WebTV 911 Hacker... Cyber Terrorist? 452
Mastab286 writes "Federal agents have arrested David Jeansonne, 43, of Louisiana on cyberterrorism charges under the USA PATRIOT Act for a malware attack against eighteen MSN TV (formerly known as WebTV) customers. As part of an online conflict in July 2002, Mr. Jeansonne wrote a script to change the dial-up number of MSN TV equipment to the 911 emergency number. He disguised the script as a tool to change the colors of the user interface, and sent it to his eighteen foes; the next time they tried to log on, they would end up calling the police instead. Several of the customers sent the tool to friends, bringing the total number of victims up to twenty-one. The script also posted the users' browser history to a website and e-mailed hardware serial numbers to a free webmail account. Prosecutors charge that the act meets the definition of cyberterrorism since it endangered public safety."
Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
user to not only run it, but manually propogate it to other people, which is kind of hard when it makes their system unusable after having run it.
Another example of the DOH'S trying to justify their existance.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
If it made the system unusable after running it, then how did it email the hardware serial numbers anywhere?
Obviously, it must've dialled 911 and then connected to the internet anyway.... unless 911 are offering PPP services now!
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:4, Funny)
It doesn't seem to connect, you just get this gurgling tone from your modem, and in the background you can almost hear a little voice going "hello?..." or something.
Dit.. dee.. nEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE... "sir?"
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
If it had waited a while, and, say, jammed a city's 911 call center because several hundred people tried to call in at once, over and over (yes, I know hundreds of people don't use WebTV, but go with the hypothetical here for a minute), would it have been considered more of a danger then?
I think calling anything cyberterrorism makes most people in the tech community take it less seriously - could they have come up with a more asinine label? Makes me think of TRON.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
So a person is a terrorist because they didn't spread the calls out over a couple of days?
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
However, IANAL, etc., this is my opinion, which does not necessarily mean that it reflects the letter of the law.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Informative)
"Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Was his intention to intimidate or coerce societies or governments? Yes or No?
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, there is no petty terrorism charge. This isn't terrorism.
It is not terrorism. At all. Not even a little bit.
It is a guy screwing with several people who chose a stupid, and by all means illegal way of doing it.
But it wasn't terrorism. We're talking the difference between a fine, or a small ammount of jail time, and a ton of jail time.
There is no way in hell this is terrorism. That is obvious.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
This involved no fear, no terror. It placed a few prank 911 calls, but there is no evidence that anyone was physically or emotionally hurt.
It didn't even scare one person. So, just like many laws have a threshold (civil versus criminal traffic tickets, fraud, etc.), this isn't terrorism if you set the threshold to even one person.
I guess you could just set the threshold to zero people, but then we are all terrorists.
"Patriot" Act passed without reading (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Patriot" Act was passed without some Congressmen and women even reading it. It was named that to intimidate members of Congress. Vote against this bill and you will be against patriotism!
The "Patriot" Act was supposed to protect us against people who want to destroy our entire society. Now its being used to harass citizens who do something stupid, and have no political motive. If they get away with this, you will see more and more extensions of government police power. History has shown that, even if they don't get away with it, they will try again.
More and more we are seeing examples of prosecutors who don't want sensible justice, but who just want other people to hurt, because of their own personal mental issues. Last week the Oprah Winfrey show provided another example: An 18-year-old man had sex with a 16-year-old woman at his school. (Big surprise, there.) Later she accused him of rape, and he was found NOT guilty. But he was put into prison for 10 years anyway. The prosecutor said that was entirely justified, and that he had no problems with the punishment.
The U.S. government is rapidly becoming more corrupt. Here are just a few examples:
Killing people and destroying their property:
N.Y. Times editorial [nytimes.com]
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
Lying about scientific facts:
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times [nytimes.com]
The Guardian [guardian.co.uk]
Wired News [wired.com]
Union of Concerned Scientists [ucsusa.org]
The present terrorism against the U.S. people is partly the result of the U.S. government's secret violence:
About a year ago, I hastily put together a short, incomplete history that shows what has happened: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.net].
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in no way condoning what the cracker did, but his actions don't amount to jack squat compared to those of the prosecutor.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, if I blow up a mailbox, how do you know that it's not a test run for a large-scale plan to blow up half the buildings in town? You don't, and the law doesn't either. And unless I leave some compelling evidence lying around that is my intent, the law will prosecute me for whatever is appropriate, but I would be no more a terrorist than this guy is.
