The Economics of Executing Virus Writers 857
applemasker writes "Slate.com has an article titled Feed The Worms Who Write Worms to the Worms which argues based on economic theory (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that it is a 'better investment' to execute the creators of worms, virus and trojan authors, than murderers. Anyone who has tried to resurrect a network or computer after a nasty infection may agree. Although the author does not seriously argue for capital punishment for the script kiddies, it does raise some interesting issues about how much 'value' society puts on certain types of harm and the author's view of a government's role in protecting us from it."
Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me, or is there an inflation effect hitting our criminal justice system as over time the punishments keep getting higher for the same crimes...
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, capital punishment was never abandoned anywhere?
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Funny)
Judging from the fact that I am not from the USA, I render your comment void and purposeless.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised. Crime is always considered high by the populace, and the most obvious solution is always to increase the penalty. Not that it always works.
Personally, I think the most effective solution is to convince people that if they break such-and-such a law, they will get caught. Presently, most ways to back up that threat involve trampling on civil liberties.
Given the choice, I'd rather put up with the crime rate and have the option of protecting myself.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to learn the mentality that crime can actually be low enough. But try getting that through to a populace that can't be made to understand that life will always be imperfect.
No no no. Planes and cars should never crash. Nobody should get cancer from anything. Everything you eat should be good for you. Prolonging HIV patients' lives by years, even decades doesn't count because it's not a cure. We need to toss out our civil liberties because terrorism is doing a fraction of the damage of eating too much red meat.
You've obviously never been the victim of a crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only ever low for those who haven't been raped, murdered, stabbed, robbed, etc.
For those that have, the rate is always too high.
I can see which of the two categories you fall in.
You are painting with a very broad brush (Score:5, Insightful)
That said... I have been robbed, my wallet was taken from a locker at a gym (yes it was locked, no I never figured out how they got in...) I found my wallet, devoid of all cash, in a nearby trash can. I was also assaulted about 10 years ago, fortunatly no harm came to me, he took one swing at me, missed, and I ran... A lot faster than he could...
I think crime is pretty low right now. Of corse I wouldn't complain if the crime rate was lowered, but if big brother is needed to lower crime, I will take my chances, thank you very much...
Re:You've obviously never been the victim of a cri (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been both stabbed AND robbed.
Personally, I think the 'horrendous crime problem' in the US is more a product of the Media trying to sell advertisements than an actual problem. Hell, a study came out a while back showing that violent crime in the UK was the highest in Europe... and a throw away line in the report was that the US ("Known for its violent crime") was lower than any of the European countries being compared.
Yes. Crime is a problem. But, like the grandparent said, there comes a point where the cost of trying to lower crime more is more costly than the crimes themselves...
USA has much higher crime rate (Score:5, Informative)
The following are average numbers of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants per year from 1997 to 1999
US : 6.26
England : 1.45
Germany : 1.28
France : 1.63
Norway : 0.85
Russia : 20.52
S.Africa: 56.49
Interestingly, the land of the free also has the extremely high prison population (from the same source, again per 100.000 inhabitants)
US : 682
England : 125
Germany : 97
France : 91
Norway : 56
Russia : 729
S.Africa: 327
Re:You've obviously never been the victim of a cri (Score:5, Insightful)
There are these wonderful things called "statistics" and arguments like yours are designed solely for the purpose of keeping people irrational and avoiding thinking about them.
The basic thrust of your argument (and I'm hoping that thrust was unintentional) is that, so long as there is a one in six billion chance of being the victim of a violent crime, we as a society are responsible for taking whatever measures are necessary to alleviate that risk.
Let's pull a number out of the air and say that the U.S. spends $100B for state and federal law enforcement every year. Let's also imagine that each time we double that number, we halve the crime rate. Maybe it would be worthwhile to spend $400B to reduce the rate to 1/4, or $800B to get it down to 1/8th the current level. But what about 1/256th? That would cost $25T, which would mean that pretty much the entire economy would be channeled into crime prevention. Forget other wonderful things like medical research, we might not even be able to feed ourselves. And still, people are getting killed, raped, stabbed, and shot.
Nothing in the previous analysis even mentions the secondary costs that come with living in a de facto police state.
