Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Security Worms News

Blaster Variant Creator Pleads Guilty 373

Posted by simoniker from the blasted dept.
Hello Kitty writes "Robert Parson, the 18-year-old who modified and re-released a version of Blaster last year, is on his way to being made an example of, after pleading guilty Wednesday in a Seattle courtroom. According to AP, he can now look forward to 18-36 months behind bars and -- shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages -- may be expected to pay millions in restitution. And then there's that lifelong 5cr1pt k1dd13 title. of course."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blaster Variant Creator Pleads Guilty More

Blaster Variant Creator Pleads Guilty

Comments Filter:

  • And... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Izago909 ( 637084 ) * <tauisgod@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:38PM (#9944875)
    In related news top Microsoft executives are expected to address a grand jury tomorrow morning for betraying the public trust by carelessly releasing software without thorough debugging. Yesterday, Steve Ballmer addressed reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press denouncing the charges. "It's like suing an automaker for selling cars without thorough crash testing and evaluation."

    • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bwy ( 726112 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:41PM (#9944892)
      Next thing you know murder will be legal and the victim will be held responsible for not wearing kevlar.

      • Re:And... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by photon317 ( 208409 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:55PM (#9944976)

        There's a balance somewhere inbetween these two statements. It will always be illegal to unleash a virus, just as it will always be illegal to murder. However, just as civil suits can and do win against negligent manufacturers of equipment for failing to include adequate and reasonable safety measures, so should civil class-action suits win against makers of software who haven't done their due diligence on the security side of things. I'm not a fan of punitive damages against the manufacturer, but I think cost-of-purchase would be in order, covering the product bought (or the whole cost of any bundle containing the product). IOW, consumers should be able to sue Eudora for the cost of their mail client if they get penetrated and virused through it, and should be able to sue M$ for the entire cost of Windows since Outlook Express was a bundled component. (And again, not just because there was a bug - those are inevitable - but as a class action suit alleging that they were completely negligent in the area of security as evidence by the pattern of recurrent successful attacks on their software).

        • Re:And... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by gujo-odori ( 473191 )
          You don't know much about class action suits, do you? Google a bit, then come back and tell us if you can find evidence of a class action lawsuit where anyone but the lawyers won. I think you know which way I'm betting on that.

    • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by McSnarf ( 676600 ) * on Thursday August 12, 2004 @04:21AM (#9945617)
      Grow up, people.
      The "Virus writers are cool heroes" attitude usually comes from non-professionals who would never, ever be allowed to touch a real installation...
      Breaking and entering is illegal - even if the victim knowingly employs bad locks.
      The main issue here is not the fact that the idiot just changed some lines, but that he knowingly released it into the wild again.
      If you use petrol and a lighter to burn down a house and people die, you deserve to be punished. The house could have been a fire trap - but that does not reduce your guilt. (Whoever built it will be sued, too, but the flaw in "virus lover" thinking is that the arsonist should go free because not all houses are fire proof.)
  • He could have been shot at dawn under trumped up terrorism charges.

  • This kid is no Mitnick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:38PM (#9944877) Homepage
    Comparing this kid to Mitnick is like comparing Burt Ward to Bruce Lee. Seriously--all the kid did was made a few minor changes to an already successful virus. Mitnick was doing something relatively new, and he did a lot of original 'work' in doing so. All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus, hit send, and get caught.

    (Hint to foolish wannabe kiddiez: stick to posting 'me toooo!!!!111' on the warez channel du jour. They won't send your sorry ass to prison for that.)

    • (Hint to foolish wannabe kiddiez: stick to posting 'me toooo!!!!111' on the warez channel du jour. They won't send your sorry ass to prison for that.)

      Yet. [playingwithfire.org]

    • Re:This kid is no Mitnick (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:50PM (#9944949)
      All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus, hit send, and get caught.

      Yes, and you know the saddest thing? Most talented hackers, like Morris or even Mitnick, can look forward to full time employment as a security expert at some IT company, due to their fame, after they're done being punished for their deeds. It's an expensive way to get famous, but at least they're famous, at least in computer circles.

