More Jail Time For Computer Crime Starting Next Month

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."

It's not about deterring crime ..

[RubberDuckie]

It's about appeasing the masses. "Look", say the politicians, "We're tough on computer crime!" This will keep most people off the law makers backs.

Class War

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet corporate executives who steal millions and fuck with societies infrastructure walk free.

It's already completely unbalanced

[Weaselmancer]

Currently, you can get more time for hacking your cablemodem than manslaughter. What's the point anymore?

To any lawmakers out there who might read this - We Get It Already. Lay Off.

Weaselmancer

Spammers

[Erick the Red]

Spammers already do all kinds of computer crimes (hijacking computers, etc.), and get no punishment, even after being reported. Sorry, but %100 more of zero is still zero.

Re:That's odd.

[GeneralEmergency]

Deterance is supposed to happen before you're arrested.

Re:Jail Time

[Tyrdium]

Isn't the point of all punishment to deter the criminal and/or others from committing criminal acts?

You lost this fight years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Langauge is what the majority makes it. The fact that you yourself speak year 2003 English and not Olde English is proof enough. Hacker now means "computer criminal", much like "romantic" now refers to something laden with matters of the heart, instead of "strange". Get over it.

Re:Jail Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as has been pointed out by Dilbert author Scott Adams (among others), if you're in jail then you're not out committing the crime. Putting criminals in jail certainly does deter crime during the duration of their sentence.

Re:Jail Time

[marko123]

It can also be argued that it is there to keep law-abiding citizens satisfied in their law-abiding ways, and content that crime doesn't really pay. It's a two-fold effect.

I wish the h^Hcrackers well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd prefer that small scale computer cracking, viruses, worms, and other security challenges continue to be a problem. It's unforunately the only method we have to ensure we are vigilant against the far greater problem. There are REAL TERRORISTS out there who would love to destory the infrastructure of the US and other first-world nations. But for the script kiddies making computer security a problem for everyone, these issues would largely get brushed under the rug by software companies wishing to save face.

The logical solution to this problem is not to try and weed out those who are malicious--this will fail the moment we fail to catch even ONE cracker. The only solution is to continue to improve security.

I am actually quite surprised, given the apparently inadequate security present in most government and commercial institutions, that we have not yet seen a major terrorist attack on our information infrastructure to date.

Life?

[heli0]

I guess the guy(s) responsible for this are going to get a life sentence: Yes, the source code that has been posted is the HL-2 source code.... [homelan.com]

Here is what we know:

1) Starting around 9/11 of this year, someone other than me was accessing my email account. This has been determined by looking at traffic on our email server versus my travel schedule.

2) Shortly afterwards my machine started acting weird (right-clicking on executables would crash explorer). I was unable to find a virus or trojan on my machine, I reformatted my hard drive, and reinstalled.

3) For the next week, there appears to have been suspicious activity on my webmail account.

4) Around 9/19 someone made a copy of the HL-2 source tree.

5) At some point, keystroke recorders got installed on several machines at Valve. Our speculation is that these were done via a buffer overflow in Outlook's preview pane. This recorder is apparently a customized version of RemoteAnywhere created to infect Valve (at least it hasn't been seen anywhere else, and isn't detected by normal virus scanning tools).

6) Periodically for the last year we've been the subject of a variety of denial of service attacks targetted at our webservers and at Steam. We don't know if these are related or independent.

Well, this sucks.

What I'd appreciate is the assistance of the community in tracking this down. I have a special email address for people to send information to, [e-mail]. If you have information about the denial of service attacks or the infiltration of our network, please send the details. There are some pretty obvious places to start with the posts and records in IRC, so if you can point us in the right direction, that would be great.

We at Valve have always thought of ourselves as being part of a community, and I can't imagine a better group of people to help us take care of these problems than this community.

Gabe Newell

What do you want them to do?

[Meor]

This is why I don't like a lot of Slashdot readers. What options are you giving politicians in order to deter computer crimes? You guys say higher penalties don't deter crime; while that may be true, Slashdot has to be one of the biggest proponents of anonymous computing around. So if you don't want criminals to be named and you don't want them to be sentenced, what do you want to have happen to them? Is computer crime not really a crime?

