm someone.
Such as selling exploits that affect a broad range of users for a hefty profit with the sole purpose of making them available to the highest bidder(s)? Or denying them use of their property after you've sold it to them?
You claim that your hacking is ethical because you only hack your own property...Many products these days (e.g. game consoles) are still owned by their manufacturer and you are only buying the license to use them if you read the fine print.
A good point, which I raised specifically because you implied that all hacking is "bad" and I illustrated my point with several examples, one of which was the console. By your own logic I am not harming anyone and unlike a remote system owned by a 3rd party, everything was in my possession and obtained via legal means. I think it's a dubious claim to suggest that a console manufacturer owns the device that they sold after the customer purchases it. Otherwise one would need their permission to sell (transfer the license, according to you) it, which isn't the case with the device itself. Modifying something in an unauthorized manner (typically) results in a voided warranty, and things only get hairy when you sell and/or distribute the modifications, and as with most legal issues intent matters. Let's take a look at the First Sale Doctrine which applies to physical things (the console in this case) and the DMCA for the modifications. If it were a phone, I'd be completely in the clear. Since it's a console, it's illegal. Wat.
Laws do not dictate morality. I'm fully aware of the legalese and just because something is law doesn't make it right, see slavery for an example. It's a strange world where it's someone else's business what you do with your possessions in private. Could you imagine this being the case with cars? We have laws that allow this behavior for certain classes of devices but not others. Ultimately they're all computers, owned my someone.
I am a utilitarian of sorts. I believe the ends justify the means.
Results are hard to argue with, especially when you end up with something beautiful like a pyramid ;) but that didn't stop us from finding better methods to achieve greater things.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Because the US didn't implement the death penalty correctly so court appeals can drag on for decades.
Because the CONgressMEN already know they will be caught and be sent to Club Fed where they will live off of your taxes for life.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I believe the ends justify the means.
I foresee a brilliant future for this one.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You have got to be kidding. Weaver was not "deprived" of anything; he was given a choice, and he made it.
He was given a choice between
1. Say X to the judge now, and the the judge will give you Y now (and Y is considerably less than 750 stolen identities * whatever the sentence is for ID theft, and you do realise that judges are generally free to order that multiple sentences be served consecutively rather than concurrently, right?).
2. Take your chances with the jury, and you'll get who knows what (but very likely much worse than Y), after who knows how long.
The case was a slam-dunk. He was caught red-handed, and he (and his attorneys) knew that no jury in the country was going to let him off from that.
For the first and possibly only time in this whole episode, the kid actually made a smart choice.
Weaver apparently wished to exercise his right to a *speedy* (and fair) trial and resolution, and that's exactly what he got.
More than fair; 10 years would have been fair.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Oh, and how I did forget to mention that some of his buddies could have faced conspiracy charges, since they apparently knew what he was planning well in advance of the election?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I WANT to be wealthy like her...
Why?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Apparently the phrase "caught red-handed" means nothing to you.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
ACs aren't granted conditional agreements. Says so in the /. rulebook.
I challenge you to give me an example where the ends don't justify the means.
I challenge you to give me an example where the ends don't justify the means.
or rather, a case where "the ends justify the means" is not true.
There are obviously lots of cases where the ends don't justify the means, and therefore these are poor decisions.
I invite you to read a little history, and see what invariably comes about when people start citing that as a justification for their actions.
It's not pretty.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's interesting to see that you have invoked consequentialism to disprove consequentialism.
I said I believed that good end results dictate whether an action is good (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism). You implied that this results in bad end results throughout history. If you are trying to dissuade me from consequentialism, appealing to the bad end results of it's practitioners throughout history is not the way to do it. Why should I believe a cosequentialist argument for why consequentialism is wrong? If it's wrong, then so is your argument against it.