I think you're going out of your way to be insulted. When the grandparent says crime is "low enough," he doesn't mean that we just don't give a crap about the victims who remain. He means that the costs associated with getting it down further are unjustifiable. Going back to my earlier example, imagine if we halved the current law enforcement funding. Assume that caused the crime rate to double. Would that be a bad thing? Certainly. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it might be the best thing to do, if funneling that money into medical research lead to an overall improvement in the quality of life.
I could sit here and make precisely the same arguments you do, but in favor of such medical research. After all, for the parents of a child who died of cancer, there is no way the cancer rate was "low enough." But how big a tax increase would we allow to reduce it further than we already have? Would we allow the government to step in and start outlawing certain foods, or require that every citizen take an anti-oxidant tablet every morning? Would we sit by while those who refused the pills were jailed?
The whole idea is that we allocate things like resources and government regulations where they will produce the most good. Simple economics.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Interesting)
You (apparently) have never been robbed. It's not the "shiny electronic gizmos" that go missing, it's the feeling of security. I don't care about that stuff, but it bothers me that I feel uncomfortable when someone I don't know rings my doorbell at night now.
That said, I agree that the marginal cost is definately not worth the benefit of lower crime. It sucks to have been robbed, but if that's the cost of preserving greater liberty for all, I'll take it.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I think crime is too low. I mean, seriously, what is a guy supposed to do with his Glock if no one ever breaks into his home. I've kept this thing loaded under my pillow since 1993 and haven't had the chance to shoot a prowler in the middle of the night yet.
I'm beginning to feel that my investment in a weatherproof shotgun for the shower and a ten inch stiletto for my sock drawer will never pay off by proving that they're actually for self defense.
Instead, I'm forced to defend my home against scorpions and termites and, let me tell you, a .45 automatic is not the right tool for the job when it comes to termite control.
Someone did steal the knobs off of my Jeep's radio once, so if you see someone with an extra set of Jeep radio knobs let me know and I'll be right over to reduce the criminal population some more.
Peter
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think the most effective solution is to convince people that if they break such-and-such a law, they will get caught. Presently, most ways to back up that threat involve trampling on civil liberties.
Except in the case of virus and worm writers, unless you're amazingly stupid [pcworld.com] there's almost no chance you're going to get caught. The situtation is as if anyone with a small amount of knowledge could walk up to a payphone and wreak havoc on the phone network.
In this case the only way you're g
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:4, Insightful)
Luckily, the best way to assert that, is to respect cilvil liberties.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
> that if they break such-and-such a law, they will get caught
Understandable gut reaction, but it flies in the face of statistics and research. People in the trenches (social workers, psychologists etc.) will tell you that a recurrent theme in criminal offenders is the failure to consider the consequences of their actions. This extends much deeper than just the crime aspect into their every-day life. Such people have trouble recognizing and considering even positive consequences, such as that getting an education will lead to a job, having a job removes the need for begging and/or stealing, etc.
The easiest way to understand that is to think back to childhood, or to observe your own children. I look at my two five-year-olds and am amazed at their inability to consider the consequences of their actions PRIOR to riding that bike down a steep hill, or getting so focused in a chase that they completely ignore obstacles and other dangers, until they come running to you with a boo-boo. Many criminal offenders exhibit stunted mental development in areas such as this. These are people that usually also fail at rehabilitation without ongoing outside assistance precisely because they're incapable of planning, which is just another facet of considering consequences.
And yet, legislation completely ignores such established knowledge and understanding, perhaps because it is created by people that are unaware of it at best, or are merely out to satisfy the primordial need for punishment and revenge at worst. But recognizing that deterrence is ineffective for many types of offences and offenders would be a first step towards a more holistic, preventative and rehabilitative criminal justice system.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:3, Informative)
Actuyally I don't. I do know, from talking to people I know who work in LA, a number of them in hospitals and medical centres, that pollution (and poverty) related illnesses are a serious problem. I cited the Michael Moore quote because others are likely to have heard of that, not everyone has the links to LA that I have.
