



More Jail Time For Computer Crime Starting Next Month 419
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."
its like a jackpot (Score:4, Funny)
Re:its like a jackpot (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing and did not realize how funny it was until I saw the moderation.
Perhaps some actual enforcement of some actual wrongdoing will deter crime, but not much hope of that either.
Re:its like a jackpot (Score:2)
OK We have a month to take over the world (Score:4, Funny)
MY exwife (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dude, you need a rewrite (Score:2)
Sorry I know there are a lot of problems with it I wrote it in a very depressed state and just needed to get it all out. I never really got to go over it all. It's the facts that matter.
Re:MY exwife (Score:2)
you should definately be modded up +1 funny for that. I fixed it
It's not about deterring crime .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not about deterring crime .. (Score:3, Interesting)
The laws will be misapplied, giving harsher and harsher sentences for more and more trivial offenses until everyone has a cousin or sibling who has been cruelly treated under these laws.
Then a sense of outrage will ensue amongst the populace and these laws will be
Re:It's not about deterring crime .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Derrr... (Score:2)
Kevin....My roof is almost done. Email me.
Re:Derrr... (Score:2)
It's already completely unbalanced (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:It's already completely unbalanced (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's already completely unbalanced (Score:4, Funny)
Good. Texans need more acid - they most certainly do NOT need more beer, trust me!
Seriously, that's the way it should be.
Hey... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's already completely unbalanced (Score:3, Funny)
Huh..coupled with:
"When will the feds learn that raising penalties isn't going to deter this type of crime?"
from the headline... I think there's a spot of point-missing going on. The idea is to make as many laws as possible so that everyone is breaking at least one of them. That way the goverment can get more money from you in fines. Its a sort of tax/protection racket rolled into one. But one which looks good in the papers. "He was a drug dealer"..."He was a hacker"...."He r
Statistics.. (Score:5, Informative)
From: USOJP [usdoj.gov]
Mean sentence for murder = 248 months (20.6 years)
Hackers whose exploits result in injury or death -- if they disable emergency response networks or destroy electronic medical records, for example -- face 20 years to life in prison.
Now, I note it does say death, and if a person commits a computer crime that results in death, fine 20 years+ is ok with me; however, injury doesn't warrant the minimum 20 years IMHO.
What worse is that the average for rape is only about 11 years.
Re:Statistics.. (Score:2)
Alright, I'll take the Lakers in 2014.
Reminds me of the 10/20/life law in Florida (Score:5, Funny)
"Your honor, not only did this man murder his wife, he has an AOL account!"
"hang him then fry him"
Guidelines (Score:3, Funny)
I think if the guidelines actually included the phrase
"Federal pound me in the ass prison" it might help.
Re:Guidelines (Score:2)
About the same time as (Score:2)
The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say that perhaps 99% of lay-people would, if shown a computer sans monitor, keyboard and mouse, call it either "a CPU", "a processor" or "a hard drive", and a few will call it "a modem" or "some computer thingy". This does not make these terms correct.
"Hacker" will never mean "computer criminal", no matter how many ignorant journalists and non-techies take it as such.
I am most definitely a hacker. I am most definitely not someone who breaks into systems, creates or uses exploits, makes viruses, etc. etc. etc.
the Bastard Customer From Hell (Score:2)
Just as with misuse of the term hacker, we eventually learn to deal with such ignorance.
(My emodium has more cross compilers than your emodium, so there!)
Re:the Bastard Customer From Hell (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Welcome to the wonderful world of linguistics. Languages evolve.
Or, as in this case, devolve. When there used to be two terms for two different things, and now they both refer to the same thing as each other, that is NOT evolution.
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Have it both ways? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Thats a good argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the non-technical people I know refer to their monitors as their "computer". (The box itself is of course just the CPU)
I wonder, if common usage forces "hacker "to mean "computer criminal", will it force "computer" to mean "monitor".
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
TV is the retina of the mind's eye and all that.
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
Not quite so simple. When the majority of those for whom the word can apply start using one way, then the language changes. But when the group for whom the word can apply continues to use it the original way, and only clueless outsiders continually misuse the word, the language does not change.