In this society, people are innocent until proven guilty. What he did was not an act of terrorism, plain and simple. If they can show an appropriate amount of evidence he _was_ planning a terrorist attack, and convince a jury, then he would be a terrorist.
Regardless, this is still not an act of terrorism. What it's a precursor to is a completly seperate issue, and up to the courts to decide.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know you think that. I was kinda looking for the logic or evidence behind your certainty. Your mailbox analogy was not quite what I was looking for. But I (and the federal government) would treat an exploding mailbox as a possible terrorist activity. See, it's terrifying to check one's mail when such things occur. Mail is part of our infrastructure. Blowing up a mailbox, regardless of your intent, constitutes a use of fear to impede infrastructure use or operation (or both, in the exploding mailbox case, since not only would I be hesistant to check my mail, I'd assume letter carriers would be hesitant to deliver them).
If they can show an appropriate amount of evidence he _was_ planning a terrorist attack, and convince a jury, then he would be a terrorist.
OK, here we agree. If there is some evidence that he was planning a large-scale 911 DDoS attack, then he's a terrorist. Check. We don't know what evidence exists. That was my point.
Regardless, this is still not an act of terrorism.
But wait a second, we just agreed that there he could be a terrorist if there's evidence to that effect. A small test-run of a terrorism attack perpetrated by a terrorist isn't terrorism? It's at least attempted terrorism. And it's relevant, and should be pursued -- I don't see how it's a problem to charge someone under terrorism statutes while investigating something like this. It could be, and should be up to the court to decide if it is or not. I wouldn't grudge a cop for charging as such.
What it's a precursor to is a completly seperate issue, and up to the courts to decide.
Again we agree. That's just what I said. We don't know, the courts will decide, charges != conviction. See, isn't that easy? All you have to do is not make outrageous unprovable claims with the confidence of the omniscient.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you read the story? He had a spat with the people he sent the script to.
I don't see how it's a problem to charge someone under terrorism statutes while investigating something like this.
You do not charge someone with something unless you already have evidence and reason to believe that is the crime they committed or intended to commit.
If I get in a span and cut down my neighbor's tree, you crage me with valdalism or destruction or property or something. You do NOT charge me with attempted murder simply because it might have been a "small test-run" of killing someone by dropping a tree on them. You only charge me with attempted murder if you already have evidence that was my intent.
But this argument misses the actual point. The outrage here isn't that he is being charged with an absurd crime he didn't commit. The outrage is that he is it being charged with a crime he most likely DID commit. Under the law he most likely DID violate the PATRIOT act and most likely is guilty of "terrororism" as the law defines it.
The outrage is that the law is fuxored. It's like a law defining "murder" as causing the death or a person or a part of a person. Under that law someone could be charged and convicted of murder for simply scratching someone and causing the death of a couple of skin cells. Accidentally scratching someone and causing the death of a few skin cells would be manslaughter. Scratching a police officer would open you to death sentence.
The PATRIOT act is a horrendous law passed in a fit of lunacy.
-
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Interesting)
The attack was against individuals, the government is only involved as a means to that end. This is a case of government using over-broad legislation to hack together charges against someone where older statute would do (but maybe not set as big of an example). This is a great illustration of the danger in bad law, bad administrators of the law, and the erosion of freedoms in the name of national security... except there is no national security issue here, only the erosion of freedoms.
Canadians have lived with this fear for some time thanks to the War Measures Act [marianopolis.edu], especially after Pierre Idiot Trudeau's invocation in the 1970s in response to Quebec separatist terrorism:
At least we only had that one very scary incident... the US has an administration that seems intent on turning everything since 9/11 into a scary era. Good luck guys, the whole world is going to need it if Bush, Ashcroft, and others have their way.Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:4, Informative)
According to the story, he was targetting specific individuals; he wasn't trying to release it indiscriminately.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. This was a horrible thing to do. Could
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, I know! 19 false reports is a *pattern* of banned activity, so we could get him with RICO. No, wait....
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I agree it was nasty, and a pain to the 911 operators as well as being perhaps an act of terrorism, but it should be applied to anything that can scale up to meet terrorism.
Your hypothetical premise is to suppose the script was more threatening, and then ask if it would be considered more threatening then. Well, yes it would.
Seems to me the major terrorism has been renamed to terror anyway, so the word terrorism can be applied blandly to anything subversive, with more than one victim, that a government wishes to attach more stigma to.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
how many people have to be involved to make it terrorism?