Stephen
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Funny)
Dollar Value on Human Life (Score:3, Insightful)
The "trick" to the "value of a human life" point in the paper is that humans do not assign value linearly. The author simply converted a point on a value curve into a dollar amount. Dollars are normally valued linearly with risk (.1 chance of 10 == 1 chance of 1), so he started doing linear calculations, then converte
Re:Dollar Value on Human Life (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I take this back. Even being perfectly rational doesn't mean we'll have a linear value/risk curve.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:4, Interesting)
--If you don't nail those guys, all that money gets held up and never reaches the system, donchaknow.
[/CzarChasm]
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, despite all our technical advantages, computer geeks are a loose rabble compared to the well-organized and well-funded gay/lesbian rights groups and legalize pot groups.
They have a single, focused goal, and they are going for it. What do we want? "Freedom". Not very specific, and few really agree on what the hell it means either. If we united all geeks under a "legalize reverse-engineering" banner, perhaps we'd have a better chance, but no one is passionate about that.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
But most of us recognize that freedom comes with the inherent risk of abuse, and many believe that the possibility abuse is far better than the certainty of the lack of freedom.
In other words, I'd rather see 10% of the population infringe copyright than 0% of the population be able to transmit data over the net.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
NOT creating viruses would be short-sighted. They're like an inoculation- without the constant minor threat to keep us alert on security, we'd grow complacent and vulnerable. If there were no viruses, worms, or hackers in general, then the software running the internet would stay insecure, and would accumulate more and more holes over time. Then someday, a homicidal maniac with nothing to lose would find it easy to take over the world' computers and begin a reign of terror.
Prankster hackers* perform a useful role in the software ecology- they restrict the propagation of dangerously vulnerable programs, without inflicting the real damage a computer-criminal would do.
*Yes, I know exactly what "hacker" means. Nobody try to "correct" me.
Look here for phree softwarez (Score:4, Funny)
P.S. We're currently looking for couriers [kernel.org], so if you've got mad bandwidth then apply within!
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I've found that very few "geeks" want freedom, because freedom also brings with it responsibility. I've found that what many geeks really want is really lack of responsibility. Look at the various "geek issues"... it's all about doing whatever they want with no responsibility or cost.
Er, are you really sure? Lets look at your examples more closely:
Downloading music for free.
Er, downloading music for free is not illegal. Downloading copyrighted music for free is not illegal. Here's [vorbis.com] a short list of free music to download.
As for infringed copyrighted music, there are plenty of Slashdotters (geeks) who said "go after the downloaders" and are content to see them go under.
Downloading software for free.
Er, yes, geeks like to download software for no cost. Almost all of the software I use on my machines was downloaded for free -- Debian, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, GIMP, Abiword, Sodipodi, etc.
For the issues of illegal music downloading and illegal software downloading, I think you confuse geeks getting upset at the high penalties with support for the crimes. Its one thing to support copyright infringement. Its another thing to get upset with copyright infringers getting more severe sentences than violent criminals.
Creating viruses (it's Microsoft's fault, don't you know).
You are confusing the issues. Windows viruses are, in a large part, encouraged by Microsoft's lack of security. When many people "blame" Microsoft for viruses, they mean that Microsoft Windows shows a stunning lack of security by default. We all know that there are a few script-kiddies out there writing viruses, and they are the source of viruses, but if it wasn't for Microsoft lowering the amount of effort needed, we wouldn't see as many viruses.
As for copyright, us geeks are paranoid. I doubt many people here would have problems with a copyright flag for TV or radio broadcasts (other then correctly assuming that (1) they will require new purchases of hardware and (2) they will be cracked rather quickly). But we are paranoid -- if, say, every MP3 was tagged according to if the artist wanted redistribution or not, a lot of indie bands would have a leg up on the mainstream bands. This gives the indie bands an edge that the RIAA does not want. Ergo, we are assuming that any DRM in music will automatically assume that all music is pirated, unless proven otherwise.
As for DRM on the PC, we see that Microsoft is launching an offensive against Open Source. If they can create a huge financial cost for any piece of software to be certified to run on a new PC, and if they can be in control of the certification, they can use that against Open Source.
