Hacker Sentenced To Longest US Sentence Yet 775
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press is reporting that a Michigan man has been sentenced to 9 years in prison for his involvement in hacking into the corporate systems of Lowe's Home Improvement and attempting to steal customer credit card information. The sentence far exceeds the 5 1/2 years that hacker Kevin Mitnick spent behind bars. Two others are awaiting sentencing, including one of the first people to ever be convicted of wardriving. Prosecutors said the three men tapped into the wireless network of a Lowe's store in Southfield, Mich., used that connection to enter the chain's central computer system in North Wilkesboro, N.C., and installed a program to capture credit card information. No data was actually collected however."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Three Ring Circus! (Score:3, Insightful)
But, hey. It looks better when they catch a guy "breaking" into a computer across the internet then when they catch someone actually breaking into a house. Best to throw the biggest book in the area at them to play the circus up some.
Wardriving... (Score:5, Insightful)
This begs the question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you be really convicted of wardriving, or just something you do illegally while you're wardriving?
According to the wikipedia article in the blurb:
Although acessing the files on an open network is illegal, it is not illegal to simply use the internet connection of an open wireless network, this is a common misunderstood concept. Most wardrivers do not in fact use services without authorization.
Seems kind of like saying, "He was convicted for using the Internet" when someone gets convicted of cracking.
Another thing...so you can use the connection, but you can't use any files? What's the justification for that? If you leave the network open and allow it to be used and you leave files open on it, how can it be illegal to use them?
Wardriving is illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
A plea to the Slashdot population (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy is a criminal. He robbed people, or attempted to rob them. This is like robbing a bank, only worse. Nobody should show any sympathy for this guy. In fact, for the identity theft and fraud he commited, nine years is much too short of a sentence.
I know that a lot of the people who read this may tend to sympathize with him. This is the nature of
That's right, "Your Rights Online." Some editors or submitters apparently think that we have the online right to attempt to steal the property of other people, which if you think about for a minute is absurd.
The reason a lot of
But please, think before you post inane things about how our legal system is evil and corrupt. This is good. Thank God for the law.
Re:Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
Does the sentence really fit the crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they didn't steal credit card information? (Score:5, Insightful)
And they didn't even get any credit card information..
I mean if they broke in and took down the entire corp. network or put the company into administration then yeah sure, harsh it up...
But where is the justification for a 9year sentence?
Also, if you trespassed (into the office) and tried to steal a book of credit card information and let's add criminal damage (broken window) you would not get near five years let alone 9!
Re:This isn't like Mitnick, and prison doesn't wor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This isn't like Mitnick, and prison doesn't wor (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes punishments are harsh in the US and there's a good reason for this For one, people like vengence. Oh boy do they like vengence. For another, throwing tougher and tougher laws on the books doesn't piss anybody off. Won't you think of the CHILDREN? 3 strikes your out laws, etc, etc all appeal to about 70% of the population - namely the middle class and the rich (those who vote).
Wait, what about criminals? Chances are people in jail, or those who are affected by these laws, are politically disenfranchised, have never voted and will never vote. In other words, the poor. Mmmm democracy in action! Of course, there is a large section of the US that seems to be getting fed up with certain laws (like drug laws) because they were drug users, and are now middle class, etc and believe the drug penalties to be ridiculous.I do believe New York just overturned some of the toughest drug laws in the country that were originally passed in the 1970s. That and people seem to be getting more and more upset that something ridiculous like 3% of our population has been in Jail during their lives.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Cracker != Hacker (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, where the hell did this misconception arise from? It's tempting to blame hollywood, but it's more likely to have been some self proclaimed "landmark" NY Times article written by some clueless reporter who knew next to nothing about computer or the net in general outside of what some equally misinformed 133t script kiddies spluttered out to him when he asked them on IRC( The devils internet dungeon!!).
This misnomer of hackers used in the media at large has got to be tackled somehow. Otherwise other FUD might creep in, and pretty soon FOSS apps might be classed as warez by another bumbling journalist looking to rise ranks by jumping for the businees pages to the spanking new IT suppliment section by writing the next domesday tech article, complete with teenage (cr/h)acker masterminds.
Re:A plea to the Slashdot population (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that it's not just like robbing a bank, only worse.
That doesn't mean I think the sentence is unfair.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cracker != Hacker (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh shut up and get over yourself already. This stupid argument has been raging for twenty years. Forget about it - you lost. Now go get a life.