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Nope, no force or violence, no real intimidation (annoyance perhaps), no attempt to coerce. Seems fairly straightforward. Since not even one person was intimidated, coerced, or threatened, it doesn't matter how many it takes - it still wasn't reached.
Also, if we make the definition of terrorism apply to one person, we make pretty much all major crimes (murder, extortion, rape, etc.) into terrorism. This is not the way it should work. Sometimes there is no logical place to draw the line, and it's up to the law (or the judges) to find a reasonable one.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:3, Interesting)
It's even possible to "terrorise" one person, but it would be weird imo to call that "terrorism". i mean even threatening one person would then be considered to be terrorism. I guess in the US loads of things have gotten the terrorism tag.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Funny)
They were using WebTV.....
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess what matters are the author's intention. I don't know much about 911, but I believe they would investigate a series of call with the same origin and that would amount to wasted police time. I think that's what they do when somebody calls and nobody talks (it might be someone having a heart attack or otherwise unable to speak).
but this relied entirely upon the studity of the
user to not only run it, but manually propogate it to other people, which is kind of hard when it makes their system unusable after having run it
According to the blurb (didn't RTFA) some people did re-distribute it (I guess before they used it).
I suppose they'll want to make an example out of him, and quite frankly, I can't feel sorry for him. He is 43 years old, so this would hardly be a "harmless child's prank". He did endager public safety (911 has a finite number of lines/operators) and while he probably didn't have terrorist intentions, he should have known better.
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Waste of tax dollars (Score:5, Informative)
The law this putz was charged with violating makes it illegal to: (1) intentionally damage (which he obviously did); (2) a "protected computer" (which the 911 system obviously was); (3) causing a threat to public health or safety (which multiple fraudulent calls to 911 obviously does). Look up 18 U.S.C. 1030 - it's online and it defines all this.
The statute never actually uses the word(s) "cyber-terrorism" anywhere. That is a stupid label attached by Congress (and subsequently the media) but it is not in the law and it's not really the point. What IS in the law (the USA Patriot Act) is an amendment to 18 USC 2332b, which defines "federal crime of terrorism." Among the things that the law treats as a federal crime of terrorism (which some here have tried to explain) are any offenses that violate, among other federal statutes, 18 USC 1030.
Being a "federal crime of terrorism" has two effects: (1) it places the investigation squarely in the jurisdiction of the federal government (primarily FBI, but in this case also Secret Service); and (2) it means the guy is eligble for a harsher sentence.
The argument about whether this is "terrorism" or not is purely semantic. The law says it is - so it is. Whether it's properly labeled "cyber-terrorism" is meaningless. That this idiot let his personal vendetta put innocent third parties at risk is the heart of the issue. Instead of debating labels, consider how utterly stupid and dangerous this stunt actually was and just how hard this yahoo ought to be slapped.
Terrorism?! (Score:5, Insightful)
What's going to be next next, kids who make prank calls ending up on death row for "terrorism"?
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorism is a lot of things, including running a Denial of Service attack on the emergency help number.
This wasn't a Denial of Service attack. Nor was it a terrorist act, but it is close to be construed as a possible terrorist act.
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't need broad new powers to fight one guy who does a random criminal act just to show he's smart/cool. He didn't plan it for years and years, didn't get overseas funding and moral support, and didn't try to choose a crime that would scare the crap out of the most people.
Bush/Ashcroft's "trust us, we won't misuse it" line was always BS, it's just easier to convince the rest of the population now.
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Initially, I was of the same opinion. But then I thought what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this? Would we still be so quick to deny it as being terrorism? Terrorism can occur by Americans too (i.e. the Unabomber).
OK, so what you are saying. Maybe you are thinking that regardless of who committed the crime, the incident was still too small to qualify as terrorism. But what if it had been 100 users? 10,000 users? 1 million users? 100 million users> (Though God help us if 100 million people are stupid enough to open and run an email attachment like that!) Where do you draw the line?
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:5, Insightful)
MP
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:3, Interesting)
When you say: "what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this?" Then you're just saying that "they HAD political/religious motivation", hence: Terrorism
The parent wasn't refering to "only bombing or mass killing", i think it was only a weak example. The important part there was the "political or religious cause".
