Judge Sentences Hacker to 6 Years Without Computers

[Slash2x]

"No internet on my devices I currently have, and you need to know what all of them are? Yes sir mr Judge!!!" *goes to walmart buys android tablet hacks some WEP wifi in area* "I will make sure to do that sir" http://alltheragefaces.com/uc/4fa025303e320 "Get right on that...."

 

[MonkeyPunch]

No unsupervised internet?!
This guy better be a fucking stud muffin and manage to get a girlfriend double-time lest he wishes his balls to swell to the size of melons ^_^

Ohh come on. We were all thinking it.

 

[TKretts3]

Like taking away Mozart's Piano? This is more like taking away an assassin's favourite gun. Yes, they may be astoundingly talented with it, but that doesn't change the fact that he uses that gun to break the laws. That's exactly what this person did and deserves day of those six years that he gets.

It's not cruel or unusual to take away someone's means of crime. Next time he should think before he acts.

Get the hell off my internet.

Next we'll be hearing about how it's ok to tell someone they can't read books anymore because they learned how to create makeshift weapons in some novel they read.

That book gave them the information on how to make a weapon, it was not used as a weapon. The person in question used a computer as the weapon against these sites, and as a possible crowbar into people's personal lives and details.

Bullshit, now you're trying to twist this in a way you shouldn't.
The internet gave him the knowledge, the computer gave him the ability, the book in that statement is just as much of a "means of crime" as that computer as it also gave him the knowledge and ability he otherwise wouldn't have.

The book was not crucial. He could have easily committed assault with a weapon without the book. He could have found out how to make a weapon from other sources. He could have just used a pre-made weapon, or a simple object (I.e. Pen, kitchen knife, et cetera). However in the case of the hacker his crime would not have been possible without the use of a computer. The computer may have given him the knowledge, but it was also his only means of using that knowledge.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

I think monitoring and restricting HIS computers is a bit stupid. He can just use a friend's computer, unless the government physically follows him around, and monitors every single internet-connected device he can possibly come into contact with over the course of the day.
I mean, what's stopping him from picking pockets to steal Blackberries (other than the law)? Not to mention the fact that he uses social engineering techniques, not just hacking. So, how about this as an idea:

We put this kid in a big, secure building, away from the public, with law enforcement officers all around him. We 'imprison' him, you might say. This prevents him from committing crimes, unless he breaks out. Maybe we put other criminals in there, too.
We keep him there for a few years, then let him out once society says he's been suitably punished for his crimes.
I can't see why the judge never thought of doing this! It's a brilliant idea.

 

[Davey Woo]

"At some level it's like taking away Mozart's piano," the lawyer said.

Mozart didn't break the law. (As far as I know anyway)
I think this is a very fitting punishment, if he went to prison, he would get to know what life would be like in prison, but with this punishment he is forced to live without the computers, which will probably be pretty boring, and I reckon he'd be less likely to break the law again because of it.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

"To keep someone off the Internet for six years - that one term seems unduly harsh."

Unduly stupid IMO, it's not going to hold, trying to keep someone away from computers in this day in age would be like sentencing him to no candy. You can sit there and tell him all day he's not allowed to eat any, but eventually he's going to get a hold of some.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

I say hire him part time at $5.15/hr. There must be a little exemption for minimum wage with deliquents.

It's called working at McDonald's BAZING

 

[Warachia]

The book was not crucial. He could have easily committed assault with a weapon without the book. He could have found out how to make a weapon from other sources. He could have just used a pre-made weapon, or a simple object (I.e. Pen, kitchen knife, et cetera). However in the case of the hacker his crime would not have been possible without the use of a computer. The computer may have given him the knowledge, but it was also his only means of using that knowledge.

He could not have built the weapon in question without the book, that makes it pretty crucial, and saying he could have found out how to make it from other sources is ignoring the issue, wouldn't those sources also be at fault if he used them? And if he did use a simple weapon would you ban him from being around kitchen knives, or pens?

 

[w9496]

It's not at all like taking away Mozarts piano. Mozart wasn't being an asshole with his piano,

I don't know man, have you seen the movie "Amadeus"? Mozart was a bit of an asshole.

Yes I have, and he was quite the asshole. But in Mozarts defense, he never hijacked peoples Amazon accounts or shutdown websites.

 

[TKretts3]

The book was not crucial. He could have easily committed assault with a weapon without the book. He could have found out how to make a weapon from other sources. He could have just used a pre-made weapon, or a simple object (I.e. Pen, kitchen knife, et cetera). However in the case of the hacker his crime would not have been possible without the use of a computer. The computer may have given him the knowledge, but it was also his only means of using that knowledge.