Re:The article isn't clear... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is no different than embezzlement (Score:5, Insightful)
(not) Good (Score:2, Insightful)
So what's worse:
Not nice (Hackers),
or _grossly_ irresponsible (Lowes)?
Re:A plea to the Slashdot population (Score:1, Insightful)
Kevin's intentions were more aligned with that of an explorer. Still, though, he broke the law, and I'm sure he will be the first to tell you that he did wrong and deserved to face those consequences. The issue with Kevin's case was not that he, or others, didn't feel he should face the charges; it was that he wasn't being allowed to face them. He was being held without even a bail hearing. Now, EVERYONE gets a right to a bail hearing, even if it gets denied in court, but Kevin wasn't. He was being held for a long time without a trial.
The outcry for Adrian Lamo, after his arrest, wasn't due to unfair treatment, but it was looked at as a similar situation as Kevin's. He didn't have intentions of causing any financial harm, and was just curious and liked to look around, perhaps in places where he shouldn't. Once again, Lamo was willing, to face the charges against him, and did. The people that were keeping an eye on his case were people that just wanted to make sure that his case wasn't going to be handled like Kevin's. Adrian's sentence was fair, and his case was handled well. An appropriate punishment was given, and he's dealing with that as he moves on with his life.
Now this shouldn't turn in to a debate about Kevin or Adrian, but it is important to see the differences in these cases. These guys in the Lowe's case were out there trying to steal credit card information, and really should be looked at in a far different light than those just looking to learn and explore. While even innocent 'exploring' can cause real damage, it is a far cry from the fraud we see here.
they got the wrong [Victim] (Score:1, Insightful)
They should lock up the woman that dressed in that skimpy dress, and those high heels. She was just asking for it.
Re:Great News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If a person can be convicted for war driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting concept... So lets say someone leaves there front door unlocked, should they go to jail if someone breaks in? Perhaps the front door is locked, but the dog door is unlocked? What if the the windows don't have bars on them?
What bugs me is that the guy illegally accessed the computer but was not successfull in retreiving credit card information. Is such a long term warranted? What about the Corporate crime bosses who bilk millions or billions from people via fraud - they never get this level of sentence.
Re:Three Ring Circus! (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee. Do you suppose there's a difference between breaking into someone's house and stealing their toaster vs. stealing ALL the credit card numbers at Lowes?
Re:Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great News (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point.
Nine years in prison for a non-violent crime? For a non-violent crime that didn't benefit the criminal? It's excessive, especially when murderers and other violent criminals get substantially shorter sentences
I agree with you that he comitted a crime and should do some time and perhaps a fine to Lowes... but nine years is not justice.
Re:This isn't like Mitnick, and prison doesn't wor (Score:3, Insightful)
The harsh treatment and work didn't have the desired results, but we carried on locking people up not because of there own rehabilitation but because it makes the victums feel better.
The whole system needs a damn hard re-think, and we need to stop puting people in prisons when mabie prisons arn't the best option.
I'll also make a point that the death penalty is only there to satisfy the sadistic perverted desires of revenge that the victums have. Death is no punishment, and if you belive in reincarnation, it might as well be a free ticket out of jail in the form of a new life.
Re:Great News (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
Violent crimes effect an individual in a very drastic way, and such criminals should be punished harshly. However, non-violent crimes effect enourmous numbers of people, sometimes in minor ways, but often in profound ways. Violent crimes can destroy a life. Non-violent crimes tear at the fabric of society in a subtle but systemic fashion.
Is the person who dies because their healthcare fund was raided less dead, less of a victim, than someone killed with a gun? If you think so, I'd like to know where you've had your education-- that school system or university may need more funding.
Re:A plea to the Slashdot population (Score:2, Insightful)
He wasn't just lifting a few credit card numbers from a branch, he was trying to get tons and tons of numbers from all the stores in the country.
Stupid times (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
What is sad here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great News (Score:1, Insightful)
Or how about: let's make a headline example of this guy to stop hundreds or thousands from thinking it's a low risk scam worth trying, and so *not* further clog the prisons.
Breaking into a computer system is a non-violent crime.
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it doesn't cause damage. Damage which can and will filter down to push people on the financial edge into default: homelessness and inability to get medical services. It's not just that some suit will a Lexus with less options next year.
Also because it's a non-violent crime means it carries less physical risk to the criminal, which makes it more attractive to try. See issue above with clogging prisons. You need to make sure people don't do this stuff.
I am in no way saying you're totally wrong, just pointing out the judgement *may* not be entirely on crack.
ie,
Slap the bastard with heavy fines, hit him up with community service and make him pay it back.
yeah, i'm entirely in favor of looking at that option. Does it work well in your country?