I doubt the intent is to deter hacking...

[GojiraDeMonstah]

...or "rehabilitate" anybody. The intent is to control a kind of power that is greatly feared.

Here's an analogy, which I'm sure has flaws but here goes anyway.

This is like burning witches at the stake. Witches were thought to have control over nature and man via black magic, special knowledge of the occult, etc. We've all heard the saying that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand it.

When I hear things like the giant brou-hahas made over websites using "cookies" (gasp!), I realize how mysterious computers must seem to ordinary non-tech people. When bad things (virii, DDOS attacks) start happening to computers and web sites, it must be especially scary to these folks because they didn't really understand what was going on in the first place, and now it's all gone to crap for no easily explainable reason.

All of this fear and ignorance eventually bubbles over into rage, and an urge to lash out towards those perceived to be responsible.

Yes, I realize that a cracker is not a perfect analogy to a witch because the cracker is actually performing malicious actions. But there seem to be many examples of white-hats getting snagged in this over-zealous dragnet (the Adrian Lamo case for instance).

The extent to which The Gubment has started prosecuting these crimes smacks of fear and ignorance, just like the Red Scare, and the original witch hunts. The idea that Kevin Mitnick could actually call in a nuke strike from a payphone... idiots!

Re:Jail Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you that slow or just taking a break from your homework?

How much hacking/cracking did Kevin M. do while he was in jail?

If there is no punishment, there is no reason not to do it. Put the jerks in jail!

Re:It's already completely unbalanced

[Cat_Byte]

Yeah it's the same with the MADD sponsored DUI laws. It's down to 1 beer makes anyone under 120 lbs legally drunk now and the laws get tougher & tougher. Currently in TX you get in more trouble for 2 beers than you would for being caught with halucinogens. You lose your license for 1 year for a first offense as of Sept 1. For 2 beers I had to pay $2500 bond, $2500 fines, $1500 lawyer fees, and $150 to get my vehicle back. Next phase is my insurance went up over $2000/year. All that was for cutting myself off at 2 beers and going home early.

I know it sounds off topic, but making more laws does not prevent breaking the law. It is simply another source of income for law enforcement and the court system. You can compare it to the gun laws. There are more than enough laws on the books to enforce what they want (and then some) but it's a lack of enforcement that makes some people think more laws are needed.

tough on crime? look at California

[puzzled]

Its politically beneficial for politicians to appear tough on crime. This move does get the political points but it leaves a long term mess for a prison system already over burdened by mandatory minimum sentences and it makes judges into clerks, rather than intelligent wielders of the law.

Look at California; direct democracy there lets the voters feel good for one election and saddles the politicians(managers, lets remember) with situations that just can't be made to work - you *must* provide more services, but not raise taxes.

Disaster ensues when you decouple responsbility and authority to discharge the duties. Judges are being hamstrung, reform has become impossible for nonviolent offenders in many areas, and it is only going to get worse.

I'll tell a personal story about what a joke mandatory minimum sentences are.

I have a friend who has a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart mounted in a little wooden box. He operates on one lung, shrapnel from the booby trap he set off while on patrol in the Mekong delta still comes to the surface in his back, but he kept his M60 lit up covering the LZ while the rest of the platoon retreated to the choppers.

He was involved in agricultural research and he ran a computer shop. One of his computer shop customers laid hands on his ag business information, ordered methamphetamine precursors, and then implicated my war hero friend to cover himself when he got busted.

Because of the manner in which the prosecutor handled the case the judge had to sentence this guy for something. He said he wanted to have him do forty hours of public service to remind him to keep his business records locked. He served six years in a federal camp.

Come Down Off Your High Horses

[Anonymous Coward]

As a frequent Slashdot reader, I rolled my eyes as soon as I read this article, but the postings made me want to scream. Why shouldn't those who commit computer crimes be punished with severity? A lot of readers here have these amazing delusions of grandeur, seeing themselves as little robin hoods, hacking against the man. Please. Think of the millions of dollars in lost revenue and wasted time cause by computer viruses. If I owned a large company that suffered a virus attack from a 1337 haxor that found a vulnerability in my firewall, I would want him to be held accountable, same as if he drove a truck through my office and stole the money I lost. Computer crimes and just those, crimes. And like all crime it's about time legislation was passed to punish the scum that commit them.