Finally, I will admit, a lot of us geeks have a slight problem with legality vs morality. The anime fan-subbing community is a perfect example: A lot of the groups will only fan-sub anime not available in the US, and will stop distribution as soon as an official English copy comes out. Is that legal? No. Is it moral? Perhaps.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, you're right. Why, just this morning on the way to work, I stopped by the town square to throw tomatoes at two blasphemers currently locked up in stocks. And I noticed one of my neighbors now has a very red "A" on her forehead. May have to stop by her place after work tonight, see if her cows need milking....
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Interesting)
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?
And now, to my thoughts:
And there we have the underlying philosophy related to many drug laws. Once we have a blanket full of laws and penalties that many are likely to come up against now and then, we must differentiate them with the severity of their penalties, make the truly horrific punishments be those which no 'normal' upstanding citizen could ever commit, make them feel safe that they will never have to face life in prison or the chair for their vices, you leave them free to feel safe in their own law breaking knowing that the penalty for the minor things they do is trivial, but ultimately keep them feeling just guilty enough to keep them inline.
Sorry you're wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Some penalties for some crimes have gone up over the last 15 years (and some have gone) but over the last, say, 100 years, the severity of punishments served out has gone down dramatically. Think of the hanging judges in the wild west, or the justice system of any European country 150 years ago.
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:3, Interesting)
We should also take into consideration that since people emulate the behavior of their leaders, corrupt, selfish behavior quickly spreads through a society like a virus, rotting it away from the inside until it collapses. Like the chinese say, a fish rots from the head
Re:Punishments go up, never down (Score:5, Interesting)
This means there is an inevitable tendancy of Government to restrict freedom ever more wretchedly. DMCA? Abusive patent ovverreach? PATRIOT? All merely corollaries of the root problem, my friends!
That's why I am posting this: The Free State Project [freestateproject.org]
As far as I can tell, it's our best chance to have a free society. Even ESR thinks so [blogspot.com] (whatever you think of him!)
Re:Humans keep living longer (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that humans aren't inherently bad, except in some rare cases, but some people get some fucked up ideas about ethics. So, the people who are causing significant harm get yanked out of society for a bit, deprived of some of the things they enjoy, in hopes that they will not only be negatively reinforced, but that they will also have time to think and realize why what they did was inappropriate.
Increasing sentences is only going to drive people batty.... at least, I say
Let the heads roll (Score:5, Funny)
"They never would be missed, They never would be missed."
Abu Ghraib (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let the heads roll (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let the heads roll (Score:5, Insightful)
instead of saying "we need to execute worm writers" maybe they should say "we need to secure windows"
Re:Let the heads roll (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, during my time as a Parsons engineer in Saudi Arabia, Americans were often encouraged to view public executions (and beheading was within the order of the day). Some of those were for things we would consider corporate misdemeanors.
Outside of my personal experience, I can think of plenty of countries where writing viruses will make you subject to the death penalty.
Solomon Chang
Right idea, wrong target (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right idea, wrong target (Score:4, Insightful)
-moitz-
Re:Right idea, wrong target (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that many people are losing data because of spam. They aren't losing data that is already on their computer, but data they want to get in incoming emails. Many good emails are accidentally deleted by spam blockers as well as the human who is trying to quickly parse out the good from the bad. That is one of the rarely discussed spam problems.
*snerk* (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of scary the process by which people can take anything and reduce it to a number somehow. That's probably why I hated statistics class.
Re:*snerk* (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm... lemme guess, you got PAID for that time, didn't you? And wait - you didn't secure those machines after the last time you got hit, did you? Hell, you openly advocate installing a less secure OS because it saves you time [slashdot.org] - deal with the results.
I've had to deal with viruses in corporate situations before, it ain't pleasant, it did waste my time, but..... the comparison you're giving just doesn't work.
And for christ's sake, leave the bloody Nazi references out. They're stupid.
Re:*snerk* (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that's not how punishment for crimes are determined. Why do you think manslaughter is a lesser crime than premeditated murder? It's not a numbers thing; it's about intent and how "bad" the crime was. Someone who blocks off traffic for an hour isn't going to be executed, even though they inconvenienced a million people during rush hour.