Re:Wardriving is illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since wardriving was accessing other people's privately-owned networks, with a reasonable expectation of privacy (most people won't try to wardrive for a connection when they don't have their own), possibly for the purpose of accessing other computers on the network behind the firewall.
About the public/private thing: driveways, a large lawn/garden, private parks in housing communities, private roads and parking lots, etc. are still private property on which you can be convicted for trespassing. Even the local mall can have you arrested for trespassing if you violate their rules (no loud music, no spamming cars with fliers, etc.). So it's pretty hard to claim a WiFi network is "public" -- which you're probably basing on the fact they didn't secure it. Is it considered "public" if you use a combination lock on something with a keyhole on the back and other people may have the master key?
Re:If a person can be convicted for war driving (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, why do corporate crime bosses get off so easy for bilking people out of millions? It's the same reason why Hollywood actresses don't serve time for shoplifting. Money, power, and politics. Trust me, the rest of us peons WILL pay full price via canned judgements for our crimes (real or imagined) because nobody really gives a shit about the weak and unknown.
Re:Why IT folks should support severe sentences (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet IS a ghetto of spyware, crackers and phishers. Nobody is going back to carbon copy credit card swipes, human tellers in banks and grocery checkouts where the clerk codes in prices into his mechanical cash register.
How does this particular crime, even if it had payed off, going to put a dent in computer use? It might piss some people off at Lowes, result in a lot of charge backs and be an inconvienence to credit card companies - but I guarantee that VISA or whoever would be most hurt by this, would NOT in any way change their use of computers.
If SPAM doesn't keep people off the computer thingy, than a few stolen credit card numbers isn't going to do much at all.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, what does this mean for "curious" wireless hackers, who also don't actually collect data?
Re:But how do you rehabilitate? (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) Makes them even more angry at "the system", invokes feelings of alienation. They feel like they are a criminal and that is that.
2.) Gives them time to plot other crimes. Also gives them resources like other criminals to discuss their failures and plan for better crimes, as they are surrounded only by other criminals.
I'm not throwing blind guesses like most slashdotters here - I've done time. For my own reasons, I stopped doing what I was doing. Jail, though, only made things worse.
Re:Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys are theifs and should be prosecuted as such, plain and simple. Just like the guy who hacks into the neculear plant is comminting a crime aginst the state and should be charged with treason and fried. I don't care wether he used his Thinkpad or a UHALL filled with TNT its THE SAME CRIME or should be.
Re:define a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
is it the same crime?
Should the value of the car change the sentence?
Yes, the value of the car should change the sentence. If I steal $5, should I get the same sentence as if I stole $10,000? Of course not, because the scale of the crime is different. These people didn't try to steal 1 credit card number, or even a thousand cc#s. They tried to steal an infinite amount of numbers. If this program hadn't been caught, they would have had access to every single card number to go through Lowes. That is a HUGE amount of numbers. So yes, they should be punished more than someone who tried to steal1 number, because it is an entirely different class of crime.
Re:Great News (Score:2, Insightful)
Murder's bad, don't get me wrong, but the impact of one human being killed vs. the impact of massive computer fraud can be worse. If an economy tanks badly enough, it can destabilize an entire country, resulting in mayhem and more deaths than a lone gunman on a killing spree could "aspire" to.
Intent is an element of a crime, not success (Score:3, Insightful)
Intent is an element of a crime, not success. What does it matter that he criminal did not benefit?
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Intent is an element of a crime, not success (Score:2, Insightful)
Get a clue before spewing stupidity.
Re:Great News (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do people continue to appologize for criminal behavior?
Unjust Punishment (Score:4, Insightful)
If Ken Lay is even given jail time, I doubt that he'll be doing 9 years. He'll probably get 1 year max at the place with the golf course and squash court.
I think much of the complaint is not how much time the hacker is getting, but how little time other people who take part in similar crimes but without the "hacking" element.
Can we please put this to bed: Hackers vs. Cracker (Score:2, Insightful)
The Most Important Lesson Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brilliant idea, Einstien (Score:1, Insightful)
This scenario is lose/lose. The hacker is in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison, and we (the taxpayers) have to shell out about $30,000 a year to keep him there--which ammounts to about half of that 500 grand.
Know what I say? Charge these assholes half of what it would have cost us to put him in prison (135,000 over ten years isn't THAT bad, but it's enough to put a man straight), and let the poor bastard out on probation, so that he can hopefully do something productive (community service, and a real job).