See? So, if al-Qaeda jammed 911 lines, it WOULD be terrorism. If a 9years old jammed 911 lines, it would be a unf
Re:Terrorism?! (Reign by threat of body-slams) (Score:3, Informative)
There is a difference between body-slamming some one once, and body-slamming someone a million times. (I've body-slammed well over 100 people in my career, but that's all legit.)
You're talking about a hyopthetical, alternate crime. In *this* instance, 21 people we involved/victimised. So: is *this guy* a terrorist?
webster:
Terrorist Ter"ror*ist, n. F. terroriste.
One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically,
an ag
In case you were unclear on the subject (Score:5, Informative)
D.H.S. - The Series. [eonline.com] ... a multimillion-dollar episodic series, will explore the inner workings of the Department of Homeland Security, teaming the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and National Security Administration (NSA) together with first responders such as local police, fire and safety administrators.
The series is being pitched to prospective networks [eonline.com] and has the full support of President Bush and Tom Ridge. They love it. They think it is fantastic, say the series' producers at Steeple Productions. Not familiar with Steeple Productions [steeple.tv]? Well, perhaps you might find their four-episode Creation Vs Evolution [steeple.tv] series enlightening.
Re:In case you were unclear on the subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only do I find it enightnening that these are the guys hired to sell DHS and the Patriot act to us, I find it downright scary.
Re:Terrorism?! (Score:4, Insightful)
It can be employed against societies or individuals. The big problem I have with it is that it is yet another "thought crime". Its changing the punishment of the crime dependant on the intentions of the criminal. Beat up a guy when you're drunk, it assult and battery. Beat up a guy of another race/sexual preference/shoe size when you're drunk, and its a "Hate Crime". Now sometimes this is good; run a red light and kill someone, its Manslaughter; wait to run the red light until you wife is there, its pre-meditated murder.
DOS against 911???? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DOS against 911???? (Score:4, Funny)
Ob. Family Guy Quotation (Score:4, Funny)
"Hello, Johnathan?"
"Nope. What number are you trying to dial?"
"Seven."
"Ah, well this is three."
terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Re:terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that makes pretty much everyone in the current administration a terrorist.
Re:terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
"force or violence" - sort of like forced entry into their tv system and forcing the system do something they weren't suppose to do... I'll buy it.
"against people or property" - seems to meet
"intention of intimidating or coercing" - I think this is where the application fails.
The guy wasn't trying to intimidate or coerce someone into doing something - he just wanted to be an a**hole. The ramifications on the 911 system effect public safety, no doubt, but that doesn't make it terrorism. That word means next to nothing anymore, other than something happened/is happening that you don't like. For example, did you know that the NEA, a union of teachers was called a terrorist group by Rod Paige, the Education Security for President Bush?
Can we use words that describe the situation instead of words that invoke powerful yet completely unrelated images?
Matt Fahrenbacher
A small handfull of calls to 911... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy never intended to disrupt 911 services, he intended his 18 victims to have problems...
While not nice it still isn't anywere near terrorism.
Jeroen
Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but I'm pretty sure his intention was to get them in trouble, as opposed to hurt the 911 system.
If you call 911 and hang up, the cops show up. This is obviously a very good way to interactively screw with someone.
Like when you take resources away from Dominios ordering people pizzas they didn't request.
Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A small handfull of calls to 911... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah he's a moron, but not a terrorist.
Jeroen
A bit excessive, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 911 system is not a toy; lives are at stake.
On the other hand, calling it a terrorist act for maybe 21 calls is way overboard.
Re:A bit excessive, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is 911, not a toy and most cities 911 lines are understaffed (making every wasted phone call a potential significant distraction).
But the worse part is what does a dial up program do when it fails to connect... Redial.
It's not use twenty-one people. Its twenty one computers, all making multiple attempts...
and it's not like the 911 operator can leave the phone off the hook. Every call has to get answered and recorded.
Is it terrorism? No.
Is this guy an ass who deserves sever punishment for abuseing 911? most certianly.
Don't forget that prob the only reason he chose 911, was most likely to send the police to these enemies houses... further expanding the danger waste.
I still don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
A crime - sure, felony - if you like, even wicked. It has got absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Why are your authotities mixing up that with your illegal invasions and war on "terror"?
Re:I still don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad thing is, the bigest boogyman is our own damn selves.
Re:I still don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Willkommen zur Buschwelt von Terrorismus (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like they'll have to add 'WebTV' to the next Computer Attack and Cyber Terrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress [politrix.org] revision.
