Rant Fuck the UK :eek:

[Scouse]

Apparently, if you're a white-hat hacker with no intent on doing harm, you can hack small companies but you're not allowed to hack large ones.

I.E. The size of the corporation you hack is what makes it criminal...

You accessed the very heart of the system of an international business of massive size, so this was not just fiddling about in the business records of some tiny business of no great importance

Law enforcement for the corporations. Fuck everyone else and our piddly unimportant lives.

 

[Tom]

Oh no, not the corporations. Damn those corporations!

Occupy York Crown Court!

 

[Scouse]

Lol

Be fair Tom. I've not said "oh the corporations", I've said "cunting fucking legal system".

Look at what the judge said. He's saying it's a bigger crime to hack a corporation than it is to hack an SME. That's not how the law should work. A crime is a crime - so hacking into a big corporation should be the same as hacking into an SME.

If the judge in a murder trial had said "You killed a very rich person, so this wasn't just the murder of some poor person of no great importance" everyone would be up in arms.

Rightly so.

 

[Tom]

Look at what the judge said. He's saying it's a bigger crime to hack a corporation than it is to hack an SME. That's not how the law should work. A crime is a crime - so hacking into a big corporation should be the same as hacking into an SME.

If the judge in a murder trial had said "You killed a very rich person, so this wasn't just the murder of some poor person of no great importance" everyone would be up in arms.

Rightly so.

You're completely mistaken. Of course hacking a large organisation is a more serious crime than hacking a much, much smaller organisation. The former has the ability to adversely affect far more lives than the latter.

Your murder analogy is also incorrect - judges are given discretionary powers to deal with such offences, and the loss to society will always be a consideration when sentencing is given.

 

[Scouse]

I disagree strongly on both counts Tom. Justice is blind.

Well, it's supposed to be...



Edit: Related, remember when some bishop said that if you must steal, steal from Tesco's - as it's the lesser of two evils? His reasoning was that the big corporation could afford to weather the loss whereas a small business couldn't take it. "Teh law" took a different view - saying that the crime was theft, regardless of who from...

Anyway, we're also talking about a white-hat hacker being put away for a long time here too. There's multiple facets to the story I posted

 

[Tom]

It seems to me as though you're suggesting that judgements should not consider the result of the crime.

So if two men assault two other men, and one of those assaults results in the victim losing his job and ability to support his family through (for instance) depression, whereas the other results in no appreciable change to the victim's life, both criminals should receive identical punishments?

 

[Scouse]

"Teh law" asserted that theft from Tesco would result in the same punishment as theft from an SME - regardless of the fact that an SME may go out of business whereas Tesco wouldn't notice.

You seem to be asserting that killing Princess Di would be more of a crime than killing my mum and would rightly recieve a higher sentence because of the "loss to society". Tosh, I say. The higher levels of sentencing would come from how the crime was committed, not who it's done to. The phrase "justice is blind" means that the type of person you are, or where you come from, doesn't enter into it.

Or do you think that social status is a solid basis for sentencing?

 

[Tom]

You're talking bollocks. Any judge would be able to see the difference between stealing from Tesco and stealing from a small business, and rightly so. The idiot who hacked Facebook shouldn't be at all surprised to go to prison, especially considering the amount of money Facebook spent to sort his hack out. Similarly, anyone whose actions caused a small business to fail would also expect to do time.

I wish you wouldn't twist my words, your Princess Di example is not at all what I think. And yes, social status is a good basis for sentencing - a living mother is worth more to society than a living tramp. That's just life.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Rob a poor man's flat of possessions - steal £100 worth.
Rob a rich man's mansion of possessions - steal £250,000 worth.

Both completely equal according to Scouse!

 

[Uncle Sick]

"Oh, crap. I got caught. Hai guyz, I'm a white hat haxx0r. Robin Hood, like."

 

[Krazeh]

I'm not sure what the issue is here? Surely the sentence for a crime should reflect the severity/impact of the crime? Having read the article it appears the statement in question was made by the Judge while passing sentence and seems a pretty reasonable statement to have made. I can't see any indication that the Judge implied that hacking a smaller company would be ok or that he was convicted because of the size of the company he hacked.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Yeh, personal information is not there to be given away for free. Its there to be sold by Facebook to whomever they choose.

 

[Scouse]

yes, social status is a good basis for sentencing - a living mother is worth more to society than a living tramp. That's just life.

I guess this is right then:

An earthquake achieves what the law promises but does not in practice maintain - the equality of all men

 

[soze]

Saying fuck the whole legal system is a bit far because one judge was a knob. I would bet judges are like everything else you get good and bad ones. And if what he found is not backed up by law he will be overturned.

 

[Raven]

Not necessarily.

Anyway, the comments are taken out of context so the whole thread is a bit misleading.

But I will bite anyway!

What he did is more damaging than attacking the website of Localpies.com or whatever else. localpies.com will probably change a couple of passwords, maybe an afternoons inconvenience. MEGAEVILCORPTHATWILLRUINYOURLIFE.com will have a lot of damage limitation going on, possibly involving a lot of people, not to mention potential loss of sensitive private customer information.

It's besides the point that corps need to take online security far more seriously though.

 

[Nate]

It is a bit sad that you can compare this to murder and see that one persons life is worth more jail time then anothers.

Murdered A: Young kids, wife, mum & dad live in the house.
Murdered B: Girlfriend, too young to have kids, lives with mum & dad.
Murdered C: Single, focusing on career, lives alone, lots of friends.

Who gets the more jail time?