Re:Jail Time

[(54)T-Dub]

That's an interesting distinction. Is the whole point of the threat of punishment to act as a deterrent? Many of the Death Penalty proponents would argue yes. They claim that the threat of the death penalty stops people from commiting mass murder. The only problem with that philosophy is that people never think they are going to get caught.

Anyone actually remember what REAL criminals are?

[Excen]

Higher sentences for hackers while Ken Lay et al are still sitting in their multimillion dollar mansions? Does anybody out there sense severe, disgusting irony?

Re:Life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Help is all around us, but some folks just won't accept it.

We can't legislate our way to secure computing, but we can make choices that are actually effective in keeping our data safe.

Look. Out. Out. Look. Lookout. Outlook.

Either HL2 wasn't mission critical, or the developers were incompetent when it came to choosing their infrastructure.

Anyway, it's doubtful that the average cracker is going to do a mental calculation and decide that being anally raped 188 times is acceptable but 230 times is simply out of the question.

Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present...

[tc]

And while we're at it, should force everybody to revert to the old usages of common words from the middle ages? Should people stop using "awful" to mean "bad", and instead revert to using it to mean "inspiring awe"?

Or should we just accept that languages evolve, and that many terms which started out life as sub-culture jargon may have their meanings broadened or altered as they enter mainstream usage?

Bah

[Ikn]

Glad to see the Justice system taking on important matters. I mean, since we started throwing the death penalty around as a deterrent, look how little murder occurs!
Oh wait...

Enforcement has a bigger effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think seeing those guys hauled off to prison for the latest set of viruses will do more to deter computer crime than making the laws tougher.

Re:Uhhhhh....

[startled]

There are several factors in deterrence. Two are perceived sentence, and perceived chance of getting caught.

After a point, perceived sentence stops having a significant deterrent effect. Death penalty generally has no statistically measurable effect beyond a life sentence. Similarly for, say, 10 years vs. 5 years. 5 years vs. $200 fine, I haven't seen studies, but I would imagine that yes-- if the penalty for speeding were 5 years, a lot fewer people would speed.

Perceived chance of getting caught can also make a huge swing. If you've hit the point where increasing the sentence really doesn't do much-- and it doesn't take long to hit that point-- this can be much more effective. If you know there's a 100% chance of getting caught, obviously you won't commit a crime with a significant penalty. If you know most people get caught, you'll look into other types of crime.

Given that penalties for most serious computer offenses are already extremely high, perhaps they should focus on catching and prosecuting people for reasonable sentences, rather than hitting the occasional jackpot and throwing the guy in jail for life.

Shit, if we kept on that trend, we might one day actually consider rehabilitation. Imagine, a prison doesn't guarantee a high recidivism rate!

Re:Jail Time

[IthnkImParanoid]

Putting criminals in jail certainly does deter crime during the duration of their sentence.

That is, until they get out of prison. Aside from spending a few years in the company of more serious criminals (rapists, thieves of physical property, assault-ers) I'd imagine a sentence for decrypting a data file on your computer or reverse engineering some protocol that was heavier than sentences given to drunk drivers that end up killing people would make someone bitter, angry, and not at all likely to respect the law and the society that makes it.

If I lost a few years of my young adult life for writing a linux DVD player, I don't think the people that put me there would be around long after I got out.

Re:Who cares

[m0rph3us0]

Those figures change dramatically when you consider per capita GNP. In reality the US per capita aid level is one of the cheapest donor levels of any industrialized nation.
[pearsoned.com]
Foreign AID as percentage of GDP
Per capita GDP [bartleby.com]
Lets put it this way, the average dane spends almost 8 times the amount of money in real dollars average american does.

No one hates the US because they are sucessful. I don't hate most european countries that have similar per capita GDPs. People hate the US because they are arrogant and have a horrible record for supporting and aiding vicious reigmes. (Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, bin Laden, Taliban,El Salvador, etc)

Let me know about a 3rd world country the US rebuilt that they didnt blow to shit first.

Whoever convinced americans that they lived on the best country on earth really pulled the wool over their eyes as to what a good country can be.