In other words, ignorance doesn't lead to language change, deliberatly using a word in a new way leads to language change. So if computer people start using "hacker" to
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
I've worked in IT for the past 5 years and I very rarely come across a linux coder or sysadmin who doesn't use "hacker" to refer to a computer criminal. The fact is, that the majority of people do use hacker... even those who would be considered "h
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
If even the IT folk are beginning to give in, you would be right, the battle will have been lost in favor of ignorance and it will be time to move on.
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
I don't live there and I implied nothing of the kind. The word "hacker" applies to "computer people," and thus you need to speak of them when defining the term. The upper elitist caste business came from your brain, not mine.
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
Hmm...not quite sure what you mean by that as the analogy doesn't quite fit. The word "hacker" has a noble meaning that was used for only one thing once upon a time. Then the media started to catch on to computers, began to use "hacker" to describe something else entirely, and thus we have today's confusion. It's apples and oranges. Your exampl
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
And this isn't a case of a meaning slowly changing over time because the speakers of the language decided to use it differently. It's a case of the meaning changing becasue a large group hijacked th
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
The problem is that using the term hacker in a positive way was NEVER mainstream -- it was always a term that existed almost solely in computer geek argot. If words that everyone knew and used were changing every couple of years that could be a problem..but that's not the case.
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
I blame this on ignorance in the media. Anybody saying get over it probably has never earned the title only to see its meaning do a 180 on you.
Over a few generations yea sure being gay used to mean you were happy. But the rate at which being a hacker went to shit has got to be a record breaker
Re:You lost this fight years ago. (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
Re:The usual linguistic confusion is present... (Score:2)
That's odd. (Score:2, Funny)
That's funny. It deterred Kevin Mitnick for quite awhile---particularly when he was behind bars, and when he was prohibited from using a computer.
Re:That's odd. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just a deterrent (Score:2, Interesting)
Spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as well (Score:2)
Uhhhhh.... (Score:4, Flamebait)
It won't deter this type of crime? I can assure you, I've seen plenty of situations where I've been tempted to play the line a bit, but when I think about my lovely wife, and 5 children, and the risk of penalties, I change my mind quickly.
Perhaps we should realize that deterring a crime is not the same as eliminating it?
A $200 fine for speeding will deter speeding - but it won't eliminate it.
[ Dictionary.com ]
v. deterred, deterring, deters v. tr.
To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt: "Does negotiated disarmament deter war?" (Edward Teller). See Synonyms at dissuade.
Re:Uhhhhh.... (Score:2)
No, but it may well reduce the incidence of war, as well as reduce the negative effects of those wars that manage to occur.
KFG
Re:Uhhhhh.... (Score:2)
But deterrance isn't the only reason for sentencing. Some people just deserve to rot in jail. And perhaps a stiffer sentence will deter their next crime. That I can believe.
Re:Uhhhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Uhhhhh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor Little Hacker.... (Score:2)
I mean just look at the lot of lying, and cheating stock brokers and corporate executives... If they were as poor as the average hacker, they'd be in a pound-your-ass prison faster than yo
I withdraw that... (Score:2)
As much as I (still) like the idea, I realize that sucking money out of politicians' bank accounts would be a prime candidate if the PTO ever started accepting bad ideas. It's rather like taking a baseball bat to a wasp's nest... Even if you did manage to get away from it unscathed, your neighbours would hate you for the rest of your life.
Re:I withdraw that... (Score:2)
Note to Justice Department... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey boys...Just keep pumping out more of these "Hackers are Witches" kinda dumbass penalties and you're going to start to find that good computer help won't help your asses anymore.
Get it?
Life? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Life? (Score:4, Funny)
raising penalties != lowering crime (Score:2)
What do you want them to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt the intent is to deter hacking... (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Rereading (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone else read that as someone getting jailed for a computer crime that will happen in the future?
ugh. (Score:2)
tough on crime? look at California (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Fixing security should be your JOB (Score:2)
The new guidelines let victims tally financial loss based on the costs of restoring data, fixing security holes, conducting damage assessments and lost revenue.
Now, I don't know about you, but fixing security holes is one of my jobs for systems I am involved with, not something I do just to rack up penalties in a trial.