      This moron on the other hand can look forward to be punished, like hackers, and then apply for a job at Wendy's, because in the eyes of any employer, he'll always be less desirable than a failed CS student, until his script kiddie fame fades away slowly.

      Honestly, that's the kid's real punishment...
    • Comparing this kid to Mitnick is like comparing Burt Ward to Bruce Lee.

      That's a bizarre comparison.

      Burt Ward and Bruce Lee actually worked together when the Batman series was used to launch The Green Hornet.

      Mitnick and Parson have probably never met.

    • All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus

      Which makes him getting caught even worse. Had he actually written the virus, he would be able to get a job in computer secuirty after his sentence, like so many other hackers have. But, since he just took somebody else's work and made fairly transparent changes to it, he's got a few extra marks on him besides the "convicted felon" thing:

      1. Plagist/code thief - not looking at a job programming, I think, if he can't write his own code.
      2. La
    • Comparing this kid to Mitnick is like comparing Burt Ward to Bruce Lee.

      Context: Burt Ward portrayed Robin on the 1960's Batman series featuring Adam West.

      Mad props on the somewhat obscure reference!

    • Re:This kid is no Mitnick (Score:4, Funny)

      by golgotha007 ( 62687 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @04:13AM (#9945592)
      Seriously--all the kid did was made a few minor changes to an already successful virus.

      no kidding. not only that, but he was a moron in the pricess:

      from the article:
      Parson apparently took few steps to disguise his identity. As a byproduct of each infection, every victim's computer sent signals back to the "t33kid.com" Web site that Parson had registered in his own name, listing his home address. The computer bug also included an infecting file called "teekids.exe" that experts quickly associated with Parson's Web site: Hackers routinely substitute "3" for the letter "e" in their online aliases.

      holy crap, i could've caught teekid!

    • Yeah and? Stupid criminals go to jail. Old story (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @04:28AM (#9945639) Journal
      Sorry but am I supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Well okay, I believe that society should show the compassion to criminals that the criminals showed to their victims. So lets see. If he made the virus easy to remove and totally harmless then lets give him an easy and painless sentence like cleaning the toilets for a couple of months for no pay.

      but he didn't did he, he showed no compassion for his victims so why should we show him? He wanted to play with the big boys, cause discomfort to countless people, be the though guy. Well now he can be though in jail. Something tells me he is going to be crying for his mommy.

      I don't agree with many things american but the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" I can get behind. This guy was no victim of society. He was not a poor man stealing bread for his family. He was nothing more then a little punk who went around smashing peoples car, a thief stealing every bike around because he is to lazy to walk, a parasite.

      Sure he was an idiot but an idiot who deliberatly set out to cause other people harm. What do you suggest we do? Give him a 50 dollar penalty? Slap on the wrist? Then he will be boasting in seconds on the net on how the pigs couldn't touch him and his leet hacking skills brought down the net.

      No let him rot for a couple of months. I doubt it will send a message to other script kiddies but there is always the element of revenge. Ghandi may have a thing or two to say about revenge but Ghandi also left a country wich now has been at war for 50 yrs with itself and its neighbour. (tamils and pakistan)

    • Comparing this kid to Mitnick is like comparing Burt Ward to Bruce Lee. Seriously--all the kid did was made a few minor changes to an already successful virus. Mitnick was doing something relatively new, and he did a lot of original 'work' in doing so. All this idiot did was make a few changes to somebody else's virus, hit send, and get caught.

      But the kids primary purpose was to cause problems. He learned little, gained nothing, yet caused a lot of problems, and he did it intentionally. That *should* b

  • Nice. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:40PM (#9944887) Homepage Journal
    If you can't catch the original, punish the hell out of the one you can catch.

    A smarter system would have this kid be a digital janitor for a year or so. Disinfect this computer, now disinfect that one. You know, like an intern, and maybe he could get a job out of it when he's done.

    More productive than license plates, and more likely to pay society back.

    • Re:Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944901)
      "A smarter system would have this kid be a digital janitor for a year or so. Disinfect this computer, now disinfect that one. You know, like an intern, and maybe he could get a job out of it when he's done."

      Yea, cause hes just the type of person that I would want working on my computer. I also think that convicted child molesters should be put to work in day care centers. That'll teach em.

