Finnish Teen Convicted of 50,000 'Hacks,' Receives Suspended Sentence

Bearhouse writes: The BBC reports that Julius Kivimaki was found guilty of 50,700 "instances of aggravated computer break-ins." Court documents state that his attacks affected Harvard University and MIT among others, and involved hijacking emails, blocking traffic to websites, and the theft of credit card details.District Court Judge Wilhelm Norrmann noted that Kivimaki had only been 15 and 16 when he carried out the crimes in 2012 and 2013. Because of this, the court gave him a two-year suspended sentence. Contrast this to the treatment meted out to Aaron Swartz, and the Pirate Bay team.

Comments

Difference: CFAA in the US

[Virtucon]

Blame the CFAA for the difference in draconian treatment of computer system abusers in the US; therefore blame congress and the administration for not updating the legislation or deferring prosecution. Sure, there are cyber criminals who deserve to be punished but there's also an increasing number of examples where the CFAA has been applied on incidents that don't even belong in court. If you give prosecutors tools like the CFAA, you can sure bet that they'll leverage them to get the maximum conviction possible.

Re:Difference: CFAA in the US

[Ravaldy]

Some crimes that I'd consider worse got least severe punishment but even that is debatable. If a hacker wrecks 50 000 computers, was there more damage to society than the killing of a human being? Lives are possibly wrecked in different ways which in large enough quantities may equal to more damage than the death of a person. After all the justice system is there to protect society, no one specific member of society. When we imprison a murderer, it isn't for revenge but rather to protect the rest of society.

So my question to those who actually understand the justice system: Is there different levels of offense measured against the damage caused? It appears to be the case for murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd degree)...

Re:Difference: CFAA in the US

[Virtucon]

There's lots of gray areas in the CFAA and some court rulings have expanded the original meaning of the CFAA. For example, you're authorized to access a system but you then republish copyrighted material. You're not only violating copyright but the content owners right to publication. That means you've not only violated the law criminally but are potentially subject to civil prosecution for damages.

The EFF has quite a bit of information on the CFAA, I suggest reading it here.

Re:Difference: CFAA in the US

[AmiMoJo]

It depends how 50,000 computers were damaged. If you built a 50 story building but due to a design flaw a truck losing control and hitting the base caused the whole thing to collapse, would you hold the truck driver entirely responsible? The law usually recognizes intent too. There was a case recently in the UK were the local government wasted £8,000 pursuing someone for dropping and then picking up and disposing of a 10mm square bit of orange peel, and lost because it was clear that the person did not intend to litter.

Really Bearhouse?

[Swift Kick]

Contrast this to the treatment meted out to Aaron Swartz, and the Pirate Bay team.

Yes, let's contrast the behavior of a teenager to that of adult men and women who are well-aware of any legal repercussions yet engage willingly and knowingly in criminal activity...

Really?

Re:Really Bearhouse?

[circletimessquare]

legality is not necessarily morality

they mostly overlap, but where the two have the most problems is disproportionate punishment: massive jailtime for smoking marijuana cigarette or crushing financial ruin for downloading a file for example

it was illegal for a black person to ride in a section reserved for white people. until last week it was illegal for gays to marry. it is illegal to smoke marijuana in most of the usa, but that will change soon too

aaron swartz downloaded files. the pirate bay team shared files

for this they are treated with more severity than actual murders

this is not morality and not a legal status quo that requires your respect nor ensures your compliance

where the punishments are massively more brutal than the crimes, you have a legal area itself which is immoral. for example (i'm not saying they are same, it's an analogy for you to understand the topic) in some places that practice sharia law, you chop off a person's hand for stealing, or stone them to death for adultery. this brutality means the legal status quo in that society is actually more immoral than the crimes they are punishing, and such societies do not actually prevent immoral and illegal acts. in fact, they simply convince citizens to treat each other and the authorities with as much cruelty as the authorities deliver to its citizens. we see areas of the world where brutality is proscirbed by authorities creating societies where violence and brutality reign as normal

again, i'm not saying that file downloading is exactly like daesh, i am trying to make you understand how brutal punishments are not respectable and in fact result in worse social conditions

in the same way, there is no respect due to the punishments that western countries like the usa proscribe for file sharing on the internet

the proper response to the legal status quo is to defy and defile the illegitimate and immoral laws wherever and whenever you can, until there is enough of a fire that society demands a rethinking of the laws to be proportional to the actual moral severity of the crimes in question

rather than the agenda of the corporations who have bribed the government to make the punishments so cruel, which is what you are really defending with your words: not morality, but corruption

Re:Really Bearhouse?

[circletimessquare]

Murder and filesharing are prosecuted differently, because the law handles them differently.

i stopped reading there

that has nothing to do with the point

the point is the harshness of the punishment fitting the crime or not

if you can't understand the simple point that the punishment massively overreacts to the "crime", you are not worth interacting with

Re:Really Bearhouse?

[Swift Kick]

The trouble with folks like you is that you lack the power of conversation but not the power of speech.

Good luck in your endeavours.

fix the contrast

[frovingslosh]

Contrast this to the treatment meted out to Aaron Swartz

Why contrast this to Arron Swartz? This crook committed real crimes (the "theft of credit card details" that presumably were used or sold). As far as I know (and I could be wrong) Swartz committed no real crime, was just the victim of over zealous prosecution. Not that I have any love or respect for Swartz, I think he was an asshole and that may well have contributed to his over enthusiastic prosecution.

Re:Exactly the same...

[__aabppq7737]

child != adolescent

Re:That's the way to do it

[Virtucon]

you've obviously never been the victim of identity theft nor it sounds like you have never had 100s of IP addresses in China, Eastern Europe or the Middle East trying every known vulnerability to access your server on the Internet. There are cyber criminals out there that deserve the full enforcement of law for attempts and illegal access. Copying information that would be normally publicly available or already paid for isn't a crime. There is a difference.

The real difference: POLITICS

[mrchaotica]

The real reason Aaron Schwartz and the Pirate Bay had the book thrown at them is that their "crimes" were political speech and the Powers That Be wanted to make an example of them. The CFAA was merely a convenient tool to enable it.

In contrast, this guy was merely motivated by monetary gain, which the Powers That Be either (a) don't really give a shit about, since his victims were other "little people" or (b) tacitly admire him for, so obviously they're not particularly motivated to punish him.

Re:And?

[jopsen]

This kid is a full on sociopath and deserves to be jailed.

Yes, let's lock up some kids. I don't think Finland should be looking to adopt the American way of life in prison.
You can't blame a kid for a dysfunctional US society where police forces deploy SWAT teams as if it was sport.

Schwartz was just another victim of crazy US "justice" system.
He would have had a very different treatment in Finland or Sweden.

Re:Ryan, Zeekill

[St.Creed]

For those of you, who can read Finnish...

No-one can read Finnish. I have my doubts even about the Fins. I guess they just want to hide the fact that they decrypt the meaning of the message from scent signals in the paper, instead of the random text on the page. At least, that's my take. How they do it over the web, I guess we'll never know.

Re:Why The Slap On The Wrist?

[gl4ss]

Because he is just a kid.
Finland doesn't prosecute kids as adults.

not sure if swatting was part of the charges, but then again if it was then that would be a pretty minor thing in Finland (it's just prank calling from a finnish perspective. you see, in Finland the cops don't come busting through the door shooting everything that moves until it doesn't move so calling the cops on someone is a pretty minor thing..)

plus, he was arrested for a while at the start of the investigation, which counts quite highly as he is a minor.