By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Hacker to be extradited to the US

NJ5 on 26 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

That's a max sentence.  It's not like he'll actually get that.

Though, what do you think is an acceptable punishment for breaking into military computers that hold technological secrets and troop placement information?

As far as i know, hacking into a computer makes it easier to hack into by other people.  So even if the guy had an insane reason for doing so... he greatly put at risk troops and military secrets.

 

Most likely he'll get whatever time he gets to be served in a US or UK mental institution where he is barred from a computer or needs to be monitered while using one.

Hacking into a computer doesn't necessarily make it more vulnerable. That's only the case if the hacker installs other backdoors after breaking in.

If the guy was doing it to steal those secrets or endanger any lives, it's a different matter. That doesn't seem anywhere near reality here. If it wasn't the intention and it didn't happen, I don't think it justifies such a harsh sentence.

I hope you're right on the sentence though!

 

The US government says his hacking cost the US government $700,000 to fix.  So clearly he did something to those 90+ computers he hacked into to make them more vulnerable.

Outside that.  The 60 years is a "Max" sentence.  Why he did what he did, isn't relevent until sentencing.

Doesn't your country have "Max terms" for something... a limit to which someone can server for a certain crime?

 

 

 

Depends on what they were fixing. Stuff that they should have fixed before, or stuff that he caused.

I understand what you said about the sentence. I probably misinterpreted the article, which is why I said I hope you're right and they're just talking about the max sentence, not the expected one.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 26 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

I know, 60 years in jail for a guy who has a medical condition and that they cant prove did any damage or anything, apparently (according to BBC news channel) if he had been tried here, he would have been given 6 months community service...not to mention of course that the extradition treaty essentialy allows the US to extradite people from the UK, but not vice versa.

That's not true.

Also the "6 months community service" is more or less a lie.  It would be that way only because he didn't break into UK government computers.

thats how it was reported here...

also, that doesnt make it a lie, it makes it only true if the UK citizen is tried by the UK legal system.



Kasz216 on 26 November 2009
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

That's a max sentence.  It's not like he'll actually get that.

Though, what do you think is an acceptable punishment for breaking into military computers that hold technological secrets and troop placement information?

As far as i know, hacking into a computer makes it easier to hack into by other people.  So even if the guy had an insane reason for doing so... he greatly put at risk troops and military secrets.

 

Most likely he'll get whatever time he gets to be served in a US or UK mental institution where he is barred from a computer or needs to be monitered while using one.

Hacking into a computer doesn't necessarily make it more vulnerable. That's only the case if the hacker installs other backdoors after breaking in.

If the guy was doing it to steal those secrets or endanger any lives, it's a different matter. That doesn't seem anywhere near reality here. If it wasn't the intention and it didn't happen, I don't think it justifies such a harsh sentence.

I hope you're right on the sentence though!

 

The US government says his hacking cost the US government $700,000 to fix.  So clearly he did something to those 90+ computers he hacked into to make them more vulnerable.

Outside that.  The 60 years is a "Max" sentence.  Why he did what he did, isn't relevent until sentencing.

Doesn't your country have "Max terms" for something... a limit to which someone can server for a certain crime?

 

 

 

Depends on what they were fixing. Stuff that they should have fixed before, or stuff that he caused.

I understand what you said about the sentence. I probably misinterpreted the article, which is why I said I hope you're right and they're just talking about the max sentence, not the expected one.

 

If it was something that needed to be fixed before they couldn't claim he caused the damages.

Additionally, you didn't really read the article wrong.  That's what they wanted you to think.



Kasz216 on 26 November 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

I know, 60 years in jail for a guy who has a medical condition and that they cant prove did any damage or anything, apparently (according to BBC news channel) if he had been tried here, he would have been given 6 months community service...not to mention of course that the extradition treaty essentialy allows the US to extradite people from the UK, but not vice versa.

That's not true.

Also the "6 months community service" is more or less a lie.  It would be that way only because he didn't break into UK government computers.

thats how it was reported here...

also, that doesnt make it a lie, it makes it only true if the UK citizen is tried by the UK legal system.

Actually, that's still a lie.

Because he broke into 97 computers.

And the 6 month sentence is only for one hacking attempt.

 

Additionally the UK has no right to try someone for a lesser crime when a more serious crime was committed by the act elsewhere.



Kasz216 on 26 November 2009
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

That's a max sentence.  It's not like he'll actually get that.

Though, what do you think is an acceptable punishment for breaking into military computers that hold technological secrets and troop placement information?

As far as i know, hacking into a computer makes it easier to hack into by other people.  So even if the guy had an insane reason for doing so... he greatly put at risk troops and military secrets.

 

Most likely he'll get whatever time he gets to be served in a US or UK mental institution where he is barred from a computer or needs to be monitered while using one.

Hacking into a computer doesn't necessarily make it more vulnerable. That's only the case if the hacker installs other backdoors after breaking in.

If the guy was doing it to steal those secrets or endanger any lives, it's a different matter. That doesn't seem anywhere near reality here. If it wasn't the intention and it didn't happen, I don't think it justifies such a harsh sentence.

I hope you're right on the sentence though!

 

The US government says his hacking cost the US government $700,000 to fix.  So clearly he did something to those 90+ computers he hacked into to make them more vulnerable.

Outside that.  The 60 years is a "Max" sentence.  Why he did what he did, isn't relevent until sentencing.

Doesn't your country have "Max terms" for something... a limit to which someone can server for a certain crime?

 

 

 

Depends on what they were fixing. Stuff that they should have fixed before, or stuff that he caused.

