Judge Sentences Hacker to 6 Years Without Computers

[infinity_turtles]

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.

I'd point out the UGNazi did that, not necessarily him. More likely it was someone else in the group, as Cosmo and Josh both have their own twitter accounts where they bragged about what they did, but admission/bragging of that came from the UG twitter. He's definitely a piece of work, but if you look into UG, he comes off as better then the rest of the group. That plus his age,the stuff he's done like giving away his bargaining chips before he pleaded guilty, and him warning people before hacks(he had a bit of a reputation as a leak within' the group) makes me feel he should get off more lightly so he has a better chance to turn things around.

 

[TKretts3]

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 passwords, 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.

Except even by going through that entire process, if your internet or computer had been removed from you all of that would have been impossible to do. Where as for murder, if the instructions for a machine gun were removed from me, I just just by a gun, or I can just use a knife. Heck, if the person isn't someone that is very securely guarded, I could even use my fists.

 

[Warachia]

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 passwords, 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.

Except even by going through that entire process, if your internet or computer had been removed from you all of that would have been impossible to do. Where as for murder, if the instructions for a machine gun were removed from me, I just just by a gun, or I can just use a knife. Heck, if the person isn't someone that is very securely guarded, I could even use my fists.

Reread my post, I never used the internet, I'd take a photo, write some instructions, hand them to some friends.
Of course if none of them had internet, it would be impossible to do, but that wasn't the terms of the challenge, and that isn't the terms of this sentence.

You can't buy a gun without going through a background check, and if they found you murdered somebody with a gun in the past and just got released they couldn't legally give you one.

 

[TechNoFear]

He's definitely a piece of work, but if you look into UG, he comes off as better then the rest of the group. That plus his age,the stuff he's done like giving away his bargaining chips before he pleaded guilty, and him warning people before hacks(he had a bit of a reputation as a leak within' the group) makes me feel he should get off more lightly so he has a better chance to turn things around.

You should always be careful of just accepting what a social engineer tells you....

Cosmo has a motive for generating sympathy surrounding his acitivities in UGNazi.

Making people think Cosmo was the 'nice one who warned people before they were hacked' may just be another social engineering move designed to reduce his sentence (possibly working as he did not get a custodial sentence).

It's like a confidence trick. Most people think it is about the trickster gaining the victim's trust, but is about making the victim feel superior (to the trickster).

To make your victim feel superior you tell them something embarassing about yourself.

'I got so drunk last night, I passed out in a gutter and got robbed, can you lend me $20 to get home?'

 

[infinity_turtles]

He's definitely a piece of work, but if you look into UG, he comes off as better then the rest of the group. That plus his age,the stuff he's done like giving away his bargaining chips before he pleaded guilty, and him warning people before hacks(he had a bit of a reputation as a leak within' the group) makes me feel he should get off more lightly so he has a better chance to turn things around.

You should always be careful of just accepting what a social engineer tells you....

Cosmo has a motive for generating sympathy surrounding his acitivities in UGNazi.

Making people think Cosmo was the 'nice one who warned people before they were hacked' may just be another social engineering move designed to reduce his sentence (possibly working as he did not get a custodial sentence).

It's like a confidence trick. Most people think it is about the trickster gaining the victim's trust, but is about making the victim feel superior (to the trickster).

To make your victim feel superior you tell them something embarassing about yourself.

'I got so drunk last night, I passed out in a gutter and got robbed, can you lend me $20 to get home?'

I'm not talking about what's just in the article. I'm talking about the history of stuff before he was arrested too. While it's certainly possible he did everything that isn't as bad or somewhat nice to make him look better, the fact that he had a reputation as a leak months before he was arrested isn't something I'd think he'd want to cultivate. That lends a bit more credence to some of the other things he's done.

 

[TKretts3]

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 passwords, 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.

Except even by going through that entire process, if your internet or computer had been removed from you all of that would have been impossible to do. Where as for murder, if the instructions for a machine gun were removed from me, I just just by a gun, or I can just use a knife. Heck, if the person isn't someone that is very securely guarded, I could even use my fists.

Reread my post, I never used the internet, I'd take a photo, write some instructions, hand them to some friends.
Of course if none of them had internet, it would be impossible to do, but that wasn't the terms of the challenge, and that isn't the terms of this sentence.

You can't buy a gun without going through a background check, and if they found you murdered somebody with a gun in the past and just got released they couldn't legally give you one.

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 passwords, 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.

Except even by going through that entire process, if your internet or computer had been removed from you all of that would have been impossible to do. Where as for murder, if the instructions for a machine gun were removed from me, I just just by a gun, or I can just use a knife. Heck, if the person isn't someone that is very securely guarded, I could even use my fists.

Reread my post, I never used the internet, I'd take a photo, write some instructions, hand them to some friends.
Of course if none of them had internet, it would be impossible to do, but that wasn't the terms of the challenge, and that isn't the terms of this sentence.

You can't buy a gun without going through a background check, and if they found you murdered somebody with a gun in the past and just got released they couldn't legally give you one.

The challenge was to do what he did without the internet. You still used it vicariously through that other person. Even if you ignore that, you cannot ignore that the internet was still used. Even if you ignore that too, those who did use the internet to commit the crime in question would need to be punished as well, and they could not have done it without the internet. And even if you just keep passing these numbers on, and on, and on; SOMEONE will have to use the internet to finish the crime. And someone would probably spill the beans too.

A gun isn't required to kill someone. It's one weapon, but not the only one. Like I said, I could use my pen, or my fists.

 

[Warachia]

The challenge was to do what he did without the internet. You still used it vicariously through that other person. Even if you ignore that, you cannot ignore that the internet was still used. Even if you ignore that too, those who did use the internet to commit the crime in question would need to be punished as well, and they could not have done it without the internet. And even if you just keep passing these numbers on, and on, and on; SOMEONE will have to use the internet to finish the crime. And someone would probably spill the beans too.

