Death Penalty For Hackers? 1096
EMIce writes "The New York Times Op-Ed page has a piece entitled Worse Than Death (Obnoxious but free registration required) that calls for harsher 'hacker' penalties as a deterrent, quoting one academic as recommending even well, the death penalty - as a deterrent for the likes of Sasser author Sven Jaschan. Let's face it, businesses are becoming more dependent on their computers but they continue to be a point of failure, and subsequently, frustration through lost profits. Perpetrated breakdowns are now pushing that aggravation towards an edge. The author suggests commuting the idea of a death sentence into a lifetime of servitude doing viral cleanup. What role should enforcement play in such cases and is this too harsh, even considering the billions in damage that is sometimes caused?"
Look, out, John... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just who is this John Tierney [nytimes.com], anyway? Judging from his whining about 'man-years I've spent running virus scans and reformatting hard drives', he doesn't sound like any computer profesional I know...perhaps if he was a bit more in the know, he'd know that although Microsoft had released a patch for this loophole on 13 and 28 April 2004, many companies had not applied this protection before Sasser struck. [bbc.co.uk] Perhaps some of Mr. Tierney's considerable ire should be redirected towards the hordes of lazy sysadmins who had a solution for the Sasser worm, but chose complacency over vigilance.
Easy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, there can be no crime for which the death of an individual can be justified.
Otherwise pure hypocrisy rules.
Companies Should Look Inside First (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, kill hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
priorites people
"viagra was powerless against my impotence" (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that we reach that point far in advance of advocating the death penalty for electronic trespassers. Even a fan of stiff penalties should pause and reflect before going there based upon a dispassionate cost/benefit analysis.
The worse-than-death ideas in the article are amusing, though.
Won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the fact that the idea is horribly wrong from an ethical viewpoint, it also simply won't work. The efficacy of a punishment is more related to the chance of being caught than to the severity of the punishment.
Despite the risk of huge fines, almost everyone downloads movies at a regular basis, because the chances of being caught are near zero.
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Hackers can (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like how some people think that just because someone is obnoxious or causes minor damage (and let's face it, virus infestations are fairly minor compared to the gamut of actual crimes that people are let off the hook with much less punishment) that they should be put away for ever or even put to death. I think it reeks of a completely blown sense of proportion. Unfortunately, the voters who think this way are more prone to vote than people who are more sanely-minded.
Should the punishment for releasing a virus be tough? I don't think so. I think that it is a pretty benign "crime". It is crucial that we keep a sense of proportion when discussing the sentencing stage of justice.
So this is what it's come to... (Score:2, Insightful)
At the same time, the **AA is running protection rackets and giving MS a reason to control the hardware you paid for. Not just in the US, but the rest of the world too. Both companies supported by a warmongering government that never should've been reelected.
Call me crazy, but I think a public rebellion is in order here.
Could someone please cite a published study? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, it's just something that sounds really good. You know, "Criminals will be very scared of being killed for their actions, because normal people are very scared of being killed." From the little I know about the workings of the human mind, most sociopaths don't react to things the same way the rest of us do, and people who cause massive damage on an any scale - economic, physical, emotional - are sociopaths.
Anyway, I'd just appreciate some good evidence for the "deterrant" hypothesis. Then I'll start to believe it might be a good idea.
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not wanting to install a patch to a production server is not necessarily complacency. In point of fact, in some cases, it *is* vigilance, assuming you've ever installed a patch and seen software mysteriously and suddeny cease functioning...it happens on Windows servers from time to time, if you didn't know.
To be fair, most of the companies that didn't install the patch for a reason like that probably made sure the systems were protected in other ways. Just couldn't let the "no install patch" = "lazy complacent sysadmin" generalization go unqualified.
The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
At about age 16, we had a school debate on the subject. I was on the 'pro' death penalty side, but that debate sowed the inital small niggles of doubt.
By the time I was 18, I realised the death penalty was completely barbaric. If just one innocent person is executed, that's tantamount to state sponsored murder. That's not to mention that capital punishment doesn't seem to deter crime anyway - Texas is executing more people than ever.
One of the interesting things - if you have a debate with most pro-capital punishment people, they go awfully quiet when you ask them what would they do if they were falsely convicted of a capital crime. How would they feel as they were about to be gassed for a crime they didn't commit?
I'm glad the EU outlaws capital punishment - it's a concept that should have disappeared in the 19th century. As Ghandi said - an eye for an eye and soon the whole world would be blind.
Instead... (Score:5, Insightful)
It just seems obvious to me. Am I missing something here?
