If ten years is the maximum sentence for computer crime, that doesn't mean all people who do use computer crime get ten years.Luke Skywalker wrote:My problem with the case isn't so much that the guy is getting investigated for being a part of an illegal [if not immoral] organization, but rather that he's being threatened with more years in prison than two teens convicted of gang rape. He's even getting more time in prison than Mike Tyson, an adult male, received for rape. Many voluntary manslaughter convicts don't serve 10 years, for crying out loud.
I can easily imagine a computer crime that would justify ten years in prison- say, stealing a flash drive with the credit card information of several thousand people.
But then, I also think rapists should go to jail for even longer than that.
Side issue- were the Steubenville rapists adults at the time they committed the crime? Juvenile justice works funny.
Personally, I think that what matters is what you do, not how you gain access, unless your method of gaining access causes damage.TronPaul wrote:I'm curious as to how the site was hacked, and what precedent and law are around "hacking". Hacking to many Americans is (fatty)nerds in basements typing a lot and being able to break any system. Hacking, or gaining unauthorized entry into a computer system, tends to be as simple as guessing a password or password hint. Should the act of hacking (ie gain unauthorized access) into an email account by just guessing the password after a few guesses be treated the same way as breaching the server's security using technical methods? If you were to draw differences, where would they be, also how much weight should the actions taken by the "hacker" on the unauthorized system have in their sentencing/charges.
Using technical means, or unauthorized use of someone's password, to gain access to a system, are both what might be called "virtual breaking and entering:" they can reasonably be called a crime in their own right even if nothing is stolen or sabotaged. But it doesn't much matter which method you used, I think- does the court care whether you got into a house by breaking a window or by crowbarring the lock on the front door?
Thing is, jokingly guessing someone's admin password is like jokingly sneaking into their house by looking under the flowerpots on the front porch for the spare key. You don't have permission to do that. A sensible, law abiding person would take that lack of permission as a sign that they shouldn't be doing it at all.I feel that if were a simple, ie someone guessed admin as the password and got in, the act of gaining access (and sentencing around it) should be a joke. Now if they somehow caused damage while they had unauthorized access which could be proved to be intentional, then they should be charged around the damage they did.
Plus, posting a video like that is defamatory: if this "KYAnonymous" character had been wrong about the rape, then his actions would be grossly unfair to the football players. If he believed a crime had been committed, the proper action was to take it to the police, not to boast and bluster about taking it to the police.RogueIce wrote:But I fail to see how hacking a website to post 'apologize or else' is somehow relevant to investigative journalists publishing leaked information, or burglars that found kiddy porn and turned it over to the police, or any other high-minded moral ideal instead of internet vigilantism. Hell depending on the content of that video he could face charges for making threats depending on just how "he threatened action against the players". Being a despicable human being doesn't make you fair game for vigilantes, after all.