A gun isn't required to kill someone. It's one weapon, but not the only one. Like I said, I could use my pen, or my fists.

I DID WHAT HE DID WITHOUT THE INTERNET. The internet was used, but not by me, that fills the conditions, you never said I couldn't use the internet through somebody else, and neither did the judge, and you can't try to change your conditions just because I managed to do them.

Of course I agree that those who committed the new crime need to be punished, but you think they don't have friends? This whole idea that cutting somebody somebody off will solve the problem is stupid and sometimes spreads the problem. If you monitor them you could see exactly what they did and prevent others from doing the same thing.

 

[dyre]

Lots of emotional arguments here, pretty amusing stuff. "The internet is a basic human right! Tyranny!" "He's a hacker, he deserves the harshest punishment possible!"

Chill out, Escapist.

I don't see too much of a problem here. Remember, he isn't banned from the internet; he simply has to ask permission and convince the court he's using it for educational purposes.

I'm sure his lawyer will be able to argue for the educational merit of communicating with friends (Facebook, Twitter, etc), and reading news (news sites of his choice, plus possibly forums). Youtube can probably be used for educational purposes too; it probably isn't too hard to convince whoever the court chooses as the internet regulator. Add that with normal educational use, and he probably gets to use the internet for almost everything he used to do, besides hacking, piracy, etc.

In practice, it'll probably be a pretty light punishment, possibly even a nonexistent one (if, say, the court is stupid and enforces it simply by checking his internet history). I generally support reduced punishments for minors, and this is indeed a very light punishment.

 

[TKretts3]

I DID WHAT HE DID WITHOUT THE INTERNET. The internet was used, but not by me, that fills the conditions, you never said I couldn't use the internet through somebody else, and neither did the judge, and you can't try to change your conditions just because I managed to do them.

Of course I agree that those who committed the new crime need to be punished, but you think they don't have friends? This whole idea that cutting somebody somebody off will solve the problem is stupid and sometimes spreads the problem. If you monitor them you could see exactly what they did and prevent others from doing the same thing.

I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer.

I never said, "I challenge you to use those programs without you directly using the internet yourself and through no one else." I challenged you to do the crime without the internet. Whether vicariously or not, in that explanation you gave me the internet was used. So no, you didn't do what he did without the internet.

Does that mean that if you committed the crime the same way you described that you, personally, should be withheld from the internet? No, but the parties involved in the crime who used the internet do to the crime should have it restricted from them. Like I said before, sending the photos & instructions down the chain of friends will just add more parties to the crime, and further increase the likelihood of someone spilling the beans.

 

[Warachia]

I never said, "I challenge you to use those programs without you directly using the internet yourself and through no one else." I challenged you to do the crime without the internet. Whether vicariously or not, in that explanation you gave me the internet was used. So no, you didn't do what he did without the internet.

Does that mean that if you committed the crime the same way you described that you, personally, should be withheld from the internet? No, but the parties involved in the crime who used the internet do to the crime should have it restricted from them. Like I said before, sending the photos & instructions down the chain of friends will just add more parties to the crime, and further increase the likelihood of someone spilling the beans.

Bullshit, that's like me saying for you to kill somebody (not yourself) when you are completely isolated in a padded room. You are blatantly trying changing your conditions, I proved how you could do the crime without the internet, I told you how I would do it, and I proved I never once needed to use the internet to do it because others did it for me (which you didn't cover).
Just because the internet was used does not mean I broke any of your conditions, and I didn't break any of the conditions set by this judge either.

My point was that restricting a person from the internet would could spread whatever crimes they wanted to commit, this just turns it into a bigger problem than before, if you monitored the person you could make sure they didn't do it again, and if they tried, you'd know how they did it (and could put in ways to make sure they didn't do it again) and you could find any accomplices they had.

 

[TKretts3]

I never said, "I challenge you to use those programs without you directly using the internet yourself and through no one else." I challenged you to do the crime without the internet. Whether vicariously or not, in that explanation you gave me the internet was used. So no, you didn't do what he did without the internet.

Does that mean that if you committed the crime the same way you described that you, personally, should be withheld from the internet? No, but the parties involved in the crime who used the internet do to the crime should have it restricted from them. Like I said before, sending the photos & instructions down the chain of friends will just add more parties to the crime, and further increase the likelihood of someone spilling the beans.

Bullshit, that's like me saying for you to kill somebody (not yourself) when you are completely isolated in a padded room. You are blatantly trying changing your conditions, I proved how you could do the crime without the internet, I told you how I would do it, and I proved I never once needed to use the internet to do it because others did it for me (which you didn't cover).
Just because the internet was used does not mean I broke any of your conditions, and I didn't break any of the conditions set by this judge either.

My point was that restricting a person from the internet would could spread whatever crimes they wanted to commit, this just turns it into a bigger problem than before, if you monitored the person you could make sure they didn't do it again, and if they tried, you'd know how they did it (and could put in ways to make sure they didn't do it again) and you could find any accomplices they had.

Re-read the condition, you'll see what you broke. The singular rule was very clear. Until you've actually done what was required, you've proved nothing to me.

 

[Warachia]

Re-read the condition, you'll see what you broke. The singular rule was very clear. Until you've actually done what was required, you've proved nothing to me.

Here's the exact challenge: "I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer."

Did I use those programs? NO. Did I use the internet? NO. Did I use a computer? NO.
Those programs might have been used by others I contacted, that doesn't break the condition, the internet was used by others, that doesn't break the condition, and computers were definitely used by others, and that doesn't break the condition.

 

[Jynthor]

I couldn't imagine a worse punishment. THE HORROR