Re:*snerk* (Score:3, Funny)
A Better solution... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to save money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Executing people in the US is more expensive than a lifetime of incarceration. Of course it would cut the cost if we just dispensed with the lengthy appeals process, in fact we could even eliminate trials altogether. A summary execution with a single bullet in the back of the head would be very cost-effective. The way things are going with this administration, th
Re:If you want to save money... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The United States ranked first in private ownership of guns, resulting in drastic rise in gun-related crimes."
BS. We own a lot of guns because we're allowed to, it's in our Constitution and the vast majority of these people use guns responsibly. Outlawing guns does not make a society safer, it just moves guns into the black market.
"According to the outcome of a survey released by Washington D.C.Mayor Anthony A. Williams, 60,000 people out of the 600,000 population in Washington used drugs and indulged in excessive drinking"
"The jails nationwide receive 700 new inmates every week in the U.S. where 701 out of every 100,000 people are in prison"
That's
"According to a report by Amnesty International, more than 700,000 inmates were held in high security prisons and there they are compelled to stay in wards for 23 hours a day and even longer, subjected to ruthless and inhuman treatment and humiliation"
I assume they're talking about high-security lockdown, reserved for heinous crimes or prisoners who can't get along with the other prisoners and start fights or kill them. I say kill them off, but we keep them around and away from other people.
"Statistical figures from the Center for Responsive Politics showed that Lockheed Martin Corp., the country's biggest arms dealer.."
They're a DEFENSE CONTRACTOR! They design and produce weapons for the government.
An increasing number of US media organizations are getting involved in false reporting or cheating scandals. On June 5, 2003, two chief editors of the New York Times resigned after their role in a plagiarism scandal was exposed. John Barrie, head of Plagiarism.org in Oakland, California, claimed that "every newspaper in this country is not doing due diligence" and "everybody's got this problem".
This is isolated, at best. With the number of newspapers in this country, it's going to happen somewhere. Funny that China would talk about OUR press system when theirs is government owned...
"Certain policies of the US government, instead of helping narrowing the country's wealth gap, have aggravated the rich-poor disparity and led to an unfair distribution of wealth"
We live in a Capitalistic society, it's not the government's job to play Robin Hood.
Okay, I'm not even half way through this thing, and it's just packed with blatant lies and half-truths. Did you read this before posting?
--trb
Re:If you want to save money... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can mix up any words to build something that sounds more ominous than it really is.
--trb
Re:Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunatley, any human justice system is prone to failures of mis-memory (people claiming things that didn't happen and fully believing they did with all good intent), courruption (police and other officials planting evidence to make their conviction rates better), and level of access (those with a good deal of cash hardly ever go to prison, and are never never executed due to better representation).
You make the system perfect, then I'll consider the death penalty.
Re:Simple (Score:3, Interesting)
From Romans 13:3-4 (NIV)
(3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. (4) For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an interesting article [bovination.com] about the value of a life.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
We perform this kind of calculus as a society all the time. When the national speed limit (in the US) was raised from 55mph, there was a predictable cost in human lives. In fact, the fact that we allow cars in the hands of private individuals at all has a steep cost in terms of human lives, and so we attempt to mitigate the cost to some extent with mandatory safetey features, license issuance, etc. The same can be said of alcohol and tobacco. The same kind of math goes on in wrongful death civil suits on a regular basis. Human life does indeed have some finite value, although that value seems to vary depending on the human or humans in question.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
According to the U.S. government, anywhere between $1 million and $6.3 million [tufts.edu].
I seem to remember hearing that the U.S. military uses the value of $2 million per soldier. I can't verify that at the moment.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a sick job, but somebody's got to do it in civil cases involving a wrongful death finding in order for there to be a dollar value assigned to the verdict.
Re:Wow: Wasted Life: 1 person vs 1 million (Score:3, Insightful)
How about equating this in term of life-hours destroyed? A murder takes, at most, 872,000 hours (100 years) of one person's life. But a virus creator takes hours from each of millions of people's lives. The total "life lost" is worse with computer viruses.
Moreover, I'd argue that the victim's life
Re:Wow: Wasted Life: 1 person vs 1 million (Score:3, Insightful)
If I give 100,000 people paper-cuts, causing them pain and wasting cumulatively a whole lifetime of hours when they take time out to apply band-aids, am I really as bad as someone who kills another person? Are people going to be afraid to go outside because of the paper-cut man? Are neighborhoods going to decay because of me?