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this is too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
Do rapists, killers, pedophiles and other kinds of criminals get death penalties or lifetime jail ? Not in my country. Not in any country of the EU. Even in the USA, only killers get death sentences, and other kinds of crimes don't get you such harsh sentences (but correct me if I'm wrong here).
Immaterial "crimes" like cracking into a computer system are only crimes because we decide so. We decide so because it is a way of ensuring the stability of our economic system. That's fine, but if we begin to compare that in severity to physical crimes, where people get injured, where violence happens, that means that we have forgotten everything. If we jail more severely (lifetime) a computer cracker than a rapist (usually 2 years jail), then we are totally decadent.
Bad math. (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people also estimate that an execution deters zero murders -- after all, the vast majority are committed in the heat of the moment.
If zero murders are prevented by execution, then each execution really costs us millions of dollars in fees for a constitutionally-entitled defense and appeal.
So the comparison at the heart of this blather is potentially bogus, as are many monetary estimates of impact of things like piracy (and to a lesser degree, malicious hackers).
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here here!! This is more corporate interestes above the common peoples.
Suggesting that hacking can incur a death penalty because of the BILLIONS involved is VILE!
We so far have kept our government from killing citizens over money, is this what we want now? I thought life was precious and beyond monetary value?
So, we change laws so hackers get death for their billions in losses, but CEO's and other's at the "helm" or in places of power get carte blanche to do whatever they like in the "course of business", lining their own pockets, making billion dollar mistakes, or outright stealing?
I guess America's much vaunted christian morality goes out the window when it comes to money.
A message to John Tierney: Your suggesting that constant virus checking and a vague "cost benifit analysis" is enough to incur the dealth penalty makes you a soulles moron. Shame on the grey lady for even publishing your crap.
You are under arrest for crimes against profit. (Score:2, Insightful)
I recall reading somewhere that lawyers originated in ancient Rome because plebians were not entitled to any form of justice, so they had to hire a member of the nobility (ie someone with money) if they were so ungrateful as to demand redress against some other noblemann that raped and pillaged everything they held dear.
Fortunately though this guy is a nutjob with no influence of policy, of which there is no short supply either in the modern or ancient world. Too many people seem to get a stainless steel boner thinking of a world like this for it to bode well for any of us though.
Re:Eeek! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one problem with overly harsh sentences... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:1, Insightful)
(although I've never had to reformat my linux partitions)
Feelings are irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps "how you feel" should not be a factor in the severity of the sentencing.
Justice should be served cold, not hot. Too often logic and reason gives way to emotions and the public's desire for a lynching. That is a travesty.
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:1, Insightful)
Wealth is still propagated largely through inheritance and social connections, and if you don't believe the historical racial distribution of wealth has any continuing effect, you probably have your head in the sand.
Just like rape victims... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, when a girl is wearing a short skirt, and she's walking at night alone? She's just as guilty of rape as the guy who rapes her, for not defending herself adequately.
</SARCASM>
That sort of thinking is nonsense.
Not that I agree with this article either. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who uses a "cost-benefit analysis" to determine who should live and who should die. (Why not just kill all the old people?)
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:5, Insightful)
This "journalist" did just that.
The article is pure flamebait. I don't even start telling about the collective responsibility of software makers and the lazy sysadmins. The sasser worm was like a polite burglar: if it found the front door open, it went in. If it found it closed, it went away. Well, newsflash dear analysts: until you start paying attention to security there always will be a guy who writes a crappy virus (95% of them is _crude_) which wreaks havoc only because users and vendors like Microsoft of ignoring security.
Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Why amusing? Because "normal" people don't seem to turn their anger on some of the root causes. I mean, admit it, the prevalence of worms is really a symptom, not a cause. Anyone who isn't "new here" knows where I'm going with this, but I'll say it anyway: turn an eye towards Redmond for the real culprit.
For folks that a tire of having to run anti-virus, anti-spyware and constantly download and install "service packs" that break programs that they've already paid for, this one is for you. May we all learn to take security seriously in the *design* of the software, rather than tacking it on as an afterthought. Treating security like it is a trivial toy just so you can tack another bullet on the box is the real crime.
I'm serious when I say that I look forward to the "next generation" of operating systems that will hopefully take security FAR more seriously than this generation did. I'm not talking about Longhorn, I'm talking about the operating systems my children will be using (children I don't have yet). Will worms and viruses still exist? Sure. They always will. But at least we'll have some doors with locks, and perhaps a security system by then; right now, most of us live in a tent that we bought that advertised "Sturdy, intruder repellent vinyl!".
