Hackers punishments

[Watch Me Sink]

Meh, I'd say a fine if anything. Jailtime if the DA/Federal Prosecutor feels like being a bee-otch, but I couldn't see it happening. Really it's your own fault if you don't cover yourself. If you have a high profile site, put some ads up and with that money, hire somebody full time to look for security holes and patch them.

 

[DarkRaven]

No punishment. Punishments or deterents will never work against black hat hackers. People really should learn to stop being idiots with their computers...

 

[AnonFM]

Nothing. Secure your server/script/whatever you're using. If noone would be trying anything you'd be left with huge security holes in software. You are the admin, and you're also responsible for the security of your site/server.

 

[DarkRaven]

Nothing. Secure your server/script/whatever you're using. If noone would be trying anything you'd be left with huge security holes in software. You are the admin, and you're also responsible for the security of your site/server.

Quoted for truth. Rep 1

Edit. Damn, won't let me rep you yet.

 

[Justin M]

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art ... RTUNE5.htm

The guy sounds like a Seinfeld fan with his 'soupnazi' moniker.

 

[DarkRaven]

That's another case of where it's the Financial organisation's duty to it's customers to keep that data secure. If it can't do that, then it should not be in business.

 

[Unknown Bliss]

So, people that are pro hackers who make millions of pounds, thats right and should go un punished? If the MOD was hacked and the person launched misiles, you would not turn round and let them walk free cause the MOD was not secure enough. The only way to make something totally un-hackable is to make it non-existant, which means there would be no point having this discussion. There would be no internet, no computers, no pieces of paper, no people. Infomation can always come out, even from your brain, if your tortured.

@ Dr.Christmas. Murders don't always get caught, doesn't mean they should walk free. Its like saying we should have hospitals because we all die eventually, all it is is more outcome for people paying medical insurance.

 

[Justin M]

That's another case of where it's the Financial organisation's duty to it's customers to keep that data secure. If it can't do that, then it should not be in business.

You think companies don't do their best to protect sensitive information? There are numerous laws regulating how information must be secured. That's what hackers largely do, find ways to either sneak in or break in. Say somebody breaks into a bank and makes off with the contents of somebodies safe deposit box, does that bank not deserve to stay open?

 

[SettledHate.]

A nerd in jail, that'll work. lol.

 

[Shaymin]

If a hacker hacks a website like facebook or google, they get jailed, if a hacker hacks a small website nothing happens. Biased much?

 

[DarkRaven]

That's another case of where it's the Financial organisation's duty to it's customers to keep that data secure. If it can't do that, then it should not be in business.

You think companies don't do their best to protect sensitive information? There are numerous laws regulating how information must be secured. That's what hackers largely do, find ways to either sneak in or break in. Say somebody breaks into a bank and makes off with the contents of somebodies safe deposit box, does that bank not deserve to stay open?

The thing about ''real life'' robberies is that they are quite easy to prosecute. After all the robber was physically in the building etc and more importantly in the jurisdiction of the robbery.

However in the case of a hacking, I could be sitting here in Ireland robbing a bank in New York. Now that isn't the worst state of affairs. Ireland has quite a good extradition treaty with the US. But what if I was in Russia? Iran? Moldavia? The People's Republic of China? All of those have fairly shaky extradition treaties with the US, if any. For all intents and purposes, the cases are unprosecutable.

This is precisely why hacking should be unpunishable. If you are going to have a law for one person, and a different law for another person then that is highly unjust. Why should an Irish hacker, a British hacker or an American hacker get jailed for hacking and a Russian hacker go scot free?

You see hacking, by it's nature, transgresses national borders. Until there is an internationally accepted investigation method and punishment for it - or even better still an international court, there is no use in proceeding further as it will ultimately lead to certain nations implementing harsh punishments and others barely enforcing it.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

^Best post I've seen in a while. I'll even go further to say that quite a few countries won't even extradite suspected criminals (I'm looking at you Isreal).

 

[Justin M]

By the same hand, a person can commit crimes here and flee to a country that doesn't extradite. I can see where you're going with this but letting all criminals go because you can't catch every single one makes no sense.