I don't think so.
Even if a pickpocket steals from thousands of people over his lifetime, he is only
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
While you're at it (Score:5, Insightful)
All we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as there is a virus/trojan/etc. that spreads easily and is highly destructive (overwrites crucial hard drive sectors, for example) I think everyone will start seeing the punishment of virus writers in a whole new light.
Re:All we need... (Score:3, Interesting)
You and I know that, but unfortunately 80% (yes, I'm just throwing that number out -- probably not too far off) of home users simply don't back anything up. This, despite the fact that digital cameras and digital music means that we have more and more assets on our PCs.
In fact, even here at work, despite my pleading, there are production servers that are not being ba
They should do it (Score:4, Funny)
redamndiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
and if you come back and tell me "financial harm is human harm" i say go back and walk through the woods some more. maybe read a book while you are out there... something that doesn't mention computers. Something by Emerson.
Re:redamndiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
loss of productivity in an office for a day while computers are patched is not damage. just like the mp3 filetrading scene is not damage to the RIAA. damage is what occurs before mass graves are filled. damage is being shot in the head three times from behind while walking down a crowded public street.
The uncommon event that a
Personally... (Score:3, Funny)
Infact... wasnt this what Tarintinos new flick is about... I havent seen it yet!
the problem with capital punishment... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the evidentiary situation for virus writers is even hazier than for your average murder, so capital punishment would, on balance, probably be worse.
Incidentally, there is an easy way to avoid paying a high cost for the effects of viruses: don't let them infect your systems in the first place. And that's easy: keep them patched and up-to-date. So, while virus writing isn't nice, I think people whose systems get infected are contributing to the damage through their negligence. By comparison, while stealing cars is illegal, if you leave your car unlocked and running with the key in the ignition and it gets stolen, you won't get much sympathy from either the police or your insurance company.
Stupid Article (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just dumb. Perhaps if the monetary value were higher than the 83 cents they've calculated. They also fail to take into account that the safety increase is not just for that individual, but also for everyone they care about. So, would you rather have 83 cents, or the knowledge that you, your family, and friends are slightly safer?
Stupid, pointless article.
Grandma (Score:3, Insightful)
But what happens if a nasty worm/virus starts disrupting food transport, shredding hospital documents, places trains on the same track, open the doors in the CDC, route airplanes into skyscrapers?
A properly designed infection could wreak havoc, and kill hundreds, thousands?
I realize that I'm being overly dramatic, but there's probably a point where capital punishment WOULD be a justifiable answer.
Caveat Emptor (Score:4, Interesting)
While reading the article, just bear in mind that Slate is owned and paid by Microsoft.
Crime and Punishment= (Score:3, Insightful)
Make the punishment so harsh, no one will want to commit said crime.
This either:
(a) Solves the problem
or
(b) Turns your country into a police state.
Which will it be?
This is why they should teach history in America (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh.
In the napoleonic era, a typical punishment for highway robbery was death. The punishment for plain old mugging was death. The punishment for burglary was death. The punishment for slipping a few florins from a stranger's pocket into one's own pocket was death. Crimes involving less personal contact were treated a bit more leniently -- the stealer of a sheep in the UK, for instance, could look forward to a mere 8 years or so in an Army penal battalion.
Crime was high, though, much higher than it i
so.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hear Hear!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
A ghetto-born man who kills a police officer gets executed.
A suburb-born CPA that ruins the retirements of thousands of families gets a slap on the
wrist.
It's not fair, just, or right.
Re:Hear Hear!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
A suburb-born CPA who kills a police officer gets executed.
A ghetto-born man who ruins the retirements of thousands of families gets a slap on the wrist.
The problem isn't one of race or money. The problem is that sentences don't match the crime. Your initial statement was correct but your example brings elements into the situation that merely cloud the actual point.
In the spirit of Jonathan Swift (Score:5, Informative)
Economists should take a clue from ecology (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were to kill all harmful bacteria today, infections will go back dramatically. But when, in 80 years, a new strain happens to come into existence, nobody will have any immunity system and humanity will be wiped in 24 hours.
