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: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