StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Whining by hackers

An anonymous reader writes "Washingtonpost.com is running a detailed story about how new changes to the sentencing guidelines will increase jail time for most computer crime cases, starting November 1. When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime? The piece ends with a quote from uberhacker Kevin Mitnick saying just that."

and what follows is page after page of self-rationalizing bullshit.

People USE their computers for important stuff - releasing a virus
is terrorism; the same as taking down a power line with a bomb.

For example, my broadband provider's e-mail servers have been
fucked up not due to hacking, but due to simple incompetence by
the company in replacing the certificates for SSL, and a lot of people
are fed up because it's costing them/their businesses money.

I myself am fed up with virus makers, because I use my yahoo
mail to let people know i'm out there, and every day, my Yahoo
mailbox fills up with 2 MB of Microsoft service packs, making me
go over my limit, and creating the possibility that someone might
send me a legimitate email and I'll miss it as a result.

Mark my words, sooner or later, the creator of a major virus will be
caught, and I will be laughing as he gets thirty years in the federal
pen.

And he will deserve every goddamned last minute of those thirty
years

EDIT: Anyone who attempts to turn this into
a hacker/cracker naming debate will be sent to Einy's new
torture chamber TGOD and repeatedly mauled.

Considering how things are now, I would almost agree.

MKSheppard wrote:EDIT: Anyone who attempts to turn this into a hacker/cracker naming debate will be sent to Einy's new torture chamber TGOD and repeatedly mauled.

Is there something you're not telling us, Shep?

Anyone else picking up ridiculous levels of irony from MKS' posts in the Valve Gets Hacked thread?

Nonetheless, what is stated in the quote is.. Totally right. Crackers will do this because it's the best replacement they have to sex, in much the same way gun lovers will enjoy firearms. The fact the vast majority get away with it is going to outway any deterrent from sentencing. Perhaps lawmakers should be looking into improving measures to catch hackers, instead of jacking up sentences for the penny-ante BS most cracking is.

Of course, Shep had to throw in his willful ignorance on two terms in the end with TGOD threats. Pardon me if I fail to give a shit; Crackers are not Hackers, no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise, nor how furiously you masturbate to TGOD threads.

Nitram: So maybe we should fund Get These People Fucked to deter crime, if its making up for lack of sex.

kojikun wrote:Nitram: So maybe we should fund Get These People Fucked to deter crime, if its making up for lack of sex.

I strongly suspect it'd work. Penile compensasion explains half of Crackers. The other half as just jealous of Hackers terribly, hence their desire to wear the title(That's why I disagree with Shep using the word as flagrantly as he does: It's exactly what the dickless wonders want.).

SirNitram wrote:The fact the vast majority get away with it is going to outway any deterrent from sentencing. Perhaps lawmakers should be looking into improving measures to catch hackers, instead of jacking up sentences for the penny-ante BS most cracking is.

Did you read the article?

This is what has the hacker comminuty pissing mad:

Prosecutors traditionally had to show that computer criminals caused at least $5,000 in actual losses to win a conviction. The new guidelines let victims tally financial loss based on the costs of restoring data, fixing security holes, conducting damage assessments and lost revenue.

Wow, it just became a lot easier to convict people and punish them. It's not
fun n games anymore for that crowd.

Most hackers leave a trail, its there to follow, the problem is, you used
to not be able to punish them due to that law saying 5 grand had to be
lost before they could try for a conviction.

MKSheppard wrote:

SirNitram wrote:The fact the vast majority get away with it is going to outway any deterrent from sentencing. Perhaps lawmakers should be looking into improving measures to catch hackers, instead of jacking up sentences for the penny-ante BS most cracking is.

Did you read the article?

Yes, Sheppard, I did. Whoop-De-Shit. You can now prosecute for less than 5 grand of pure damages(I'm sure quite a few companies will be overrating the costs of their resotration, but). You'll notice this does precisely dick to improve the odds of catching a cracker, just allowing you to actually do something when you catch one.

In other words, it's increasing the sentencing options without improving the ability to nab them. Exactly what I posted about, but I realize your reading comprehension may be a little down.

SirNitram wrote: In other words, it's increasing the sentencing options without improving the ability to nab them. Exactly what I posted about, but I realize your reading comprehension may be a little down.

This new sentencing guideline now makes it cost effective to deploy
more expensive tools to find these guys and convict them. What, you think
we use DNA typing in petty crimes? The cost/effectiveness ratio isn't there.

You think the police are going to assign a computer crime specialist to
go and track down some loser that they can't even convict??

Before it used to be worthless to try and go after hackers, because
the party had to prove $5,000 in hardware damages for
a conviction to happen. Unless the intrepid hacker somehow hosed
a multi grand server by making the hard drives overspeed, you just
simply couldn't get a conviction. And why spend time and money
chasing these guys down if you can't convict them?