This will get abused very soon... (Score:3, Insightful)
Virus writers vs. murderers (Score:4, Insightful)
A murderer kills someone. He ends their life, forever. They will no longer feel happiness, or sadness, or laugh, or click on "I love you" attachments". A murderer devastates the lives of the countless people who are friends and family of their victim.
These two acts are not comparable. An "equivalent punishment", be it captial (which I'm opposed to in either crime) or some other, only makes sense if you have a greatly over-inflated view of the "value" of economics.
Value of a human life. (Score:4, Interesting)
When estimating the value of human life when making laws, a decent estimate would probably be the value of that life to society.
I'd pay quite a bit to continue my own life, or someone in my family, but that's for selfish and sentimental reasons only. Odds are, people in Montana couldn't care less whether I live or die, despite what some might say to the contrary. There are only a small amount of people who are actually aware and affected by my existence.
A simple means of measuring an individual's effect on society as a whole then is the economic impact that person would have over his lifetime. Like him or not, Bill Gates will obviously have a much greater impact on society over his lifetime than your average joe. Many more people have an interest in his continued well-being than they have an interest in mine.
Should this be weighed when making laws? I don't know. It would seem to me that since Bill Gates has a measurably greater impact on society, he deserves greater compensation for wrongs done to him and also has more responsibility to do the right thing, knowing that his actions affect millions.
But the economic impact is not the only consequence of crime. I'm not scared to walk through a bad neighborhood at night because I think Martha Stewart is going to jump out of the bushes and rob me. Her crime has little impact on the order of society and the perceived safety of its citizens.
Similarly, should we prosecute someone who kills a homeless man? They have little impact on society, and their lives aren't worth as much in economic terms. I think, however, most people would reject the idea that some murders are more ok than others based on economic reasons.
The death penalty does not deter murder. (Score:4, Informative)
Check out The Death Penalty Inormation Center [deathpenaltyinfo.org] for more facts, info, and studies.
All of the authors economic number crunching is totally invalid because of this.
However that doesn't mean that I don't WANT to execute them.
Author's Argument: Human Life has Dollar Value (Score:3, Interesting)
"Execute the people who write computer worms"
"Harvard professor Kip Viscusi estimates the value of a life at $4.5 million overall, $7 million for a blue-collar male and $8.5 million for a blue collar female"
The part that kinda concerns me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we've thrown the entire world on one ad-hoc network without securing anything, those pranks are damned expensive right now and there's a real problem. But.... most of the people causing these untold trillions of dollars of damage are bored teenagers, just as antisocial as a lot of other teenagers who are out smashing post office boxes, spray painting walls, and sniffing glue, that happen to be somewhat adept at using a computer.
There do seem to be a few pro's in the field that could be linked to the spam operations and possibly even corporate and government espionage, but they're still seriously in the minority.
So - does some kid doing something stupid warrant destroying the rest of the kid's life? Do these kids really understand the consequences of what they're doing and what kind of destruction they're causing? I think in most cases - no, they don't. In the rest, well - they're still kids. Punish them, let them know what they did was wrong, but don't try to lock them up for the rest of their lives or bury them under the jail for what to them seemed like a funny prank. There's a huge difference between creating a piece of code and shooting someone in the head.
I think we need to do two things.
viruses are not necessarily bad (Score:4, Insightful)
The real solution is quality software, and punishing virus writers won't get us any closer to that.
This argument is of course only valid as long as the viruses are relatively benign.
Virtual Death... (Score:4, Insightful)
That might make a hacker think twice.
10 murders deterred per death sentence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm no expert on these matters, but would there really be ten times more murders in america if capital punishment was substituted with life in prison?
That number sounds completely ridicoulous to me. I would probably put that number lower than 2 and closer to 1... without taking the time to compare [disastercenter.com] all 38 states with capital punishment to those who don't it doesn't look like theres anywhere near a factor of ten difference between them.
this article looks like yet another example of the fact that 86.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Re:10 murders deterred per death sentence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, sure, correlation does not proove causation, we all know that. Still, I'm pretty sure the added deterrent effect of capital punishment over lifetime prison is pretty much unproven.