I understand what you said about the sentence. I probably misinterpreted the article, which is why I said I hope you're right and they're just talking about the max sentence, not the expected one.

 

The US authorities claim he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Army’s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours, as well as deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable after the September 11th terrorist attacks. They claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was $700,000.[16]

 

So.  He shut down a crapload of military computers RIGHT AFTER 9/11.

 

He also admits he left this message.

"US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year...I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.”[17]



Around the Network
Kantor on 26 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

That's a max sentence.  It's not like he'll actually get that.

Though, what do you think is an acceptable punishment for breaking into military computers that hold technological secrets and troop placement information?

As far as i know, hacking into a computer makes it easier to hack into by other people.  So even if the guy had an insane reason for doing so... he greatly put at risk troops and military secrets.

 

Most likely he'll get whatever time he gets to be served in a US or UK mental institution where he is barred from a computer or needs to be monitered while using one.

Hacking into a computer doesn't necessarily make it more vulnerable. That's only the case if the hacker installs other backdoors after breaking in.

If the guy was doing it to steal those secrets or endanger any lives, it's a different matter. That doesn't seem anywhere near reality here. If it wasn't the intention and it didn't happen, I don't think it justifies such a harsh sentence.

I hope you're right on the sentence though!

 

The US government says his hacking cost the US government $700,000 to fix.  So clearly he did something to those 90+ computers he hacked into to make them more vulnerable.

Outside that.  The 60 years is a "Max" sentence.  Why he did what he did, isn't relevent until sentencing.

Doesn't your country have "Max terms" for something... a limit to which someone can server for a certain crime?

 

 

$700,000?!?!?!?!

That's pocket change to the US government. Why do they care, honestly?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 26 November 2009
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

That's a max sentence.  It's not like he'll actually get that.

Though, what do you think is an acceptable punishment for breaking into military computers that hold technological secrets and troop placement information?

As far as i know, hacking into a computer makes it easier to hack into by other people.  So even if the guy had an insane reason for doing so... he greatly put at risk troops and military secrets.

 

Most likely he'll get whatever time he gets to be served in a US or UK mental institution where he is barred from a computer or needs to be monitered while using one.

Hacking into a computer doesn't necessarily make it more vulnerable. That's only the case if the hacker installs other backdoors after breaking in.

If the guy was doing it to steal those secrets or endanger any lives, it's a different matter. That doesn't seem anywhere near reality here. If it wasn't the intention and it didn't happen, I don't think it justifies such a harsh sentence.

I hope you're right on the sentence though!

 

The US government says his hacking cost the US government $700,000 to fix.  So clearly he did something to those 90+ computers he hacked into to make them more vulnerable.

Outside that.  The 60 years is a "Max" sentence.  Why he did what he did, isn't relevent until sentencing.

Doesn't your country have "Max terms" for something... a limit to which someone can server for a certain crime?

 

 

$700,000?!?!?!?!

That's pocket change to the US government. Why do they care, honestly?

"US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year...I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels"

Does that sound like he's looking for a UFO... for mostly harmless reasons?

They care, because he planned to keep doing this before he was caught.  The "UFO" thing is nothing but a scapegoat.

In short... the article Scifiboy posted is crap.



NJ5 on 26 November 2009

OK I didn't know that. Seems like the guy went on quite a rampage if that's true.

It also looks like the systems were very badly secured. Not that this excuses him.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kantor on 26 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:

Hacking into a computer doesn't necessarily make it more vulnerable. That's only the case if the hacker installs other backdoors after breaking in.

If the guy was doing it to steal those secrets or endanger any lives, it's a different matter. That doesn't seem anywhere near reality here. If it wasn't the intention and it didn't happen, I don't think it justifies such a harsh sentence.

I hope you're right on the sentence though!

 

The US government says his hacking cost the US government $700,000 to fix.  So clearly he did something to those 90+ computers he hacked into to make them more vulnerable.

Outside that.  The 60 years is a "Max" sentence.  Why he did what he did, isn't relevent until sentencing.

Doesn't your country have "Max terms" for something... a limit to which someone can server for a certain crime?

 

 

$700,000?!?!?!?!

That's pocket change to the US government. Why do they care, honestly?

"US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year...I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels"

Does that sound like he's looking for a UFO... for mostly harmless reasons?

Of course it wasn't for harmless reasons, but 60 years?

They should improve their security systems, give him a fine and maybe a couple of years in prison, slap him on the wrist and put him in a care home.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

SciFiBoy on 26 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
NJ5 said:
Damn, he should have just become a banker and steal billions from taxpayers. Then he'd get a bonus.

Now seriously, that seems way too harsh of a sentence... That alone would be reason not to extradite him.

I know, 60 years in jail for a guy who has a medical condition and that they cant prove did any damage or anything, apparently (according to BBC news channel) if he had been tried here, he would have been given 6 months community service...not to mention of course that the extradition treaty essentialy allows the US to extradite people from the UK, but not vice versa.

That's not true.

Also the "6 months community service" is more or less a lie.  It would be that way only because he didn't break into UK government computers.

thats how it was reported here...

also, that doesnt make it a lie, it makes it only true if the UK citizen is tried by the UK legal system.

Actually, that's still a lie.

Because he broke into 97 computers.

And the 6 month sentence is only for one hacking attempt.

 

Additionally the UK has no right to try someone for a lesser crime when a more serious crime was committed by the act elsewhere.

more serious crime was still commited in the UK by a UK citizen though, so whats your point?

and the UK isnt responsible for the security of US computer systems...turn this around and FUCK ALL would happen, the US would block any attempt at extradition or harsher sentencing and you know it...