He could not have built the weapon in question without the book, that makes it pretty crucial, and saying he could have found out how to make it from other sources is ignoring the issue, wouldn't those sources also be at fault if he used them? And if he did use a simple weapon would you ban him from being around kitchen knives, or pens?

He could not have built that specific weapon without the book, but murder is a crime which has very many methods. You could stab someone, shoot someone, strangle them with your bare hands, poison them... The list goes on. There is no one device/weapon which is crucial to the act of murder. If you take away someone's internet, they can't hack websites. Furthermore the book is only teaching them how to make a tool, how they use that tool is up to them. A computer, while also being a means to information, is also the weapon in internet hacking. Simply put, the book was not crucial to the murder.

If someone's Modus Operandi is using a certain item (Kitchen knife, for instance) then they should have restrictions placed on them when using that item. But if someone just murders people with any weapon then they should just be put on trail and sent to prison. There are many sources that could be at fault, but that's just it, there's a massive number of tools to kill people with. When it comes to hacking a website, a computer is essential.

Captcha: Let it be.

 

[Lunar Templar]

snip

he's talking about how sever the crime is in relation to age, and stealing peoples personal info is pretty serous these days, maybe not 'kill some one' bad, (and really, why is THAT still the worst thing you can do to some one ... worse things then death after all) but stealing some ones personal info can lead to identity theft, which can destroy some ones life.

which i think is a federal offense? not sure

ether way, taking away the method some one uses to commit the crime is fine with me, after all, it's only 6 years, once you lose your right to own a fire arm i'm pretty sure you don't just get that back with out massive hoop jumping, if its even possable

 

[Warachia]

He could not have built that specific weapon without the book, but murder is a crime which has very many methods. You could stab someone, shoot someone, strangle them with your bare hands, poison them... The list goes on. There is no one device/weapon which is crucial to the act of murder. If you take away someone's internet, they can't hack websites. Furthermore the book is only teaching them how to make a tool, how they use that tool is up to them. A computer, while also being a means to information, is also the weapon in internet hacking. Simply put, the book was not crucial to the murder.

If someone's Modus Operandi is using a certain item (Kitchen knife, for instance) then they should have restrictions placed on them when using that item. But if someone just murders people with any weapon then they should just be put on trail and sent to prison. There are many sources that could be at fault, but that's just it, there's a massive number of tools to kill people with. When it comes to hacking a website, a computer is essential.

Captcha: Let it be.

I'd like to get back to the question that started all of this, if a book enabled the person to do the crime should that also be taken away? And in this case it would seem your answer is yes, but I want to go into an issue that you aren't focussing on.

The computer is NOT the weapon in question, the programs on his computer and the information on his computer were the weapons, that's why the book comparison started, both enabled the person, and both chose to use them in ways that were unintended by the creators.

Should the person be monitored on their computer after this? Yes, they should be banned from using whatever programs they used to do their hacking? Most definitely, but computers can do far more than knives, or pens, or books, closing somebody off from all of that is short-sighted, as you assume that's all they ever used their computer to do.

 

[Olas]

Nothing that would actually benefit anyone, that's for sure. People need to give up on this idea that hackers are in any way positive - like they took a wrong turn in life and ended up trying to rip people off, otherwise they'd be president, or cure cancer, or some other pish because they are sooooo smart and mis-understood... give me a break. They are the lowest of the computer world low, the equivalent of a mugger in the street. He wasn't hacking to proove a point or support anyone, he was hacking to steal money, if he could, he'd be taking your money right now.

No one said anything about running for president or curing cancer. I just think it's a little close minded to assume that having hacked a computer before means he must be completely incapable of ever doing anything remotely beneficial to society ever again. Maybe he won't, but to dismiss even the possibility seems extreme.

Besides, the kid's just 15 years old, he's not even fully developed mentally or psychologically, and you're talking about him like he's some hardened lifelong criminal. He still has practically his entire life to turn himself around.

Also, how is hacking to to prove point somehow better than hacking to steal money? Hacking to prove a point is essentially a mild form of terrorism. People who hack just to hack are probably far more messed up than people who just use it for personal gain. If he's just an opportunist he can be reasoned with. He might someday realize it's in his best interest to work with the society he's in and not against it. If he hasn't already realized that.