MKSheppard wrote:

SirNitram wrote: In other words, it's increasing the sentencing options without improving the ability to nab them. Exactly what I posted about, but I realize your reading comprehension may be a little down.

This new sentencing guideline now makes it cost effective to deploy
more expensive tools to find these guys and convict them. What, you think
we use DNA typing in petty crimes? The cost/effectiveness ratio isn't there.

That was the most retarded suggestion I've seen today. Well, outside of a politicial discussion. The logical answer would be to develop the tools so they're not as expensive... Instead of upping the penalties, as I originally fucking posted, of penny-ante BS. Thanks for showing this is doing exactly what I said would be useless.

You think the police are going to assign a computer crime specialist to
go and track down some loser that they can't even convict??

Before it used to be worthless to try and go after hackers, because
the party had to prove $5,000 in hardware damages for
a conviction to happen. Unless the intrepid hacker somehow hosed
a multi grand server by making the hard drives overspeed, you just
simply couldn't get a conviction. And why spend time and money
chasing these guys down if you can't convict them?

Again, you ignore the point. This is doing nothing to improve capture odds. You can say 'Well, this, therefore that', and you may well be right. But this is exactly the sort of stupidity I specifically said will not do enough: Upping the sentences for penny-ante BS. It will not deter the crackers. Why? Because they know their chance of detection remains low. Will this prompt usage of more techniques? Quite possibly. Will it make it cost effective? Good chances. However, none of these can ensure an increase in capture. And that, Sheppard, as I've said from the start, is all that matters in putting down cracking. Perhaps you can get that through your skull before you repeat yourself.

First off, why do people spell "whine" as "whinge" I see that so often I wonder what the meme is behind it. Me, I can't ever remember the rules for apostrophes, and suffer from a low grade dyslexia that always wants to reverse them, so I tend to leave all apostrophes out. Its the lazy way out, and at least I know I'm consistantly wrong. But what, do they mentally pronounce it as "when-idge" or what?

Second, why should non-violent computer criminals do more time than rapists or murders? If someone does damage, or steals valuable information, why not prosecute them under existing vandalism or corporate espionage laws? There is no good reason to up a punishment simply because a crime is comitted with a computer, and I for one would be very uncomfortable being tried "by my peers" -- which by definition are going to be techno-idiots -- for a cybercrime, presided over by a judge as clueless as the jury. Yikes.

aronkerkhof wrote:FSecond, why should non-violent computer criminals do more time than rapists or murders? If someone does damage, or steals valuable information, why not prosecute them under existing vandalism or corporate espionage laws? There is no good reason to up a punishment simply because a crime is comitted with a computer, and I for one would be very uncomfortable being tried "by my peers" -- which by definition are going to be techno-idiots -- for a cybercrime, presided over by a judge as clueless as the jury. Yikes.

Current laws do not assigned value to virtual data unless copy righted. That means a report you typed up for your PHd Disertation that got toasted which is going to cost you two entire years of PHd schooling can't be used against the hacker that deleted it.

Would such a law mean that you get to sue the hapless server administrator who had the misfortune of having the main dataserver hard drive crash?

Crayz9000 wrote:Would such a law mean that you get to sue the hapless server administrator who had the misfortune of having the main dataserver hard drive crash?

Hopefully not, but the wording would have to be precise.

Wait a minute. First off, I'd like to see something that backs up your statement RE:private intellectual property. Then, taking your statements at face value, a phd dissertation *is* copyrighted, by the person who wrote it. Thank you *IAA for muddying these waters. At any rate, if a person broke into and destroyed your paper, he'd be brought up on existing breaking and entering laws, or the computer equivalent. Then, the person who wrote the paper could take him to civil court and recover damages.

Are you arguing a person should do manditory jail time for destroying a paper? Ask yourself this; if all you had was a paper copy, and someone accidentally or on purpose burnt this sole copy of paper, would they spend ten years in a federal pen? What if its on the first offense? Why isn't the school or you personally partially liable for backing up the data anyway?

Have you actually read the article? Penalties based on how much money is in an account I take a look into, regardless of whether or not I take it, and regardless of how much money I thought was in the account when I took a peek. Try putting that exact crime into meatspace terms and see if you still agree with it. Penalty increases if I break into a network "tied to a military or public utilities grid". Hey, that wording won't get abused.

phongn wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote:Would such a law mean that you get to sue the hapless server administrator who had the misfortune of having the main dataserver hard drive crash?

Hopefully not, but the wording would have to be precise.

Why wouldn't he be liable? Did he bother to backup the main dataserver data? I'd support laws holding administrators to certain levels of personal liability, that can be waved by an employer who forces a guy to cut corners. These would be civil statues, I'm assuming, and not criminal ones.

Presumably it is backed up or if not he has no budget to do so. I thought he Crazy was referring to an accident rather than that level of sheer incompetence.