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Death? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't go so far as to say the US is evil. It's just the greedy bastards that run the US that are evil. The American citizens are (mostly) not.
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:5, Insightful)
Negotiator: What are your demands?
K: We want a million dollar.
N: A million?
K: Yes.
N: Oh well, that's more than the value of a human life.
(hangs up and orders troops to blow up building)
N: (talking to collegue) And to think it was that very journalist who proposed the price, isn't it ironic?
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:3, Insightful)
Punishments should be harsher than they are currently, but death or a life sentence is way out of line for the crime. Once they start putting child molesters to death then maybe someone can start to think about it for computer crimes.
Death Penalty for CEO's First (Score:5, Insightful)
If the corporate and governmental leaders want rule of law-they had better start by holding themselves accountable. Is is the corporate and governmental leaders that have created this state where the law is not taken seriously because they have exempted themselves from it.
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, it is conceivable that people may die as a result of a virus in hospitals, for example.
To me, a virus release could range from a misdemeanor vandalism charge to possibly as high as manslaughter in the extreme case. The crime is serious, but you are right, some people do tend ot lose perspective. Perhaps a turn in the total perspective vortex would do some good.
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could someone please cite a published study? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Companies Should Look Inside First (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? In what way does leaving your front door unlocked cause someone to walk off the street and attempt to enter your home without an invitation?
The person who breaks in is still ultimately responsible, but you have to take some basic responsibility.
Well, which is it? The person who is "ultimately" responsible, as you put it, is THE person who is responsible. Ultimate, as in finally and completely. So, if you lock your door, but do it with an inexpensive lock, and the typical burgler just pushes through it... is that any different? The point is, the bad guy has to decide to take an action. If he doesn't decide to, then he doesn't wind up in your house. Period. And it's exactly the same with crackers and other malware.
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that he's just framing a thought experiment for his readers to illustrate how much damage a clever black hat can actually inflict - damage well in excess of what economists calculate to be the approximate worth of the average (I may be using that term loosely, I am not familiar with the study he cites) human being, not really advocating actual execution for hackers. Also, before anyone gets on their high horse about it being impossible to put a price tag on a human life, I suggest doing a little research on how the price tags for environmental laws, automobile safety standards, and insurance policies are calculated.
Anyway, I also thought the suggestion at the end that good old Sven have to sit on Windows 95 2400 baud dial-up tech supporting AOL newbies all day at least +1 Funny.
The problem: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Ford, for example, made a car that due to a glitch caused it to run poorly and eat gas, there would be a lawsuit against them in no time flat. If they did it consistently, people would stop buying from them.
That doesn't happen in the software industry. People write crap software that costs "profitability" when it goes haywire ( which happens often ), and the decision makers just shake their heads and mutter something about being the nature of the game.
Virus-jerks aren't the problem, they are a symptom.
Re:Could someone please cite a published study? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, actually. People who commit violent crimes are usually either desperate or are personality types (like many juveniles and other dissociative types) that do not consider that they might be caught in their actions. Increasingly harsh penalties does little to deter the latter and often motivates the former category towards more violence. Why not risk a shoot out with the police if you're going to die if you go peacefully? Why not shoot the witnesses?
Practically there are two problems. First, most people don't understand the above and law-makers who support concepts the public does not understand are easy targets. Second, the issue is very emotionally charged and victims and people who empathize with victims are more interested in vengeance than doing what is best for society. Harsh punishments for other, especially nonviolent crimes (like illegal intoxicant laws), cause similar escalations of crime into violent crime. Personally, I don't believe in capital punishment. This is not because I have any problem with killing or any religious qualms. I simply have little faith in the accuracy of our legal system (which seems to be justified considering the number of people on death row who are later proven innocent). Our criminal justice system is not perfect, police are not perfect people, and legal representation is often very, very poor for those without a lot of money. I don't trust it nor do I see how anyone else can trust it especially with something as important as life and death.
Re:Could someone please cite a published study? (Score:1, Insightful)
That's irrelevant. The reason why the death penalty should not exist is that innocent people will die.
Let's review that again: innocent people will die.
Strangely, this fundamental issue is rarely mentioned in the mainstream anti-death-penalty arguments.
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing what all to test... that's the hard part.
Troll article if there ever was one (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:3, Insightful)
"One of the interesting things - if you have a debate with most pro-capital punishment people, they go awfully quiet when you ask them what would they do if they were falsely convicted of a capital crime. How would they feel as they were about to be gassed for a crime they didn't commit?"