Economics of HIRING virus writers (Score:3, Interesting)
2) If virus is successful you hire the writer to continue writing viruses.
3) Writing virisus becomes exponentially more difficult as easy exploits are found and patched.
Result: Stronger software. Instead of wasting time paying people trained to create things to discover the flaws that destroy things, you hire specialists who have the correct mindset.
New Despised Classes (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's hope that this talk of killing virus writers won't become more than talk. Next thing you know, the Department of Justice will be rounding up file sharers for RIAA...oh wait...
Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
How many murderers continue murdering after they got caught, convicted, served time and were released? How many murderers get a job with the police / FBI and thus contribute to society?
Don't take him seriously (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be the consequence of the government refusing to punish virus-authors? It would amount to a privatization of software security. (And isn't privatization supposed to give us faster and more efficient results than government control?) Publishers like Microsoft would have no choice but to make security job #1, or be ruined in the marketplace. It'd be sink-or-swim... and those product-lines which survived would be hardened fortresses of supreme security.
Reducing the punishment to virus-authors is equivalent to removing a government subsidy on sellers of insecure software- and cutting a subsidy always unleashes the free market to do it's optimizing work.
Worm authors are like punk kids who break into corporate offices or bank vaults and kick over all the furniture before running away. Yes, they've caused some inconvenience in knocking stuff over, which can equate to lost chance for revenue, which is somewhat like damage. But they've also revealed a gaping security flaw in a way that the company can no longer deny and will thus fix before real thieves start to use it. Most of the "costs" attributed to worm-authors are actually spending to fix security holes that should've been done anyhow.
Software is more secure today than it would be if nobody wrote worms and virues.
If in 40 years Osama BinLaden Jr discovers a flaw in Microsoft(tm) WindowsGJ44(r), he might be able to cripple the world economy and kill thousands of people- and he's already accepted his own death, so the threat of one more execution won't stop him.
Faulty assumptions.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to see such rubbish published, even if the article is half joking. You may get deterrence but you also get brutalization. Personally i doubt there will be a positive (lives saved) balance. Crime figures of countries with and without capital punishment leave some doubts concerning this. But the point is not about capital punishment.
Why do we have courts and just don't hang'em high? Because "Deterrence" is only a secondary goal of serving justice. The primary goal ist restoration of judicial peace. If we forget this, we may also toss the idea of the rule of law outside out of the window. Punishment may be one measure to achieve it. All those strange procedures during prosecution and at court are to ensure that in the end, even if the ruling is faulty, we have a state of judical peace.
This notion may seem strange, but you always have to be aware, that there can never be a "perfect justice".
Regards, Martin
A Modest Proposal (Score:3, Informative)
Jeez, people, it's satire! This form of satire has been around for a long time [art-bin.com]. I love how someone can write a "punishments go up, never down" hyperbole and another can write "how can we compare human life to a dollar figure?" (Hint: It's done all the time [behan.ws]) and it gets modded insightful. I hope the original posters were extending the joke, but somehow, I get the sense that they were posting in earnest.
If you don't see the humor in this article, I beg of you to abstain from watching Farrelly Brothers and Austin Powers movies and recommend you pick up some books and read some Jonathan Swift or Oscar Wilde, to name a couple. There's more to humor than dick and fart jokes, and if you understand that, I'm sure you'll live longer.
Survey says... (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Chico Marx quote (Score:3, Funny)
Chico: (menacingly)I kill people for money. (looks at Harpo) I kill you for money.
Harpo: (looks worried)
Chico: (smiles). No, I no kill you for money. You my friend. I kill you for free.
Harpo: (smiles in relief)
I'm sure killing spammers will be very economic as many people would be willing to do it for free.
Re:Along the same lines... (Score:5, Funny)
"And then we nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure..."
Re:Along the same lines... (Score:4, Insightful)
This sort of joke isn't funny, its just demonstrative of an unhealthy vitrol towards Microsoft. Linux is great, no one is saying otherwise, but it has serious lackings. It lacks ease of use, unification, game support, hardware support, etc. Quit bitching [everyone] about Microsoft, and help develop a viable Linux solution to the home user desktop.