Re:they got the wrong guy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason we don't simply kill off the unredeemable ones, by the way, is a matter of making political principles align with each other: our particular government is designed to protect individual citizens at least to the extent of keeping them alive. In terms of the prison system itself, there's no ethical problem with frying up anyone who proves to be overly resistant to the lesson.
Oh, right, I almost forgot: Prisons are around so that personal level revenge-type justice doesn't come into prominence, i.e. we don't go find the home of the bastard who ruined our credit rating and blow him away with a shotgun. Not that there's anything wrong with that in principle, but vigilante justice tends to hit the wrong target, so the feds really can't let it reach that level.
Well, perhaps they are trying to deter others (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a ridiculous conversation at a drinking party once, years ago. This guy I knew was blearily insisting that I needed to 'hack' a bank, because he was sure I could do it. I didn't know about that, I'm just a regular geek, scanning x.25 networks for outdials isn't the same as breaking into a bank. He was insisting it would definitely work. We could have it all planned out see, and, "Oh you could totally do it man, we should so do that!" I kept insisting that it was incredibly dangerous, and that I didn't know how ("Oh you can figure it out man, I know you can!"), and he just wasn't having any of my protests. Stealing, or for that matter almost anything that risks jail time, doesn't appeal to me anyway. Now imagine someone with his attitude and also the knowledge to follow buddy from the article. This sort of idea can become more widespread as technology reaches everyone, and is a scary thought for those with things to lose from it. People such as, well, any random person alive, could be you, could be me, could wreck a lot of lives.
Re:Great News (Score:2, Insightful)
ohhh your post hurts to read.
surely you acknowledge that much that is good in this world is subtle, while much that is bad is sensational. material gain, i think for many, in the long run anyway, is not commonly found to be as valuable as friends and most especially family. From that angle, I don't think a price tag could or should be applied to the value of a person's presence in others' lives. To avoid getting too pussy, even keeping within the hard and accountable view of things, there is SO much a person can accomplish during their lives, from acts deserving fame to the humble role of supporting another person's life. Why do insurance policies pay out such lotto-worthy amounts? because that's (a poor, imho) accounting of your worth from the view of how much responsibility live and produce you have.
Re:Does the sentence really fit the crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is higher than the average federal sentence for "non-negligent" manslaughter and murder cases combined (btw, murder is a capital crime in federal court...as how many years does the death penalty count?). Manslaughter is not murder, that's why it carries a lower sentence. Further, murder and manslaughter carry lower recidivism (repeat) rates than do property crimes.
People have this odd idea that incarceration is to deter people from committing crimes. It is not. The primary purpose of incarceration is to *prevent* people from committing crimes. Deterrence value of any punishment is weak, because it is not sure. Most criminals expect to get away with their crimes.
Re:Three Ring Circus! (Score:3, Insightful)
sweet this set's a pattern up for lawyers to use.
"your honor, when we pulled him over he had a rifle in his trunk, he had the potential of not only shooting several hundred people, but the car he was driving could have been used for mass murder also... instead of a $50.00 running a stop sign fine, I suggest the death penalty based on amount of damage he could have imposed."
Makes you really want to live here in the US eh?
Re:Nomenclature (WAS:Great News) (Score:1, Insightful)
Give it up. We have lost the cracker/hacker language war. When will the /. community get over the fact that the rest of the world calls 'em hackers now. All the kicking and screaming's not going to change anything.
bull (Score:5, Insightful)
'Yet'
The real problem I have is Lowes was putting credit card data on a wireless network!
I agree this is pretty dumb, but it's still no reason for it to get cracked. Think about this: you have an expensive house and several heavy locks on your door. One day you forget to lock them. Does this justify every burglar that walks up to your house, opens the door, enters your house and sets up camera's? Okay, they didn't steal anything (yet), but it's really your fault. Yeah right. They knew exactly what they were doing, and the fact that the security wasn't good enough is *no* reason whatsoever to justify this crime.
Have a little perspective, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. Theft and robbery are different animals. These guys never held a gun to someone's head, never threatened anyone. They are more akin to cat burglers than "robbers".
Nine years is longer than a manslaughter conviction. Longer than most murder convictions. Longer than rape convictions. What kind of fucking idiot are you to value some large corporation's potential bottom line (since they actually stole nothing) more than the life of another human being?
This conviction is bullshit, made solely to prove a point by sadistic bastards like yourself.
Re:Does the sentence really fit the crime? (Score:3, Insightful)