You would get pretty much the same reaction for any penalty. Proves nothing.
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a good question. I wonder how much better I would feel if I were merely forced to live the rest of my life being sodomized on a regular basis while in prison for a crime I didn't commit.
Maybe we just shouldn't punish anyone?
Re:Easy. (Score:2, Insightful)
How about mass murder?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:1, Insightful)
Justice and practicality (Score:3, Insightful)
Rape, child abuse, drunk driving, kill them all, we don't need those vermin around.
I like the idea of solving a problem for all time, you kill the offender and your risk of reoffending becomes zero.
However I can't support the death penalty today because it is impractical. We can't guarantee we caught and convict the right person, and it's too expensive. In our quest to limit executing the innocent we spend more than simply jailing them forever.
For those two reasons I am against implementing it, although in theory it's a good idea.
Killing people is an american vocation it seems (Score:1, Insightful)
On television we see countless deaths from tv stations opening to the closing at night. Solving murders and justifying murder or rationnalizing it are the single most common subjects and the one that sell the most. Make two childs kiss on tv and complaints are beyond numerous.
Porn produced in the US is mostly about guys making girl barf on their dick with throatjobs, its max hardcore, its always something freaky, its has to be a fatass, a old lady, a girl that looks like she's 16 years old, gangbangs... The american sexuality is beyond anal retention they don't even know how to express love or pleasure anymore if it doesn't come with some form of pain or humiliation or domination. Two adult making love on tv is forbiden or in more liberal state frowned upon, i mean what if a child sees that? However rapes are often pictured sometimes in gruesome details (think csi) and its alright for the public. Love, just love in its simplest from isn't even seen anymore, it's always about making the apology of people cheating, guys falling in love with their girlfriend's mother, always something dysfunctionnal and the apology that comes with it. Don't you think that this alone is an indication of a very sick society?
You wonder why a proposition has been made to submit hackers to death penalty? I wouldn't be surprised if I were you, this is the solution they actually use for every problem they have, they actually salivate at the idea of finally having a new reason to kill even more people...
I'm affraid of them, very affraid and i actually believe that at this point we have no chance of seeing things getting better, we'll have to come down to the fact that they are the number 1 danger in the world, a danger to freedom, a danger to security and the number one danger to the environment. Realize we'll have to defend ourselves if we are to survive, i don't know how we'll do this but its obvious the UN isn't doing its job (it was created to prevent countrys like the actual US to actually exist), it failed the world, and world leader are too scary to get balls and take action so we let them destroy everything they want to and say that we can't jump to conclusion, they have concentration camp, they torture people, killed over 100,000 civilians in Irak alone, rapes and violence is common in their detention system, how much more will we need?
I thinks its up to us, the people to actually do something because no one else will.
Today its the hacker that gets killed tomorow it will be the pirate and the next day its your turn... realise it. No other nation, not a single one, has as much blood on their hand, not even close, than the americans, they are the single worst danger humanity faces now.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
But one of the best arguments I have against all death penalty (including murder) would be in the case of the conviction of an innoncent person. This speaks for itself. To avoid killing one innoncent person is worth not having the death penaltly at all.
Why Stop There? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we don't have to stop there. Let's do the spammers too. They are the ones who profit. And the DDOS cartels; death to them too.
Lazy sysadmins who fail to patch their servers promptly: they're costing industry millions. They gotta die.
Who else? Howabout billionaires who aggressivley market insecure operating systems? It's all their fault, after all. Sayonara, Billy-Boy,
And as long as we're motivated by financial loss, let's have people who download illegal MP3 files. Get 'em up against the wall! Offering movies over BitTorrent? Off with yer head! Run Warez? Bye-bye! Say "Hi" to Bill for me...
What else can we do? Employee sickness costs billions to industry. Let's have the death penalty for catching a cold! It doesn't just serve as an incentive - it improves the gene pool as well!
How about criticsing the government? I'll bet millions are spent on spinning the facts every time some ungrateful fool goes and blows the whistle. Let's string 'em up today!
Think you're clever writing open source software do you? you're costing illegal software monopolies money with every line code. Don't think you've escaped our notice.
Oh, and let's include mindless trolls who write idiot stories for major newspapers, and the brain damaged editors who dignify such claptrap by printing it. Let's off them as well. I can't think of a good reason why, but in amidst all this bloodshed, who the hell's going to notice?
