Lawyers Say Hackers Are Sentenced Too Harshly 439
Bendebecker writes "Cnet is reporting: 'The nation's largest group of defense lawyers on Wednesday published a position paper arguing that people convicted of computer-related crimes tend to get stiffer sentences than comparable non-computer-related offenses.' Finally, someone is listening..." The document makes the points that most computer crime cases involve disputes between an employer and employee, and that the seriousness of the offense is generally comparable to white-collar fraud cases.
It all depends (Score:5, Informative)
Text copy of pdf (Score:1, Informative)
Fairly amusing (Score:4, Informative)
Hint Hint Your are more likely to get your Credit Card number stolen by giving your card to the waiter/waitress in a restaurant to have the bill paid than by having it stolen over the net!
That is fraud though. . . . maybe identity theft? A better defining line needs to be made up, not all that happens over a computer is "hacking", intent should be judged as well as actions. If a person goes into a bank pointing a gun it is not automaticaly a bank robbery, it could very well be a hostage situation. Intent, ya know?
I think they mean CRACKERS. (Score:-1, Informative)
CRACKERS are TASTY TREATS!!!
TOUCH MY MONKEEEY!!!
Too harshly....in United States of America (Score:5, Informative)
Only in US. Convicted hacker Raphael Gray, who stole 23,000 credit card no. and sent Bill Gates boxes of Viagra [bbc.co.uk], was only sentenced to three years of community rehabilitation [iafrica.com]. As he told BBC:
"...Kevin Mitnick was stopped from going near computers, even from working a cash register, but they can't do that in this country.
I've had two job offers - one from the guy who tracked me down..."
Modern "Witch Hunt" (Score:5, Informative)
People have always tended to be hysterical about that which they fear and don't understand. They see this "hacking" (it should be called "cracking" in this context, but that's a lost cause) as a vaguely defined but fearsome threat, regardless of the actual reality of harm, and clamor for the modern equivalent of witch burnings [washington.edu].
Re:Well (Score:0, Informative)
See, it works from both sides.
Actually Bob Abooey is a longtime industry pundit who used to work for Apple back in the 80's in their two button mouse division. He's also been a major kernel hacker for FreeBSD and has generally been regarded as one of the best minds in the Computer Science field for years now.
I suggest you perform a little research next time before making an arse of yourself.
Warmest regards,
--Jack
Re:Computer offences are actually underplayed.... (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, prison is a pretty lousy deterrant. When people commit crimes (in cyberspace, or otherwise), they don't think they'll be caught, so they don't think about the consequences. Murder is typically punished with long sentences, but that doesn't seem to stop people...
Next, keeping a network computer secure is not just for your own protection. It's also to protect all the other netizens who your computer might be used against if it is compromised. It sucks that people think they can just crack into people's computers if they feel the need, but in reality, most of the people that do this aren't being caught, so the crime continues. Good computer security is currently our best defense.
Finally, I don't know of too many who worship Kevin Mitnick. Pretty much everyone (including Mitnick) condemns his actions before he finally got caught. What we don't like is how he was treated afterwards. Our justice system isn't supposed to keep someone in jail without a trial, nor even a bail hearing for several years. Many people found it disconcerting that this was happening.
Re:The Witches of Yesterday... (Score:3, Informative)
Two stories:
One time, I was on a mailing list. The mailing list was using a Windows Listserv clone. Most people on the mailing list simply used a web interface to get on the mailing list; I, however, talked directly to the mailing list server to join the list.
Soon after getting on the list, someone on the list asked how many people were on the list. I told them.
At this point, all hell broke loose. They thought I broke in to the system. Fortunatly, the list administrator went to my mother's church; I don't want to think about what could have happened if she did not.
* * *
When the "I Love You" worm was spreading like wildfire, I was working for a dot-com security company called Pilot Networks (which is no more). Someone came up to me and asked me permission to forward me an email. I sais "Sure, why not?"
"Well, it's a dangerous virus"
"You know I use Linux and don't have to worry about such things"
"I know; it's just that everyone in the office is really afraid of this thing and do not even want to have it on their computer"
It seemed really strange to me that a computer security company did not have one person in their office willing to have a simple Visual Basic script on their computer.
* * *
- Sam
Re:It all depends (Score:3, Informative)
stealing 8 million credit cards is a lot more serious than defacing a website for an hour, don't you think?
I assume you mean stealing 8 million credit card numbers. In which case, no, defacing a website causes harm. "Stealing" numbers doesn't hurt anyone.
Actually using those numbers, on the other hand... Well, that's not a computer crime.
Re:These lawyers are not qualified. (Score:3, Informative)
What planet are you from? Do you know anything about law? Think about what you're saying for a second.
Lawyers don't make statements of fact, they present evidence to witnesses, the validity of which is then discussed in court. They call expert witnesses to testify when such testimony is needed. Apart from their opening statement and concluding remarks, they are not allowed to make speeches, or make unsubstantiated statements of fact as part of their cross-examination. Since they don't make statements of fact, how then do they lie?
The lawyers here are making the case that compared to other crimes causing similar levels of damage, and involving similar levels of malice/negligence, the convicted party receives a comparatively harsher penalty because there was a keyboard and processor involved, and their comments force lawmakers to justify the practice.
The level of penalties at present was decided upon arbitrarily, and not with reference to other similar crimes. Given the statement the lawyers have made, the lawmakers now have to go back and either reduce the penalty or explicitly state why it is that the penalties are higher.
This is a good thing regardless of what happens to the level of penalties because it forces the law to remain internally consistent - if you shoot someone for stealing a loaf of bread but let a multi-million dollar con-artist off with a caution, that's inconsistent - they're arguing the same occurs here, and it's worth ironing it out, for the sake of the people we're punishing. "Justice" is supposed to be even-handed.