      • Extreme examples prove nothing. This kid's future is fucked, maybe he can be rehibilitated so he isn't a drain on society when he gets out.

        Now I obviously don't believe child molesters should be given second chances, but this is a far less severe circumstance.

        • Re:Nice. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gujo-odori ( 473191 )
          Being rehabilitated doesn't imply working in IT. In fact, he might do better to get out of it anyway. He's young and can train for anything. He could retrain as a plumbe when he gets out, and if he's any good at it, he'll make more than most people in IT.

          He might also want to look into being a mechanic, if he has the talent for it. Mechanics will need to know more and more about dealing with computer systems on vehicles every year.

          There are lots of things he can do when he gets out. It doesn't have t
    • The idea is to make an example out of him not to actually change him. "Corrections Services" don't correct the offender they correct everyone else.
    • Frankly, I don't think that's a good idea. It would be one thing if he'd made the worm himself. At least then he would have marketable skills in programming and/or security. However, he just took the code to an existing virus and changed it in a very minor way. All this guy's got going for him right now is malicious intent, plagiarism, and a felony conviction. He's not going to be the one cleaning coffee spills out of my keyboard.

  • Microsoft should be greatful: (Score:5, Informative)

    by tpgp ( 48001 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:40PM (#9944890) Homepage
    Parson was charged here last August because Microsoft is based in suburban Redmond.

    "We appreciate the fact that the defendant has accepted responsibility for the crime he committed," Microsoft deputy general counsel Nancy Anderson said Wednesday.

    He changed Blaster to make it attack the MPAA & RIAA rather then Microsoft.

    Microsoft should thank him ;-)

  • This guy is an idiot an deserves everything he get (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:41PM (#9944895)
    Idiot
    A Minnesota teenager known online as "teekid" was arrested and placed on electronic monitoring Friday for allegedly unleashing a version of the "Blaster" computer worm that infected thousands of computers.

    First for writing the damn thing in the first place

    Idiot
    Parson apparently took few steps to disguise his identity. As a byproduct of each infection, every victim's computer sent signals back to the "t33kid.com" Web site that Parson had registered in his own name, listing his home address

    Second for putting in a direct trace back to himself

    Idiot
    In court, the high school senior wore a T-shirt that read "Big Daddy" on the front and "Big and Bad" with a grizzly bear on the back. He sported a metal stud under his lip and his hair was dyed blond on top and shaved close around the sides and back

    Third for showing no humility in court

    • He was in court to plead guilty. He probably knew he was looking at a stretch. Why does it matter what clothes he was wearing?

      I used to get stopped regularly by the police. Normally I was just walking along the pathment minding my own business. I was stopped because of my hooded top most of the time - it's cold and wet in the UK. What a world to live in when people judge you by the clothes you wear.

      I've heard geeks here complaining about the stick they get... because they look like geeks? So sad.

      For the record I've never been arrested or convicted.

      • Re:This guy is an idiot an deserves everything he (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @06:45AM (#9945986) Journal
        I'm such a geek. Normally I don't really give a damn about what people think of what I wear.

        (It's decent. I'm not wearing a crotchless S&M outfit to work, or anything. If anyone is fundamentally offended the sight of a clean pair of jeans, they're just stupid. And I have better things to do than worry about stupid people.)

        However, in this case we're talking a court of law. You don't want to piss off the judge who might, on a whim, give you a suspended sentence or community service or send you behind bars for a few years.

        You _don't_ want to look like an unrepentant "fuck you all" rebel to the judge. You don't want to look like you're damn proud of what you've done. (Which is the impression that such a "Big Daddy" t-shirt would have given even me.)

        I'm not even saying he should have worn a suit and tie or anything. But, you know, even if you're gonna wear a t-shirt, make it a plain one.

        I mean, geeze, wear that t-shirt to school. Wear it at a party. Wear it even to a job interview if you honestly don't give a damn about the outcome. But a court of law is more serious: unlike a job interview, you can't just try again somewhere else.

        Basically all I'm saying is that there's difference between not caring about stupid people, and _being_ the stupid one. Freakin' big difference.

  • Forgive Me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:41PM (#9944896) Homepage Journal
    ... but I think in this case, he *should* be made an example of. Virus writers need to *STOP*. Now.

