And to be honest if they where using remote desktops on machines that had sensitive information on then they deserve everything they get.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:08,
archived)
I just don't buy into hacking at all. It is pathetic and childish.
EDIT: Also, he didn't do that much damage? Well he did some damage. So if I turn up at your house and kick a door in and snoop around your house it is ok because the door isn't that expensive say, that's ok?
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:10,
archived)
EDIT: Also, he didn't do that much damage? Well he did some damage. So if I turn up at your house and kick a door in and snoop around your house it is ok because the door isn't that expensive say, that's ok?
held in the cellar or something.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:18,
archived)
however, breaking into his house wouldn't compromise national security would it. But that is beside the point. Complain about the length of the sentence, by all means, on a humanitarian standpoint, whatever, but the law is the law, and if you break it, you deserve to be prosecuted. Simple as that.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:19,
archived)
what he did barely even constituted hacking
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:20,
archived)
Ran a script he found to search for systems with no security and then RDPed to them. Hardly hacking.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:22,
archived)
what if he was an ACTUAL OMG TERIST
fucking idiots don't learn, they've been this shite for years.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 15:12,
archived)
fucking idiots don't learn, they've been this shite for years.
however, he has said himself that he hacked in looking for classified UFO documents and such. Seems to me that it is unarguable that he hacked the system.
I'm not sure what you mean by "barely constituted hacking"
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:23,
archived)
I'm not sure what you mean by "barely constituted hacking"
what I mean is, it was not a serious professional hack. The security was woeful and the guy probably couldn't even believe how easy it was to get in. what I mean is, if you go up to someone's house, try the door handle, and it's unlocked, you are wrong to enter, but it's not breaking and entering if you do.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:27,
archived)
If the door isn't closed, though, it isn't.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:29,
archived)
However, it is still trespassing, which is a crime.
And if the door is open and you go in and rob the house, insurance payout or not, if you are caught you will still be charged and convicted of theft.
You can try and moralise it as much as you like, it is still a criminal act.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:30,
archived)
And if the door is open and you go in and rob the house, insurance payout or not, if you are caught you will still be charged and convicted of theft.
You can try and moralise it as much as you like, it is still a criminal act.
but you shouldn't get convicted of theft if you don't fucking steal anything...
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:34,
archived)
However, he isn't being charged with theft is he. I am just trying to draw a parallel.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:39,
archived)
if we're talking about different countries.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:38,
archived)
However, illegal does equate with against the law. And if you are going to commit a crime, you can't complain about being punished for breaking that law.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:56,
archived)
You can in fact complain about it. Say your crime is producing modern art in nazi Germany, and you get put in prison for it, complaining is entirely reasonable. I guess you mean you're silly not to expect to be punished, rather than that you shouldn't complain about being punished.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 15:07,
archived)
but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable or right to go inside.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:31,
archived)
charges for misuse of computers and charges for terrorism, which is what he's going to be charged with :S He deserves to be punished but what he's facing is more than a bit severe.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:34,
archived)
by all means complain about the severity of his punishment if you like, however, he is being tried for terroroism or whatever under American Law. If American law states what he did is terrorism, then he should be punished in accordance with the statute. Sadly, it is as simple as that. The odds of him actually getting sentenced to 70 years is, I would venture to say, highly unlikely.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:41,
archived)
However, the crime he commited, although he was sat in England, was for all intents and purposes commited in America.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:45,
archived)
"He deserves everything he gets. "
although I suspect this is internet bravado
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:43,
archived)
although I suspect this is internet bravado
I said that you can argue about the severity of the punishment all you like. I however, am not.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:47,
archived)
or are lacking in qualities I consider necessary to be thought of as human. If someone on a tour of the houses of parliament thinks it would be funny to sit on the seats, and the pm gets embarrassed and the guy gets 20years behind bars would you argue that the guy knew it was wrong and deserves everything he gets? It seems either you don't value your life very much, or simply don't care about anyone else one bit. There's simply no getting around it; this guy is being well and truly fucked over. He's already lost getting on for a decade of his life to this bullshit as it is.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:56,
archived)
As I said before, I don't know the entire story of what he did, and no-one will till it goes to court really. He may well be being fucked over, yes, or he may have done a lot more than people so far know.
It probably is too harsh and unfair of me to say that he deserves 70 years, you're right.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 15:02,
archived)
It probably is too harsh and unfair of me to say that he deserves 70 years, you're right.
if my house's total gdp was 14 trillion dollars
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:17,
archived)
if you dont lock your house, just try claiming on insurance for anything stolen
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:19,
archived)
that isn't breaking and entering, no. It is however trespassing and still illegal.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:27,
archived)
So it is more of a crime to steal £100 from someone who only has £300 in their bank account than it is to steal £1 million from someone who has tens of millions in their bank account? Fucking bullshit.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:20,
archived)
it is more of a crime to steal $100 from someone who only has $300 in their bank account than to steal $800,000 from someone who has $14,000,000,000,000 in their bank account.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:29,
archived)
100 of £300 = 33.33%
800,000 of $14,000,000,000,000 = 0.0000057142857142857145%
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:40,
archived)
800,000 of $14,000,000,000,000 = 0.0000057142857142857145%
I am sorry, but you must have kept your moral compass far too near your collection of delusion magnets.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:43,
archived)
far too near to your bad-common-sense-magnets! Ha! two can play at this analogy.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:45,
archived)
and reached across the atlantic and pulled a general's pants down.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:49,
archived)
So how does stealing $1 from somebody with $3 shape up against stealing $1 from somebody with $17,500,000?
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:36,
archived)
I'd be interested to know what kind of damage this was. Maybe he hacked the computers so hard they exploded, or maybe there's a way to measure embarrassment in dollars now.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:13,
archived)
That would probably be resetting the password on 80 machines.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:14,
archived)
He obviously breached the security system, I don't know how, but that could have required rebuilding or whatever. He could have deleted files and such from the system which would then have to be re-entered and such.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:15,
archived)
it's likely just how much they suddenly realised they had to spend to actually stop people just wandering in to their systems, the fucktards.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:17,
archived)
So because it was possible for someone to hack into the system, they are at fault solely and he shouldn't be blamed? If he noticed this issue with their system and informed them, it would be a very different thing. He however exploited it for his own purposes.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:28,
archived)
They ignored him so he carried on. Not that I'm saying it's right.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:31,
archived)
I'm not saying the guy didn't do anything wrong, merely that he is being completely fucked over, and this is all way out of proportion to what he actually did. The americans were indeed at fault too as it should not be possible to do what this guy did. This is probably why they are so pissed off about it. It's pretty embarrassing for them. Also, stop with the bullshit please: exploited it for his own purposes was curious and had a look.
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 14:32,
archived)