+++ SARCASM OFF
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:1, Insightful)
There are always unfortunate costs in society. Waging war against a maniacal dictator will cause innocent civilians to be killed. In order to ensure the safety of the general population, sometimes innocent people will be wrongly convicted. On an extremely extremely rare occasion, an innocent person will be put to death. Yes it is unfortunate. But what is the cost of eliminating the death penalty all thogether? It is likely, as has happened in Europe, that murder will dramatically rise.
Instead of making a list of the people who would have been executed wrongly had the death penality been in effect, try making a list of all the criminals who got out of prison and killed again. Or, make a list of all the criminals that commited murder in the first place because they didn't think a prison sentance would be that bad. When the criminals have no fear of a death penalty, they are more likely to commit murder to begin with.
So in your quest to save a few individuals from wrongfully being executed, you have indirectly caused the death of thousands, even tens of thousands of others.
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:3, Insightful)
What I always use to shut up the right-wingers is how can they be pro-capital punishment and pro-life at the same time. One of their views doesn't jive with the other.
What exactly is so inconsistent about valuing the lives of innocent children more than the lives of mass murderers? How does it not "jive" to believe that people start off with a fundamental human right to live, and can lose that right only if they rob others of it themselves? That they don't just lose it by being an inconvenience to their mother. One might just as easily wonder at the left-wingers, who hold that babies are a dime a dozen, whereas serial killers are something precious whose lives are to be vigorously fought for.
Re:Obligatory BugMeNot Link: (Score:5, Insightful)
Your assertion that we don't think critically about our own culture is rather unkind. Many of the people here seem to spend a lot of time thinking about the way modern super-companies have co-opted all areas of human endeaver -- to the detriment of the individual and society at large. Many also think hard about the role that they as individuals and technologists in general play in society.
Political and corporate corruption is a much, much larger problem. Why not an article suggesting the death penalty for those offenders?
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:5, Insightful)
I have read that ~90% (seems high to me) of the world's population has never made a phone call. Probably a majority of people in the world have substandard food, water and shelter.
Yet in the western world, we define "poverty" as not being able to afford broad-band, or only having one game console, or only having basic cable.
Unless the parent(s)are total crack-heads, do any kids in the US REALLY go hungry? Call me a right wing fascist, but I find that hard to beleive. Food is cheap and plentiful here. You may not be able to afford steak, but most of the world lives on rice and beans, if they can get them.
We are SO spoiled.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:2, Insightful)
I might also comment on your view that the fact that a system could punitively execute someone for a crime they did not commit renderes all executions unacceptable is dangerous, because what is to stop folks from applying the same logic to lesser punishments? For instance, is it worth not having prisons to avoid imprisoning one innocent person? Is it worth not taking away people's drivers licenses because someone innocent had his revoked? There is also the flip side: is it worth killing 1 innocent person to prevent the death of 10 innocent persons (for this I mean by having a system that has the death penalty you execute an innocent as well as some guilty who would have killed 10 if they were not executed)? You must be very careful when using reductio ad absurdum.
(All that said, I must stipulate that as far as punitive executions go, I will at most agree with it on a case-by-case basis rather than an automatic sentence for crimes X Y and Z - and I cannot even tell you in what cases I'd agree with it).
Re:So hacker gets death... (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't want to sound like a zealot or an extremist, but death "penalty" is not right under any circumstance.
Killing in self defence is ok, but not so as any sort of penalty.
Not only because it could be abused, but because it is just not right.
Re:Doesn't fit the crime? (Score:1, Insightful)
Somehow I don't exactly see it happening.
Is this guy physically retarded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the problem. Design a system that is completely succeptable to malicious people, and be shocked when somewhere, among the 6 billion people out there, one is malicious. Here are your two solutions....
1) Make the system less succeptable to the darker aspects of human nature.
2) Just take out your fury on the guy who installed seti at home on a work computer.
In the physical world, this argument doesn't even pass the laugh test. Lets say there's a military base, but it has no fence around it. When children wander in and screw with things (perhaps causing serious damage), they are shot. That's hardly a solution. Put up a fence so some five year old doesn't wander in and drive a tank on the freeway, then maybe talk about giving more severe punishments to organized and competent attackers.
Here's another example. At Columbia a few years ago, an elevator in one of the dorms plunged several floors, though fortunately nobody was hurt. They had to repair the elevator. Let's assume that the cost of this came out to $100,000. Columbia blamed the students for jumping up and down in the elevator, nobody knows if those claims are true. In the end, it doesn't matter. An elevator is a moving piece of floor, if jumping on a piece of floor endangers you and causes damage to the building, it's the designer's fault, not yours. If you try to steal $100,000 from a liquor store you'd be shot, should you be shot for jumping in an elevator? No, because reasonable precautions would have prevented that. Save severe punishments for serious malicious attacks that threaten human life and for which there is very little that can be done. If you can build a fence, or a decent elevator, then just start with that, and worry about your bloodthirst later.