When will some of you guys learn it's not about the act, nor the group, nor the victim, nor the attacker. It's about the ability to control perception [politrix.org]. The spookier the 'villain' the more money gets funneled to 'groups' like the Department of Homeland Insignificance. It's how they justify their budgets at the end of the year. "By golly Mabel them be terrorists, maybe we should pay more taxes to them mighty fine boys at the DOJ they be tough on terrorists" Nothing less, nothing more. It's about stats. Sure the guy was moronic, and now he will pay for being an idiot, and the sinful part is many - if he goes to a jury - will be blinded by pseudo sympathy spin on terror. To quote that old annoying song "It's all about the Benjamins baby"
What a Dick (Score:5, Insightful)
The act also meets my definition of "this guy is a total dick".
-kgj
Re:What a Dick (Score:5, Insightful)
By that definition, most Americans are terrorists. If you have broken the speed limit you have obviously endangered public safety therefore you are a terrorist.
Re:What a Dick (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not it was 27 calls or 2000, messing with 911 service is something we should (and obviously do) punish severely. Speeding, a few MPH over the limit, is more of a revenue generator for local municipalities than it is a serious public danger.
Re:What a Dick (Score:3, Insightful)
and for very good reason. As I posted somewhere else around here, this guy is guilty of sheer stupidity for using that number.
Going faster than the posted limit when conditions allow (no cars on the road, good conditions, good car) seems far less dangerous to me than DDoS'ing the local emergency 911 response center.
I agree, but try telling that to a cop or a judge. Regardless, speed limits are laws made to protect the p
Re:What a Dick (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that some alcohol-related traffic crashes involve more than one person, but only one drunk driver, right? You should have your statistics priviledges revoked for extracting "30% of adults are drunk drivers" from "Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives."
Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that while definitely guilty of something, I am not sure that terrorism is the crime.
And you don't have to be. Neither am I. The courts will decide. What bothers me are the posts in this thread proclaiming with 100% certainty that this is not terrorism. They don't know all the facts, yet they're knee-jerk response is anti-anti-terrorism, for some reason.
I hate defending this crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I'm not saying he should go to jail, however it's a sad look at the United States when anything that you could mildly construe as something that a terrorist might do, becomes a terrorist act.
well they have to do something.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well they have to do something.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though the above pargraph was most of what was preached after 9/11, and we all said, in a somewhat collective voice, "We won't let it happen," it still did, and it's still happening.
This is more than the music industry saying we copy their cds, this is more than sco saying they are going to file another law suit, this is more than the microsoft monopoly. This is what you can and can't do, and it is justified that the government gets more attention now, but not the kind it wants.
</offtopic>
"The terrorists won" (Score:5, Insightful)
The very existence of the Patriot Act, the hysteria that resulted from the anthrax scare, the massive delays going on with some flights, the incredibly annoying security checks, the fact that quite simply the life of the average American seems to have changed greatly...
You folks down there may not realize it, but what we see up here is that the US has changed, changed dramatically, changed permanently, and changed for the worse. The fact that the word "terrorism" even came up with this guy hacking WebTV is pretty much proof of that.
Yup, you (and we, in the larger global community) let the terrorists win. Now it's up to us to try to reverse some of the damage before it's too late. And I have no idea how to do that, sadly. The best I can come up with is "stop being so damn scared of your own shadow". I think we'll be dealing with these issues for decades to come.
"giving" vs "taking" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes... though we're not "giving up" these freedoms, they're being taken from us. By Bush, Ashcroft, and the congress. If Bush gets re-elected, THEN the phrase "giving up" will truly apply.
There are some things you don't mess with (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are some things you don't mess with (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not in question. (Score:5, Informative)
He committed an attack against 911, took over peoples pc's, released a trojan, waster police time. Plenty for a judge to send him to jail. This guy sounds more like an idiot then a hardened criminal and for idiots even a week jailtime is enough.
Terrorism sounds a bit over the top. Yes the attack was potentially serious but during a recent "flood" (few centimeters of water) you had idiots on tv claiming that 112 (our 911) was unable to respond when they called to have their cellar drained. Hello? Flooded cellar ain't an emergency and all these idiots DID overload 112 and stopped real calls from getting through. Are they all terrorists? No. Deserving a night in jail with a guy called bubba sure. But not terrorists.
Re:There are some things you don't mess with (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There are some things you don't mess with (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism is the flavour-of-the-month bogie (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe there's not a more-appropriate crime to charge the guy with. Is there some sort of requirement to charge him with the most-serious charge you can, in the USA ? Perhaps that would explain it ?