    On the other hand...

    The fact that unscrupulous companies will bill in phantom damages just makes it worse. How are these kids supposed to have any role models when the establishment distances themselves from morality for profit? Phantom damages and those who issue them, ought be fined and sent off to jail with just as much enthusiasm as virus writers.

  • Example? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Neurotoxic666 ( 679255 ) <neurotoxic666.hotmail@com> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:41PM (#9944897) Homepage
    is on his way to being made an example of

    This is not justice. He should get what he deserves, period. Whenever they try to make an example of someone, he or she becomes some marty/icon and the only lesson learnt is: don't get caught doing what you'll do anyway.

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pherthyl ( 445706 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944904)
    Harsh sentence, but I don't have a lot of sympathy. Idiot makes virus, idiot gets caught, idiot gets punished.

    Next please.

  • hrm...well, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hot_Karls_bad_cavern ( 759797 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944906) Journal
    i can say this: if you don't know enough to keep from getting caught, well, enjoy the penalty. On that note, no, i don't condone doing such a thing, but with the many ways to get online anonymously (no, not some crappy online anonymizer or some such...i mean, the real ways...if you don't know, i'm sure as fuck not going to tell you) you should never be caught....

    ...unless you are stupid, reuse code, code with the wrong tools (read up), and release from your own fucking email account, etc. The ways to get away with this shit are many, the stupid take-the-easy-way-out folks get caught and the normal user will click away like there's no tomorrow regardless of the source (ask your local IT guy if you don't believe me on that one).

    Sorry, no remorse for those that act without knowing enough.
    • before any moderation or replies, let me clarify:

      virus writers are not funny, cool, nor ub3r if they release to the public without first going to the source(s) of the problems (ie shitty programming companies that hire people unable to code out of wet paper bags). The situation becomes sticky when the company ignores you or threatens you (it happens). Well, then go to SANS or CERT, if a red-flag from those two places do not get the attention of afore mentioned shitty programming company, then at least the
    • Average users click on everything? Sure, and some so-called techs do too. Back when Mellissa came out, I was working at a tech shop. I got dozens of the message, all from internal addresses because of ID10Ts using Outlook. When the Love Bug came out, I got over 100, again, all internal because nobody learned the first time. Me? I was using Eudora, and laughed my head off because I wasn't using that mass of bugs and security holes.

  • two sides to this fence... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Obliterous ( 466068 ) <shawn,somers&gmail,com> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944908) Homepage Journal
    He pled guilty, so he's guilty. good. send him to jail. I've got no problem with that.

    But as for the millions, who actually get's the money?

    an IT profesionals JOB is to deal with problems, much like blaster caused (and still ocasionally does).

    What other costs do these companies incur, as a result of a worm/virus?

    Do these companies want money to pay the wages of these tech's?

    if the worm did it's job through the use of an OS exploit, why isn't the OS creator picking up part of the bill?

    legal fee's I can ken, but the rest doesn't quite make sense to Me...

  • Buh bye. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OwP_Fabricated ( 717195 ) <fabricated&gmail,com> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944911)
    I'm not the only person who's happy that the asshole that made me waste hours fixing the dozens of idiot-owned unpatched boxes is going to jail?

    You can go ahead and blame the user all you want (a popular thing to do in the Slashdot crowd, because of course, us IT people NEVER MAKE MISTAKES), but the user didn't "write" the virus.
    • Wow, people around here seem to be blaming him for the entire blaster epidemic. Out of the millions of machines his only infected something like 8000 or so, mainly because he didn't make the virus copy over others...

  • Complain, Complain, Complain.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vwjeff ( 709903 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944913)
    The kid knew what he was doing was illegal and wrong. Get over it. He deserves whatever he gets.

  • Just a guess but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by antikarma ( 804155 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:43PM (#9944915)
    Then he'll write a book and become CEO of a startup security company. There's no sense in not profiting from a few months of jailtime.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:45PM (#9944928)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "he is forever be known as a script kiddy" (which begs the question, Why? Modifying a virus isn't a good way to make yourself popular).

      Script kiddies aren't popular (at least outside script kiddie circles) - they are usually considered the lowest form of life.