Re:Asimov had an interesting idea here (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe then you should read it to know why Asomov's is a bad idea.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) give the person back his/her freedom back and
b) compensate this time-loss by other means, e.g. money.
In case of the death-penalty there... welll, there is just no way to undo that, now is there? One could think of compensating the relatives, but that won't do any good for the poor sucker who's just been fried/injected/shot/hanged/eaten by ants.
Re:The death penalty is dubious as it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. The Pro-death-penalty crowd always relies on at least one of the following two arguments....
1) They deserve it, and it will make the victims feel better.
Personally, I do not like the idea of living in a society where our justice system is based on inflicting misery on some people to make others feel better. End of story. By that logic (about to invoke goodwin's law) you could easily justify any genocide by saying "it makes me feel better".
2) IT is a deterrent.
Criminals are not perfectly logical beings, many of them are clinically insane. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what should hacking amount to? 7 years ago I was accused of hacking by a police officer because I told him I was programming on a Mud that was based in another state.
Hacking could easily be described as anyone who logged into another server with someone else's login/password. (Logging into NYT's web page with bugmenot) Deserves the Death Penalty? I think not.
So what DOES constitute a death-penalty hacking event? Something that causes a company 1 million dollars worth of lost profit? A life is worth that? Ok, how about 1 billion dollars, or a kazillion? Problem is, ****ALL**** companies, the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA have lied and and inflated their so-called losses by a gross amount. How can you put a life of a person in the hands of corporate greed?
There are OTHER things that need to be fixed first. I don't see how a multi-criminal rapist would get an easier sentence than a kid who altered a VB script that was already out there. I don't see how this whole article could even be considered when the crooks at Enron get off without the death penalty first. Truth is, the author is just pissed off his computer crashed one day I'm sure.
Re:Look, out, John... (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, Test Servers are important but if you are in a hurry it is sometimes better to skip them in case you crash them beyond repair and hold up the rollout.
That's easily the most insane thing I've heard all week. Such a strategy obviates the whole point of having test servers.
It is never better to skip the test servers. Period. Before a patch makes it to the production environment, it must be tested to ensure it is ready for prime time. If a patch crashed your test servers totally, then congrats...they just paid for themselves.
Re:Obligatory BugMeNot Link: (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, consider the "Crime". The hacker does nothing more than running a program on his computer. That it spreads is caused by broken systems and stupid users. Yes, cracking should carry an appropriate penalty. But the key word is appropriate. I'd say it ranks somewhere between illegal graffiti (if done just "for fun") and fraud (if done with a commercial motive).
The issue here is the importance of obedience. (Score:3, Insightful)
The authoritarian view is that the law is absolute. No infraction is acceptable and the importance of the law always trumps the importance of the individual.
In this case, the concept of an "unjust law" is meaningless. If the law says I can cause you harm, then I can do it. If the law requires you do something that is harmful or evil to you, then you must do it. If you disobey or complain, it's you, not the law who are wrong. The law is never wrong.
In the context of this particular discussion, collective punishment becomes significant. The idea is that some particular group of people, as a whole, is perceived to be bad for society. (again, avoiding the oh so tempting inflammatory examples!). When an individual member of that class is caught breaking the law, they are held accountable for the perceived harm caused by the entire class.
The absolutist view appeals to our sense of righteousness. Holding one idea and never under any circumstances questioning that idea gives us a sense of surety. (there's a word for that; can you name it?).The promise is that with perfect compliance we will have peace and safety. Give us, your leaders absoulte powers and provide those who we will point out for you these extreme penalties and we promise you safety, security, peace, and quiet.
What is delivered, however, is never perfect compliance. So we feel moral outrage. We were lied to! We know what's right, and it's the law. So, it must be the violator who is wrong. Obedience is an absolute.
The penalty for disobedience becomes retribution, not justice. The motive for this penalty is moral outrage, not concern for society. In this context, the harshest possible penalty is perfectly reasonable. And, as morally outraged people, we dissociate ourselves from the person we penalize. They are not like us. We can do anything we like to them. Our judgement will never be applied similarly to us because they are wrong and we are right.
The pragmatic view is that society can tolerate a certain amount of non-compliance from its individuals.