Simon.
Re:Terrorism is the flavour-of-the-month bogie (Score:3, Interesting)
Television news reporters call 911 to get interviews and information. They tie up this operator for sometimes 5-10 minutes asking questions. In that same span the operator could probably have taken 3-5 legitimate calls.
If a news media reporter calls 911 as a source for a report or interview,
Very clearly "cyber-terrorism" for lack of... (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically speaking, it's about as 'cyber' a crime as splashing a hospital with gasoline and lighting it on fire is a 'chemical' crime, but it's still a deliberate act which put other people in harm's way.
His penalty? Well, it has to be severe enough that folks learn this is completely unacceptable behaviour and far from a simple prank. Jail for 10 years should do the trick.
If my own 911 call was blocked because of this goof, I know I sure wouldn't find it harmless. This was potentially life-threatening and served no purpose other than to be maliciously harmful.
Time to stop treating 'cyber kiddies' as something special just 'cuz they didn't think through the consequences of their actions.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Patriot Act really does violate Constitution... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that the punishment does not fit the crime here. Yes, I know he hasn't been convicted yet, but if he is, how do think that will affect his life? That will go on every resume and permanent record or whatever for the rest of his life. Would you be willing to hire a convicted Cyber Terrorist? I think it's safe to say his life might be ruined. Sure he should be punished, but not of Cyberterrorism.
Does anyone else think this is cruel/unusal punishment? You know, that 8th ammendment thing?(IF he is convicted of course! But appears he likely will be!)
Who is Really at fault here? Maybe Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
--CTH
Unbelieveable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you just hunting for the (+1, anti-Microsoft) mod points?
Re:Unbelieveable? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the previous poster's examples of a Linux box or a Mac OS X, neither of these system are embe
What if this was a real attack? (Score:5, Interesting)
If some sort of worm was on the internet changing peoples dialup numbers to 911, would we then claim it was an act of terrorism? How large does an attack have to be before it's labeled as terrorism?
Keep in mind I am NOT saying what he did was terrorism, I am just asking, if this affected 21,000 computers instead of 21 would we still feel it wasn't terrorism?
Re:What if this was a real attack? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any number of modified systems should not be labled terrorism. Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified. I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.
This does however bring up a very good point... I've always hated that these "cunsumer devices" like WebTV and my satellite reciever don't display the phone number they are dialing on the screen.
Issues like this would be eliminated if the system displayed "dialing 867-5309" then waited 5 seconds before doin g so, with a "press any key to not dial" message.
Re:What if this was a real attack? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? I can think of few things more terrifying than someone "messing with the public infrastructure"! Tainted water supply. No 911 response. No dial-tone or even cell-signal to even try to dial 911. No electricity.
These of the sorts of things that can cause mass confusion, panic, and death. Sounds pretty terrifying to me.
Re:What if this was a real attack? (Score:3, Insightful)
In a mugging-gone-terribly-bad, you've been shot and you have two broken legs. The perpetrators think you're dead, but you're really just lying immobile in the next room, near a phone. The perpetrators are in the process of raping and torturing your wife; your mother is next. You quietly lift the phone receiver and dial 911 as silently as possible. Busy signal.
Terrified yet
Re:What if this was a real attack? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's sort of like saying, if it's not terrorism to blow up a small firecracker in a men's room, then it shouldn't be terrorism to blow up a large load of TNT.
This is one of the things that truly scares me about our country at the moment. We have an Attorney General who has directed state prosecutors to always seek the maximum sentence possible, and to never plea-bargain unless it's a case where the person is rolling over to indict someone bigger than him. The Justice department is trying to make laws into absolute things - no sense of jurisprudence, no making the punishment fit the crime. Just, these are the laws, and THEIR rule is absolute, with no possibility of human compassion or understanding entering into the system. Don't bother trying to rehabilitate or teach a social lesson, just lock up anyone who transgresses.
In the long run, an attitude like that will always lead to absolutism, and therefore, authoritarianism. This progression has been followed in pretty much every applicable case in history. It's just started leaning that way in America, and it's far from the point of no return. But it's still something we have to watch, and have to fight against, lest the problem grow.
just over the line enforcementwise (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, he should be prosecuted for what he did
however, there are plenty of existing laws on the books that can punish him for screwing with 911 - use them.
this is too-bad-cop - a bit like the teacher in whale rider who tells the boys their dicks will fall off if they don't obey him - just deal with the situation and let the laws work.
but a few years down the line, the hs dept is going to have to show some deliverables - and one of them will be how many people were prosecuted under terrorism laws, and this sort of thing helps raise the count.
in that regard patriot could end up being the rustproof undercoating of the law enforcement world - make sure you try and tag it on top anything you can...