 

[DarkRaven]

By the same hand, a person can commit crimes here and flee to a country that doesn't extradite.

There is still a very real chance of that criminal being caught before he leaves the country. In cases of a hacker from a country such as Russia (that will not extradite it's citizens), there is no chance of him ever getting punished for his crimes. You see the difference?

I can see where you're going with this but letting all criminals go because you can't catch every single one makes no sense.

It's not about catching every single one. Hell, there have been bankrobbers that have never been caught - but that's due to mistakes on behalf of the investigators. It's that structure of the legal system should be a level playing field however. If one country has one set of rules and another has a different set... You will never see fairness.

In the mean time, the simple solution is not to be an idiot with your customers' data.

 

[DracoJesi]

I support Hacking, and yes I am a hacker.

But, Hacking isn't always illegal, it depends on what your hacking.

Also ask yourself why you're hacking. Being a jerk isn't cool hacker or not.

There are good hackers out there. Anything can be abused. The term "hacking" has become synonymous with malicious activity, but the term originally referred to someone hacking away at the "internals" or code of a program, editing it, making it better.

The term has been demonized by corporations like Microsoft who want code to be closed and then later by the public.

As for punishment for the malicious use of hacking skills...it really depends on the case.

If nothing was deleted and it was just a joke by some kid, being banned from the internet for life seems a little extreme.

I'd be more focused on how they did it. If it's some kid or somebody just messing around with no real intent to hurt anybody, I'd be interested in finding a way to focus that hobby, that passion into something productive.

They want to hack systems fine, we'll do that, in a responsible manner looking for security issues that need to be addressed.

I agree with the above comments, but, when considering what hacking is, its also your fault for having a bad password, or having a widely known IP address, or making yourself known on the Internet. Its contributory negligence, and so you do take some role in helping them hack (not that I'm supporting hacking). Not many realize that they in fact give out clues to hackers which then makes their life much easier. So, do they get punished for hacking, or do they get off for your own fault in leaking information?

Password Cracking is just that, cracking.... not Hacking.

Also, what are you going to do about the IP? If you host a website or any kind of server, changing your IP all the time is just asking for trouble.

 

[DracoJesi]

@Dark Raven, hey now, maybe it's the investigators fault, maybe not... It's possible to completely cover your tracks... very hard but possible.

Just saying...

 

[DracoJesi]

That's another case of where it's the Financial organisation's duty to it's customers to keep that data secure. If it can't do that, then it should not be in business.

You think companies don't do their best to protect sensitive information? There are numerous laws regulating how information must be secured. That's what hackers largely do, find ways to either sneak in or break in. Say somebody breaks into a bank and makes off with the contents of somebodies safe deposit box, does that bank not deserve to stay open?

The thing about ''real life'' robberies is that they are quite easy to prosecute. After all the robber was physically in the building etc and more importantly in the jurisdiction of the robbery.

However in the case of a hacking, I could be sitting here in Ireland robbing a bank in New York. Now that isn't the worst state of affairs. Ireland has quite a good extradition treaty with the US. But what if I was in Russia? Iran? Moldavia? The People's Republic of China? All of those have fairly shaky extradition treaties with the US, if any. For all intents and purposes, the cases are unprosecutable.

This is precisely why hacking should be unpunishable. If you are going to have a law for one person, and a different law for another person then that is highly unjust. Why should an Irish hacker, a British hacker or an American hacker get jailed for hacking and a Russian hacker go scot free?

You see hacking, by it's nature, transgresses national borders. Until there is an internationally accepted investigation method and punishment for it - or even better still an international court, there is no use in proceeding further as it will ultimately lead to certain nations implementing harsh punishments and others barely enforcing it.

In that case it would be determined by the physical location of said hacker.... Is it a universally fair system? No...

But by that logic you could say that nobody under the age of 18 should be charged with underage drinking just because the age limit is lower or non-existent in another country.

If they are located in another country than the server they hacked... well, it comes down to relations between two said countries and how they go about such things. So if you wanted to prosecute, you'd be out of luck.