This non-compliance, beyond being simply tolerated, is valued and honored with terms like "civil disobedience" and "conscientious objection". When the law is no longer absolute, the term "unjust law" has meaning.
The idea here is that a violation of the law is a discrepancy between the perpetrator and the law. Maybe the perpetrator is wrong. Maybe the law is wrong.
Here, the justification for any penalty is the good of society. Do we punish this person for what he did? For what he might have done? For what he might do in the future? These are decisions that we have to make now--judgements, not application of an absolute forumla.
When we make these judgements, we must also realize that the person we are judging could be one of us. That person is, actually, one of us. The disobedient member of society is no longer a moral outcast, and that means that whatever penalty we pass on him could be applied to us. Maybe we do choose to penalize the individual. Maybe he has harmed us. But it's not quite so easy to dismiss our frustration by beating up on a guilty person.
This mindset considerably devalues obedience for the sake of obedience. In this view, law provides that if a violator causes harm he is punished. But, typically, if the harm is less significant, even if the law has been broken, the penalty is similarly light.
The cost to individual freedom is taken into account when laws are written. It is possible for the lawmaker to say "it costs more of our individual freedom than the value we get by controlling this behaviour." The law then provides some incentive for obedience, but disobedience is expected and largely tolerated.
The cost of this view is that the individuals, being placed
more nuance (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't believe me just take a look at your local Whole Foods Market, or as I call it Whole Paycheck Market, and compare it with the stuff that you could get in a foodbank.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is also the argument of the scientist where if he had the choice to kill one innoncent person to find a cure for cancer, would he do it? The answer is most likely no. And personally no I do not agree in killing an innoncent life to save others, because if we do take it case by case, it is obvious that if you killed the innoncent guy, than the real guy is out there and your death count is at 11 (innoncent dead convicted guy + your 10 victims that have been killed by the original killer.) And besides that, if the guy is locked away for life, there isn't a chance that he goes out and kills again.
I do agree though, with a punishment that fits the crime but you have to be careful. We have to take into account alot of different factor, for one, the age of the criminal, in the sasser case, 17. Now do you really think that it's fair for him to serve a lifetime sentence? And here is where the kicker is, who gets to decide what is fair? Well for that you've got the jury to thank. But like everyone else, juries are made of people, people aren't perfect, they make mistakes. But I would rather see a mistake that doesn't involve the fate of someone's life.
Death for computer hacking is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It's too easy to make someone else look guilty. If you like the girlfriend of the guy in the next cubicle, buy a virus from your local friendly illegal substances dealer and make it appear that it was originated by the guy in the next cubicle. Then offer your most 'deepest' condolences to his newly-available girlfriend.
2) The hackers/virus specialists aren't the cause of the problem. The problem is poorly designed and written operating systems. Killing people who develop applications for the OS isn't going to help fix the OS.
3) The courts can't differenciate those who develop rogue code for 'national security' regardless of the nation from those who write it for amusement or corporate interests.
The best way to deal with virus writers is to make them liable to civil lawsuits for the damage that they cause. Straightforward tort law. Any 17-year-old hacker who realizes that he is going to have to write database front-ends in Visual Basic for the next thirty years to pay off the damage his cool virus has done will reconsider releasing it.
Also remind business leaders that using proprietary operating systems exposes them to underground attack because there isn't an open feedback loop where thousands of qualified people are constantly examining the OS source for flaws.
Isn't "E" redundant (Score:4, Insightful)
...
E) Something worse [than death]
Seems like E is redundant for the population in question. And, by the way, I buy this assertion completely:
Hackers are the Internet equivalent of Richard Reid,
This is indisputably true. And having your network DOS'd is also the Internet equivalent of having your body blown to bits over the Atlantic. For that matter being forced to concede in chess is the gaming equivalent of having your country forced into unconditional surrender.
Where we get into trouble is figuring because situations are analagous they must then be equally serious.
Utopia. (Score:3, Insightful)
If all crimes, regardless of severity, were punished equally, there would be no incentive not to commit more serious crimes.
In other words, if a "hacker" knows the death penalty is the consequence, what's to stop them from using deadly force in their defense? Murder usually equals the death sentence, and since death is already a given for being a hacker, there is no loss for choosing to kill.
For getting a reaction, I commend the author. I commend them in the same way I'd commend John C. Dvorak. Well done, good troll, but your opinion is ultimately moronic.
He misses an important benefit (Score:2, Insightful)
What John Tierney (and Steven E. Landsburg, who he cites) have missed is that script kiddies, while obnoxious and moderately costly to society, also provide a valuable benefit. By creating an environment where leaving a security hole open has tangible consequences, they provide a real impetus for making sure those holes get fixed, and soon. This makes it a lot harder for a real terrorist to do actual damage.