Just means that Crackers will now need guns. (Score:2)
I hope all you slashdot readers are teaching your kids about these injustices, so when they grow up, and become the majority, they can vote these laws down. Cant change them now, too many people who vote, who dont understand computers and buy this "Hacker Hype" laws.
Just like you cant get a law passed without the "Blue Hair" votes, when we are the "Blue Hair" people, maybe times
Anyone actually remember what REAL criminals are? (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes absolutely no sense (Score:2)
Better analogy time. One person destroys data by hacking into the system and deleting the data, the other physically walks to where the data is kept and pulls out a magnet. Why should that be a different sentence?
I'm pretty sure it'll work... (Score:2)
Increasing penalties will NOT deter script kiddies. If the Feds arrested some teenager, the juvi courts wouldn't have a CLUE what to do with him. He wasn't shooting up, spraypainting a bridge, shoplifting or commiting murder - where's the crime? Case Dismissed, NEXT!
This law is geared towards ADULTS that know better. Adults that write worms, viruses and launch malicious attacks that target a specific company.
More
UK Computer Misuse Act (Score:3, Informative)
The UK already has fairly severe (IMO) penalties for computer crime. The Computer Misuse Act of 1990 [hmso.gov.uk] makes unauthorized access of a computer system a crime with a maximum sentence of 6 months or a fine of 2000. If there is an intent to commit a crime, then maximum sentence increases to 5 years. The unauthorized alteration of computer data also carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.
The Act covers any crime with a significant link in the UK. Additionally, it also includes conspiracy and incitement. Personally, I believe that the Act was a knee jerk reaction to the thought of criminals running round a wired nation. However, it is rare for somebody to be prosecuted under the Act.
New wacky episode of Drew Carry! (Score:5, Funny)
Drew: Damn that Nigel! I swear - he's stealing money from the company children's softball fund we started last week. I just wish there was a way we could get a look at his computer, and maybe stick it to him!
Lewis: You know - I found this program last night while looking for... stuff... online, and I think it could let you know what's on his system!
Drew: Really? Let's get to it then! [random typing-motions on the keyboard]
Drew: It's true - he DID steal those funds! Wait until everyone sees this!
[The Next Day, drew shows up to work with the local softball team.]
Drew: Nigel - we're onto you! I want you to fess up and appologize to these children.
Nigel: Ah, Mr. Carey. Hi kids. Yes - I'd like to appologise for what you're about to see. Allright boys - take him away!
[Police swarm in, grabbing Drew Carry violently. ]
Drew: What? What's all this - he's the one that's stealing from these kids!
Police officer: Yeah - just the kind of slander I'd expect to hear from a dirty HACKER!
Announcer: Next episode on the Drew Carry show - Day one of Drew's 25 year prison sentence. Remember kids - don't use computers!
Ryan Fenton
Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait...
Longer sentences no deterrent? (Score:2)
Remember, the younger you are, the cuter you look. :)
Enron vs Computer Crime (Score:2)
This is the wrong approach. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is the wrong approach. (Score:3, Informative)
What is the answer? Coddling them? Blaming their parents?
"I wouldn't hesitate to say that most computer criminals aren't even aware of the penalties until they get caught."
Ignorance of the consequences is no excuse.
"They are concerned with only one thing: the chances of getting caught."
Because the chances are low.
"The answer should be to take some of
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
When will they learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jail Time (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Jail Time (Score:2)
Re:Jail Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jail Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jail Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jail Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jail Time (Score:2)
Putting criminals in jail certainly does deter crime during the duration of their sentence.
I think you need to improve your English skills. Deterrence means preventing something from being done. Locking someone up after the time is a bit different.
Re:Jail Time (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Jail Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jail Time (Score:3, Funny)
"...but most maximum prison sentences handed down for computer crime range from one year to 10 years. Hackers whose exploits result in injury or death -- if they disable emergency response networks or destroy electronic medical records, for example -- face 20 years to life in prison.
Hackers will face up to a 25 percent increase in their sentences if they hijack e-mail accounts or steal personal data -- including financial and medical records and digital photographs. Convicted virus and worm authors face
Re:Jail Time (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Jail Time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Computer crime (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
[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.