 

[Raven]

All the same.

You don't get a different punishment depending on who you kill. Murder is still murder.

 

[Scouse]

Tom says if you add Tramp to that list you should get less for killing him and that his low social status is a good reason for this.


Murder is still murder. Hacking is still hacking IMO.

It's the action you performed, not who you did it to.

If localpies.com had a customer list which was stolen and published the information comissioner may well decide to prosecute them for lax security. This would be something localpies.com would be ill equipped to deal with, whereas cuntbook, who can spunk $200,000 and it not register on their bottom line, is more worried about reputational damage.

And they should be worried - if a seventeen year old in his bedroom can steal their source code then organised criminals can steal our personal information.

IMO this kid didn't commit a crime - he did us all a favour. If he'd hacked localpies.com I'd be much more pissed off...

 

[soze]

The murder anaology would be more like.

A: Works for a company.
B: Sole owner of a company.

If B is killed there is the chance that a lot more lives are destroyed if the company ends up folding.

I don't believe there should be different punishments I am just saying that not all murders are equal in terms of impact.

 

[Raven]

Well, you could argue that its similar to criminal damage. If I drive a JCB through a park smashing everything up then that is not the same as kicking a bin over.

Both technically criminal damage but differing magnitudes.

 

[Scouse]

not all murders are equal in terms of impact.

I agree with this completely. However, to sentence differently based on them would be horrendous.

Well, you could argue that its similar to criminal damage. If I drive a JCB through a park smashing everything up then that is not the same as kicking a bin over.

Both technically criminal damage but differing magnitudes

Different argument here Raven. Whilst they're the same offence, they're different crimes.

 

[Tom]

Tom says if you add Tramp to that list you should get less for killing him and that his low social status is a good reason for this.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I'd appreciate it if you didn't write such rubbish.

 

[Sydrik]

Rob a poor man's flat of possessions - steal £100 worth.
Rob a rich man's mansion of possessions - steal £250,000 worth.

Both completely equal according to Scouse!

I hate agreeing with Wazz. It makes me feel dirty. But he is right. And herein lies the difference, also comparing computer hacking to murder = fail

 

[Scouse]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I'd appreciate it if you didn't write such rubbish.

Looks like you did to me:

It is a bit sad that you can compare this to murder and see that one persons life is worth more jail time then anothers.

Murdered A: Young kids, wife, mum & dad live in the house.
Murdered B: Girlfriend, too young to have kids, lives with mum & dad.
Murdered C: Single, focusing on career, lives alone, lots of friends.

Who gets the more jail time?

To which I said you would add Tramp to that list (at the bottom, presumably), because you said this:

do you think that social status is a solid basis for sentencing?

yes, social status is a good basis for sentencing - a living mother is worth more to society than a living tramp.

That was in the context of your argument that more jail time should be given to people who murder the rich because of a "loss to society".


IMO - social status is NOT a good basis for sentencing. Tramps deserve the same protection as rich people.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yes, the murder comparison analogy is so flawed it's not even worthy of discussion.

But then who needs relevant analogies when trying to push your own agenda?

 

[Scouse]

I'd ignored your original post because I thought the answer was obvious, Waz:

Rob a poor man's flat of possessions - steal £100 worth.
Rob a rich man's mansion of possessions - steal £250,000 worth.

Both completely equal according to Scouse!

No. The outcome of the crime is different.

But the crime - burgalry - is the same for both.

i.e.:

1. Break into another person's home
2. Search for stuff to take
3. Take stuff
4. Leave the other person's home with loot
5. Flog stuff

Is that somehow worse because you landed a motherlode? Are you saying the value of the stuff you have taken suddenly makes the crime more, erm, criminal?

I thought the important thing was the entering someone's home and stealing their stuff.

Even if I was to entertain the idea that you're correct in this instance (you're obviously not) - the rich man is highly likely to be insured. The poor man, less likely. They'll probably both feel unsafe in their houses for a while, though the rich man could probably afford some security. Yadda yadda yadda.

But then who needs to think when you could jump on some weird anti-scouse bandwagon, eh?

 

[Tom]

IMO - social status is NOT a good basis for sentencing. Tramps deserve the same protection as rich people.

They already have the same protection, but like it or not a loving parent is more valuable to society than a tramp, just as a normal single person is more valuable to society than a paedophile. That doesn't mean, as you implied, that I think that anyone who kills a tramp should automatically serve less time. It simply means that any judge with any sense would tend to use their discretion in such matters, and that discretion will obviously take into account the general public feeling.

Somehow, I doubt you'd be quite so willing to stick your head above the parapet to defend Myra Hindley, who, after all, was entitled to be released years before she died.

 

[Tom]

Are you saying the value of the stuff you have taken suddenly makes the crime more, erm, criminal?

What. The. Fuck.

 

[Scouse]

Your argument contradicts itself Tom.

In that case, keeping the tramp murder analogy going, the "general public feeling" could well be that "he's only a tramp" and the judge, in every single tramp murder case, would automatically give a lesser sentence based on the tramp's social status.

Justice is blind, remember? (Allegedly).

As for Myra Hindley. I don't know much about her tbfh - I'm not the sort of person to read up on the grizly shit that humans get up to - it's not going to make me like "us" any more

 

[Scouse]

What. The. Fuck.

Perfectly obvious in the argument. Rather than saying "what the fuck" - present a logical argument why burglary should be judged on the haul, rather than the action.

I presented the crime, as I see it, in easy-to-follow bullet points, shouldn't be hard.