If you ever get a chance or are actually interested in what the US stands for pull their voting record from the UN and look how many abstentions and votes against UN resolutions against colonization and terrorism the US has cast.

Re:Uhhhhh....

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

How much are we willing to befoul the constitution to deter crime? Jail time for a speeding ticket would deter speeding even more, but does the penalty fit the damage done? Do we really want a society where everyone falls in line based on fear? Like it or not, the constitution gives us the right to a reasonable punishment for a crime. Jail time is being thrown around far too casually by legislators these days. A suspension of our most basic right, freedom, is something to take very seriously.

Welcome to the war on drugs/terrorism/wmd/..

[Anonymous Coward]

computers. They'll never admit their wrong, that it doesn't work, that they're stupid, and it will go on forever for spite and eventually they'll turn it into a cash cow like law enforcement has already for the other fields to justify their existance.

Why?

[Dan Farina]

So, we stiffen copyright law, computer crime law, and all sorts of crime law, only allowing those with millions of dollars to throw around to get away with them, yet many of the more basic crimes (rape, murder, etc) are NOT constantly pushed upwards for sentencing to "deter" these crimes...

Could this trend be because there is no corporate interest in the other crimes? Naaaaah, that couldn't be it.

Or are people just afraid of what they don't understand, as they understand the other two crimes very well?

What do you expect

[steak]

This is the government's answer to every crime, drugs, guns, and now computer crimes. When will the government learn that criminals don't care about jail time, by very definition a criminal can not have respect for the law he or she is breaking or the consequences that go along with breaking the law.

Re:Jail Time

[JayBlalock]

EXACTLY. Locking up non-violent offenders in federal prisons is NOT the answer. For every one who "reforms" (which usually means he was caught in a stupid stunt he wouldn't've repeated anyway), two more get turned into hardened criminals, or so hating of their government as to be certain to do something worse upon release. The "Send a Message!" types never seem to think about the larger societal impact, only the idea of prison time equalling vengance. "What do you get when you lock a whole bunch of criminals together? Concentrated criminality!"

In other news...

[coolmacdude]

Murderers continue to get 5 to 10 in some states.

Re:It's not about deterring crime ..

[davesag]

You are of course right that it is not about deterring computer crime, and partly right when you say it's about politicians being able to say they are tough on such crimes. But IMHO what it is really about is multi-fold. Firstly it is about keeping a slave labour pool of willingnerds who can have their sentances magically communted for 'good service' in the name of national security or whatever - kind of 'la femme nikita' style. The US abolished literal slavery, much to the detriment of its economy, and instead ratcheted up the imprisonment rate. prisoners, now get to shrink wrap microsoft products, sew posh underwear, etc etc - it's far cray from the old image of making licence plates as prison labour. now they even have imprisoned tele-marketers. But in this day and age the US needs more nerds, and needs them cheap. what better way than making more things nerds do carry prison time. and lots of it. Why a hacker, she's almost "worse than hitler" now-a-days. but their skills can be usefully harnessed. who knows if they behave they'll get time off for good service.

secondly it is about instilling terror in some hapless nerd when she's busted, forcing her to incriminate her friends - soviet style. soon, like terrorism, you'll only need be suspected of 'computer crimes' and it's off to some labour camp somewhere for you, your friends and any members of your family not prepared to publicly denounce you on fox news.

Re:War?

[b10m]

Let's take a look at the War on Drugs (yeah, there are quite some successful wars around nowadays ;-). The penalties on dealing, smuggling, doing whatever with drugs are almost insane. 20 Years in prison is nothing for an average crack dealing thug (over the 100 years imprisonment is even handed out). Does it deter? I don't think so. After many years of war (on drugs), the number of prisoners of war is still rising. So the deterring factor doesn't seem to work.

Did anyone inform Capitol Hill that "cracking" has nothing to do with "crack cocaine" ?

When will they learn?

[Syberghost]

When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime?

When/if somebody demonstrates that to be true?

Or are you making the classic "less than 100% deterrence == 0% deterrence" mistake?

The piece ends with a quote from uberhacker Kevin Mitnick saying just that.

It's deterring him pretty well.