      * Virus writer: understands how stuff works, spends a long time putting together viruses (this is not right but he's put some effort into it)
      * Cracker: again, like the virus writer, understands how exploits work, spends lots of time writing the expl
  • I think he just pleaded guilty to being dumb... I hope he didn't tell them about his next script he has modified to start a nuclear war...

  • Unjust (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:46PM (#9944930) Journal
    All he did was change a little text in the virus. The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself. They just want to make an example of someone. They've spent a lot of money to put someone in jail for much longer than they deserve simply to save face in the public eye. Our legal system is supposed to be just, not popular.
    • The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself.

      I agree, he should be celebrated, alongside those who have sex knowing they're HIV positive. After all, the damage is no worse than if they didn't know.

      I'm sorry, but if you can't see that this kid willingly contributed to the problem, and that is wrong, then you have no sense.

    • Re:Unjust (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chess_the_cat ( 653159 )
      Pass the crack pipe. He modified and improved the virus. He didn't disable it. He didn't just look at it. He made it better and re-released it. What a swell guy! Besides if it's no big deal, why did he please guilty? Most people who go for the deal are afraid of how hard they'll get hit if they go to trial. He knows he's getting off easy.

    • Re:Unjust (Score:5, Interesting)

      by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @11:27PM (#9945143) Homepage
      All he did was change a little text in the virus. The damage he caused was no worse than if he had simply been infected himself. They just want to make an example of someone.

      That's one way to look at it.

      One could also argue that this kid modified and released a piece of software that he knew for a fact would run rampant and infect countless systems worldwide. He'd already seen it in action, and he knew exactly what it did to an infected system. He can't even run the Morris defense of 'it was released accidentally and I had no idea it would be this bad'.

      This punk got his hands on a very nasty computer virus, made changes to it, and released it back into the wild knowing fully well what he was doing and would happen as a result of his actions. That it was a mind-numbingly simple change doesn't make his actions any less malicious or criminal. Throw the book at him.

  • We as a society need to decide how to handle this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:46PM (#9944931) Homepage
    This kid played around with tech, in a very simple way, and got caught up in big legal trouble as the feds try to put fear into others thinking of doing the same. It's a complicated issue. We all hate these worms (well, those of you running Windows especially, but I personally hate it from a theoretical perspective, not personal). We know what he did was wrong. But boy these kids sure get the book thrown at them for what amounts to script kiddie penny ante stuff.

    He took a worm and modified it and released it. That's not much different in spirit from what many of us did at his age, playing with tech, poking at it, learning how things work. He just picked something that caused massive headaches to all concerned, so we have little sympathy for the kid. And he seems suitably contrite since his arrest, as well he might since that event probably shook him. But what do we do with such kids? We don't want worms being released, and we want to discourage this behavior. And yes, money is involved when businesses spend time to fix the problems. But asking him to repay "millions" is an order of magnitude wrong. Let's see Kenny Boy Lay repay millions, yes. But this kid?!

    Those of us who poked and prodded tech at his age, but did so in a way that didn't cause headaches to everyone, understand a little of his motivation. He was a dope, but a curious dope, and now he's learned a lesson. Will all the other script kiddie types learn from this? No way. What if he is told to pay back "millions"? Nope, they still won't care. We need to rethink how we deal with this sort of headache so that we encourage kids not to mess with worms and stuff, without treating them worse than violent criminals. I don't have the answers, but I can't see how throwing the book at this kid is going to solve much.

    • I must admit, restitution seems a bit much, if only because you can't get blood out of a turnip (as they say in the American Midwest). However, a hefty fine should be issued to make a monetary appeal to people not to do these kinds of things. I might also suggest a black mark on his credit report would be in order.

      However, he wasn't learning tech. If he wanted to learn tech, there's open source software out there that he could play around with and hopefully produce something the world could use. I kno
    • "what most of us did when we were his age" was the functional equivalent of playing with matches what he did was play with matches, burn down the building, and get caught at it. If he only gets 18 months he's getting off lucky
    • The difference between his playing around and your playing around is that what he did cost people lots of time and money. You're trying to just gloss over that, but the fact of the matter is that it makes a whole world of difference. An 18-year-old person is an adult: he is expected to think about the consequences of his actions, and is expected to take responsibility for what he does. He should be required to do everything possible to make restitution for those harmed by his actions. (Of course, those
    • That's not much different in spirit from what many of us did at his age, playing with tech, poking at it, learning how things work.