Though being a 15 year old I imagine it's more along the lines of him just thinking that hacking is cool and wanting to show off his skills to the world. People his age tend to act immature, it doesn't entirely reflect how he'll be as an adult.

 

[surg3n]

He might someday realize it's in his best interest to work with the society he's in and not against it. If he hasn't already realized that.

Though being a 15 year old I imagine it's more along the lines of him just thinking that hacking is cool and wanting to show off his skills to the world. People his age tend to act immature, it doesn't entirely reflect how he'll be as an adult.

His ship has sailed already - no real company would trust him with sensitive information, he simply won't be able to work in the IT industry with a track record that includes a 'Nazi' hacking group, accessing peoples information including Paypal and Amazon accounts. Would you trust this guy with anything?

He would be better off concentrating on another career path, he should know that in this day and age, criminal acts stick with you. 15 is plenty old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I have to deal with malware a lot, I've seen how upsetting it can be for people to have their PC, with their personal information and documents held to ransom, I've seen how upsetting it can be for people to have their bank account rifled by some greasy 'hacker'. Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy, maybe if the little shit was sent to jail I might have more.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I think the people saying he deserves this should read this article
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/12/hacker-god-cosmo?page=all

 

[TKretts3]

He could not have built that specific weapon without the book, but murder is a crime which has very many methods. You could stab someone, shoot someone, strangle them with your bare hands, poison them... The list goes on. There is no one device/weapon which is crucial to the act of murder. If you take away someone's internet, they can't hack websites. Furthermore the book is only teaching them how to make a tool, how they use that tool is up to them. A computer, while also being a means to information, is also the weapon in internet hacking. Simply put, the book was not crucial to the murder.

If someone's Modus Operandi is using a certain item (Kitchen knife, for instance) then they should have restrictions placed on them when using that item. But if someone just murders people with any weapon then they should just be put on trail and sent to prison. There are many sources that could be at fault, but that's just it, there's a massive number of tools to kill people with. When it comes to hacking a website, a computer is essential.

Captcha: Let it be.

I'd like to get back to the question that started all of this, if a book enabled the person to do the crime should that also be taken away? And in this case it would seem your answer is yes, but I want to go into an issue that you aren't focussing on.

The computer is NOT the weapon in question, the programs on his computer and the information on his computer were the weapons, that's why the book comparison started, both enabled the person, and both chose to use them in ways that were unintended by the creators.

Should the person be monitored on their computer after this? Yes, they should be banned from using whatever programs they used to do their hacking? Most definitely, but computers can do far more than knives, or pens, or books, closing somebody off from all of that is short-sighted, as you assume that's all they ever used their computer to do.

I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer. The reason I strayed from the book comparison was because it was faulty. There are numerous ways to gain knowledge on how to make weapons, how to murder, and numerous methods on how to commit murder. The murderer should be sent to jail, but unless their M.O. is using books to beat people to death, they shouldn't be restricted access from them.

 

[Warachia]

Captcha made this a double post, ignore this.

 

[Warachia]

I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer. The reason I strayed from the book comparison was because it was faulty. There are numerous ways to gain knowledge on how to make weapons, how to murder, and numerous methods on how to commit murder. The murderer should be sent to jail, but unless their M.O. is using books to beat people to death, they shouldn't be restricted access from them.

Done. I'll be at the convenience store and Take a picture of somebodies credit card number, I now have a back door into several websites they've used that credit card on, and since I have the number, all I have to do is get some friends together, and have them take this person down for me, I can tell their gmail (or any other email) account I lost the password and want them to send it to another account, and since I have their credit card number they'll send the password, and now I've got their email account I can tell their twitter, facebook, and escapist profiles I've forgotten those paswords, so they'll send them to me.

The best part about this is all I needed to do was just hand the instructions to some friends who'll do these things for me, and I know this will work, because recently I saw a news story where this exact thing happened, and that is why this judge is short-sighted, they assume the problem is solved instead of monitoring the person, they could have caught them in the act of doing something else and given them jail time, but no.

Your turn now, I challenge you to build a machine gun with no instruction in how to do so.

Captch: wild goose chase.

 

[TechNoFear]

Just want to point out that Cosmo did not use much code/scripts/software tools etc to hack these accounts.

Cosmo is a social engineer, not a 'hacker' as the word is now commonly used. He mostly used a phone and a variety of 'verbal judo' moves to access these accounts.

I think the people saying he deserves this should read this article
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/12/hacker-god-cosmo?page=all

I lost any sympathy for him when I read he DOSed a pizza company for delivering late.