Even if this managed to spread to EVERY WebTV user (Score:3, Funny)
Sort of kinda terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
3:21am
911 operater: Hello
caller: Dead air
In this situation what do they do? They dispatch.
So with this great new wonderful bill they get to tack on more to something that already had a stiff penalty.
What possesed this guy to do this anyway? Come on "I'll hack it to call 911". That's just asking for them to hunt you down.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Overboard a bit? Not EVERYTHING is terrorism. Shit, this post is terrorism. Shit, that last statement was terrorism. I better hide.
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I have seen others say the script relied on the stupidity of the person's foes. The guy had no motive to do anything after the fact, so how did it endanger public safety? Shouldn't the police be able to handle a few false calls to their emergency system? You think that prank calls to 911, as sad as they are, would be built into the equation of deciding how many people they need on shift in order to cover their district.
I guess this is just another overreaction by our lovely government.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not funny. And yes, it would have been different if the script dialed a non-emergency number. He's being charged with endangering lives because having a punch of people rediling 911 with their modems could do just that. He's not charged with murder because obviously his activities didn't lead to some frantic call for help being ignored. 911 is serious business and the authorities are right about beeing serious about prosecuting it severely.
Also, I have seen others say the script relied on the stupidity of the person's foes. The guy had no motive to do anything after the fact, so how did it endanger public safety? Shouldn't the police be able to handle a few false calls to their emergency system? You think that prank calls to 911, as sad as they are, would be built into the equation of deciding how many people they need on shift in order to cover their district.
And this is probably the case. However, I am willing to bet that 911 has followup policies, ie, when someone calls them and doesn't speak (like a modem that doesn't hear another modem) they probably have to call back to investigate, log it in some special way, or whatever. Maybe there's even some script that says "if you get calls from a certain number a few times but the person is not speaking, assume they are having a hear attack and send an ambulance" or something like that. The bottom line is that messing with 911 is stupid and dangerous.
I guess this is just another overreaction by our lovely government.
What would you like them to do? Give this guy candy and pat him on the back saying "we know you're a good guy. we really don't mind a few hundred random phonecalls. those guys are dicks anyway"
?
18 Foes? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, I don't know anyone who has WebTV and this guy knows 18, all of whom happen to be foes!
Oh yeah, and if you're dialing 911 for your internet access, how is the evil program supposed to post your browser logs to a website?
Terrorism? Wtf? (Score:4, Interesting)
Terrorism is disruption of public services? So if bus drivers in a city strike, they're terrorists. If someone plays a prank on a local pool causing them to close, they are a terrorist.
This is one of the many words that take on new meanings every week. Someone define this thing before it goes even more out of control. While the person did interrupt emergency services, what was their intent? Or is every public nuisance now a terrorist act?
prank calls (Score:4, Interesting)
yea .. and I have one for you (Score:3, Funny)
Terrorism?! (Score:4, Insightful)
From a Science article:
According to the U.S. Department of State report Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001 (1), no single definition of terrorism is universally accepted; however, for purposes of statistical analysis and policy-making: "The term `terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Of course, one side's "terrorists" may well be another side's "freedom fighters" (Fig. 1). For example, in this definition's sense, the Nazi occupiers of France rightly denounced the "subnational" and "clandestine" French Resistance fighters as terrorists. During the 1980s, the International Court of Justice used the U.S. Administration's own definition of terrorism to call for an end to U.S. support for "terrorism" on the part of Nicaraguan Contras opposing peace talks.
For the U.S. Congress, "`act of terrorism' means an activity that--(A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (2). When suitable, the definition can be broadened to include states hostile to U.S. policy.
Guilty as charged (Score:3, Funny)
Missing the point. (Score:4, Informative)
If you look at the US Code [cornell.edu] as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, you'll see exactly what he's being charged with:
And it seems to me the punishment prescribed in section (c) for the crime above is reasonable and fitting:
In other words, the guy broke a bunch of computers in such a way that he endangered the public safety. If convicted, he gets a fine or up to a year in prison (or both). I fail to see what the problem with this is.