      It is one thing to buy a sword and try it out in an empty room. It is a different thing to wield the same sword in a crowded store. Anything that you "play" with can get you jailed or killed. That's why it is a bad idea to play with fire or to run with scissors... or to knowingly distribute viruses of any kind.

  • I think the time doesn't fit the crime. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by methangel ( 191461 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:46PM (#9944933)
    Modifying a pre-existing "worm" .... big deal. It only affects a certain operating system -- the holes exploited were very well known, the creator himself did not intrude into anyone's system, the worm did. I say the government should pay 60,000.00+ (the cost of housing an inmate for 3 years) for antivirus/worm software for citizens. Big businesses should be PATCHED already, that's what the IT department is for!!

    3+ years served because other people screwed up and didn't keep their systems secure, give me a break.

    The worm of course should be sentenced to death with McAfee or the security patch that is made available by the loveable operating system maker.
    • Let me get a gun and shoot you in the chest. It only affects you--- the vulnerability of your chest to a high speed lead projectile is well known. I won't serve a life sentence simply because you didn't wear a kevlar vest!

      If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, in a bad neighborhood that might make me stupid, but that doesn't make the person who steals it any less of a criminal.
    • So by using this logic, any victim of a crime deserves what they get if they did not take every effort to prevent it from happening. Example, a person leaves on vacation and locks their home. They stop their mail and have someone take care of their dog. However, they forget to stop their paper, and thus, a criminal notices they are gone and breaks into their home and steals their belongings. By your definition, it is the homeowners who are at fault, and the burglar, if caught, should not be punished. A

  • Phantom damages?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dedazo ( 737510 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:49PM (#9944942) Journal
    shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages

    When the case is made against Microsoft (or "M$") and how "Windoze" is insecure and should be replaced by Leenucks, the argument is always "the worms and the viruses and malware cost businesses trillions and gazillions of dollars".

    But when they nail a dumbass kid who thought he was 1337 and releases a virus (or a variation of one) then it's "phantom damages".

    That's great.

  • Mitnick is a con-man combined with a cracker.

    This guy is pure cracker.

  • Don't side with this guy. Virus writers deserve whatever they get, and usually a lot more. Mitnick's damages were fictional, but damages from viruses are all real. He should probably be liable for a lot more, but he'll never have a hope of ever paying off all of the damage he inflicted.
  • he can now look forward to 18-36 months behind bars and -- shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages

    those are not phantom damages to the people who suffered because of it. if someone had to spend time fixing a system or had lowered security because of it, then the damages are real. and if he takes that approach, that there are no "phantom damages" and that it's not his fault, then he will get the book thrown at him because he has no remorse.

  • So this kid can take a piece of code - the core of which was written by someone else and that trashes peoples' computers, modify it a bit and send it out to trash still more peoples' computers?

    Sign him up on the WinXP sp3 team! Then put a tracker on him and make him live on the MS campus until his sentence is up: restitution and incarceration.

    To distract Windows users from that fact that any virus damage was their own fault* future versions of MS Office can have an animation of Clippy buggering the kid

  • this guy *wrote* a virus? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dmbrooking ( 798618 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @11:20PM (#9945103)
    Saying that this guy wrote a virus is like me changing the names in The Lord of the Rings and calling myself an author....

  • While this particular kid may be an idiot and a copy-cat, his perpetuation of the virus (intent and implementation) is nearly as bad as the original writer's efforts. He took a virus and re-wreaked it on the world (or whomever he coould).

    I manage a small reasearch lab server and infrastructure. And of course I do tech support for my family. Virus protection, et al, does not always cut it, especially in the first 24-48 hours. That said, we all know security is integral, but people like the original writ

    • I manage a small reasearch lab server and infrastructure.

      So you picked Windows as the secure means of doing that? You should be fired. Stop blaming this one kid for your bad decisions.