But we still prosecute for things that aren't even illegal in other countries... so it's not the best argument though I see where you are coming from.

Also, no one country owns the internet or otherwise have control over it but what about individual servers in said country?

You can also argue the location where the act was committed.

Also, just because someone else tolerates something doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean you should do the same. Whether something is right or wrong is questionable, but the point is still valid.

You shouldn't do nothing, that's ignoring the problem. Ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away is not the answer. If given free reign, the problem will only get worse. You may not always be able to do anything about it but doesn't mean you shouldn't if you can.

 

[DarkRaven]

That's another case of where it's the Financial organisation's duty to it's customers to keep that data secure. If it can't do that, then it should not be in business.

You think companies don't do their best to protect sensitive information? There are numerous laws regulating how information must be secured. That's what hackers largely do, find ways to either sneak in or break in. Say somebody breaks into a bank and makes off with the contents of somebodies safe deposit box, does that bank not deserve to stay open?

The thing about ''real life'' robberies is that they are quite easy to prosecute. After all the robber was physically in the building etc and more importantly in the jurisdiction of the robbery.

However in the case of a hacking, I could be sitting here in Ireland robbing a bank in New York. Now that isn't the worst state of affairs. Ireland has quite a good extradition treaty with the US. But what if I was in Russia? Iran? Moldavia? The People's Republic of China? All of those have fairly shaky extradition treaties with the US, if any. For all intents and purposes, the cases are unprosecutable.

This is precisely why hacking should be unpunishable. If you are going to have a law for one person, and a different law for another person then that is highly unjust. Why should an Irish hacker, a British hacker or an American hacker get jailed for hacking and a Russian hacker go scot free?

You see hacking, by it's nature, transgresses national borders. Until there is an internationally accepted investigation method and punishment for it - or even better still an international court, there is no use in proceeding further as it will ultimately lead to certain nations implementing harsh punishments and others barely enforcing it.

In that case it would be determined by the physical location of said hacker.... Is it a universally fair system? No...

Check out the Garry McKinnon case - he is facing deportation to the US for a crime he commited at home.

But by that logic you could say that nobody under the age of 18 should be charged with underage drinking just because the age limit is lower or non-existent in another country.

This is nothing to do with my point. Underaged drinking is not a crime that transgresses national borders.

If they are located in another country than the server they hacked... well, it comes down to relations between two said countries and how they go about such things. So if you wanted to prosecute, you'd be out of luck.

But we still prosecute for things that aren't even illegal in other countries... so it's not the best argument though I see where you are coming from.

No. What I am saying is that on the internet it is as easy for me to hack a bank in New York and steal millions of dollars as it is for someone in Russia. It's the exact same crime with the exact same victim. It's highly unjust to punish one individual and not punish another when the only difference is where the perp was when he carried it out.

Also, just because someone else tolerates something doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean you should do the same. Whether something is right or wrong is questionable, but the point is still valid

You shouldn't do nothing, that's ignoring the problem. Ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away is not the answer. If given free reign, the problem will only get worse. You may not always be able to do anything about it but doesn't mean you shouldn't if you can.

What is wrong is punishing one person and not punishing another. Until the system is fixed so that everyone is equal then hacking should be prosecutable. It's a crime that transgresses national borders and conventional jurisdictions. Until we agree on one internationally accepted body to fix this issue then prosecution is highly unjust.

 

[Unknown Bliss]

BTW: Cracking is where you tunnel in or crack passwords or hack with malicous intent. Hacking is legal. Cracking is not.

Regarding what dark revan just said, yes having an internation court would be good, but every county in the world would have to sign a treaty saying I'll let this court run the world and my country and i dont mind having no say. Anyway, who would run it? The UN wouldn't. Nobody would set up their own commission. The nearest thing to internationl court we will have is the UN and in much smaller proportion and cant do much, interpool.

But, just cause we cant catch everyone, doesn't mean we should bother. Its like dont have doctors cause we all die. Or dont catch murders cause we wont catch them all.

 

[cmb is cool]

i think misc because i want to make them permanant bots