If you really did impose the death penalty for these small-time vandals, it would certainly get rid of most of them, but it would also let people get lazy and stop updating their operating system and anti-virus software. And that would be much, much worse because the first smart and motivated malicious hacker to come along would have the run of most of the Internet. We would be replacing a swarm of minor pests with a few evildoers who are willing to risk death to achieve their goals.
Script kiddies are like the common cold. They're annoying and they cost you some productivity but they also exercise your immune system so it will be able to stop the real threats.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:2, Insightful)
I probably approached this the wrong way. What if it was someone you knew that you had to sacrifice? Could you tell them? Could you kill them? Though on an impersonnal level, I would agree as well, but I would have much more trouble making it someone I know. I guess that's in a human's nature to be greedy.
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:3, Insightful)
When that happens the justice system is no longer a justice system at all but merely a means of oppression. But worse, it exercises oppression not only over those "convicted of crime" (which itself would have little meaning in an unjust system), but also all people who must live under the yoke of oppression and the threat of being unjustly victimized.
Re:They're felons, they have no rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a social contract that has to be accepted by the majority to work. Think about it.
You impose the death penalty for murderers. 0.01% of the population is now anti-social and has a vested interest in laying society low.
You impose the death penalty for theft. 10% of the population is now anti-social and has a vested interest in laying society low.
You impose the death penalty for copyright infringement. 90% of the population is now under threat of death for their normal living behavior and has a vested interest in laying society low.
At this point, the majority of the people are now anti-social. Sometimes this means rebellion, sometimes it means subversion, but it eventually means the end of the society unless things change.
The social contract is where we all agree that this is the way we want to behave and the way we want to live. If it ceases to be about wanting to comply and becomes something handed down from on high (like the current trend of corporate-bought laws) then it's time to burn the rulebooks and start fresh. Personally, I think we're going to see that time arrive before we die. You can see signs of it all over the place. People don't respect the system. Instead of being precious and treasured to them as it should be, it is generally resented, subverted and ignored. This is all in addition to an ever rising level of violence by the general populace, both against each other and against representatives of the system (terrorism anyone?).
Figuring out the precise way to live and act that produces maximum economic productivity for the benefit of those who control the means of production and using the threat of law (which amounts to the threat of violence) to force everyone to comply is not the way to run a society, at least not in the long term. If it's harming the many for the benefit of a few, that is by its very nature anti-social. The way to run a society is to strip it down so that the laws reflect the way most people wish to live.
Killing people who refuse to behave in a fashion that increases profits for businesses does not seem very social to me. As a matter of fact, it sounds a lot like the kind of slavery that lends moral justification to "Killing the Masters so we can be Free".
Think about that the next time you lend your support to these fear-of-death type laws. Could be a day when you're the one in fear of your life because your lifestyle is no longer approved, or could even be a day when you're the one being slaughtered by those former-slaves-to-the-system you placed in that position with your support.
Intolerance kills.
another idiot, another day (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, if we aren't going to dick around why not just make ALL 'serious' crimes punishable by death? And while we're at it, let's harvest the organs of these evil lawbreakers and use them to save the lives of countless upright citizens! I think Niven had something to say about that....
Max
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet in the western world, we define "poverty" as not being able to afford broad-band, or only having one game console, or only having basic cable.
Waaay offtopic, but lets play.
Poor, rich, poverty, money, and all of that are manmade objects. They are not real in "the real world". I would bet that a motivated homeless person eating out of trashcans here in the US can probably eat better than a majority of the people in the "3rd" or "4th" world countries.
Poor, rich, and all that is relative. Being at the bottom of any list is not desirable. I used to think the same thing, that the US people don't know poverty, but if you've ever had the pleasure of really knowing a poor person, wow. They are different, and at the bottom for a reason.
If you can't afford broadband and other junk, you are not as skilled and successful as other people comparatively, so your respect and dignity goes down in comparison of those people. Its that simple.
Also, a trick to remember is that poor is a state of mind, its not a level of the amount of money you have. If I were to rob Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, and leave him pennyless, I doubt he would instantly become "poor". On the inverse, I don't consider people with no money by choice poor. Take Jesus or Mother Theresa as examples. To my knowledge neither of these people had cash, but they are not poor icons, nor are they ever considered poor.
Remember, poor people suck, just ask Kenny.
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi (Score:2, Insightful)