      Even with what I consider to be an above-average skill set, an outbreak can waste anywhere up to 30 hours of my time depending how serious and how fast it is. You call my lost time, resources, and users' data "phantom damages"?

      Yes, I do. If you dropped the ball, don't blame gravity for making it fall. Gravity is

  • It never ceases to make me wonder when Slashdot tries to support and garner sympathy for jackasses like this guy. I think he got off light.

    Yes, Windows is insecure and it made it easy for this script kiddie to do his deeds. But that is totally irrelevant here.

    I've also read comments here about how this guy was just "tinkering" and "fooling around with code" like we all supposedly do. Bullshit.

    If I use a known-faulty lock on my front door, that does not give you any rights to enter my house or damage m
  • They didn't call him a "computer genius" or a "Whiz Kid!"

  • Phantom damages? Hardly, in this case, IMO. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @11:31PM (#9945168) Homepage Journal
    Unless you don't think time has any value.

    While the Mitnick case was unjust in, that I understand anyway, he "stole" code which he might have gotten if he asked very nicely through a student program, but being hit with exorbitant damages, Blaster and variants costed a lot in bandwidth, productivity losses and cost/time of removal.
  • " ...he can now look forward to 18-36 months behind bars and -- shades of Kevin Mitnick's phantom damages -- may be expected to pay millions in restitution."

    Great! When do I get my check?
  • ...make the kid pay off the US foreign debt. It's slightly more constructive. I can't wait till we gets ourselves an FTA and sue him too.

  • Robert Parson? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rob_Warwick ( 789939 ) <warwick AT applefritter DOT com> on Thursday August 12, 2004 @04:05AM (#9945570) Homepage Journal
    The article doesn't mention a Robert Parson.

    It talks about Jeffrey Lee Parson. Also the /. story says he's 18. The USATODAY one says 19, though he would have been 18 at the time he released the worm (guessing based on article, I don't know when his birthday is).

    Please check the facts before you submit a Slashdot story.

  • He was not responsible. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @04:19AM (#9945610)

    Would you imprison a two year old for, well, anything? Why not? Of course because they are incapable of realising that if they stick a hairpin into a power outlet (ie "investigating their world" aka "trying shit out") they might start a fire that burns down their house.

    Similarly teenagers are literally incapable of realising that there are consequences to their actions- the part of the brain required to do so simply does not develop until they are in their early twenties. Simple. [familyeducation.com] Scientific. [cnn.com] Fact. [nih.gov] They might look like adults but they do not think like adults.

    Now, how about this lynch mob turn around and go home.

    • It's certain that moral values are learned differently by different people, depending on their genetic make-up and environment.

      By the age of 18 however, we have been consistently tutored into the meaning of right and wrong by our elders SPECIFICALLY to make up for the variations in individuals' ability to learn the concept of themselves.

      In fact, you don't learn right and wrong spontaneously, it's what society and family teach you.

      Your argument seems to say that no one should be held liable for their unwi
    • Similarly teenagers are literally incapable of realising that there are consequences to their actions

      If they don't, then it's damn time they started learning.

      I knew there were consequences to my actions long before I was his age. In times past, men married much younger than we do in the USA today - and dealt with the fact that they had to be an adult earlier. The idea that you can do anyting you want (shoot people, steal, write viruses, whatver) until you are 25 (or 30 or 40 or 50 - it always seems t

  • My questions to /. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday August 12, 2004 @04:42AM (#9945669) Journal
    Does he get a 'rebate' on the "phantom damages" for all the $$$ made by the sweep and clean operations, antivirus companies, and independent techs?

    Who is really to blame for this? People who run unsecured Windows installs, or the original worm writer? Is cyber-punk really getting a fair shake, when authorities have made it clear they are making an example out of him?

    What lawyer is going to let their client walk in to a courtroom dressed the way he was, and expect to sway the judge?

    Why is Microsoft not held liable for an OS full of exploits?

    Why are /.ers so angry at dumb cyber-dork and not angry at the company that makes the OS that makes these worms possible, or people that continue to use Outlook Express - when there are alternatives for both?

    Is it a /. thing that everyone who goes to prison should be raped? Is anal rape rehabilitation to /.ers?

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close