Dumbass; hope the pranks were worth it.
Somebody wants a talk with you…
31 posts were split to a new topic: What should constitute “hacking”?
That’s a weird quote. I’d never think “Oh, of course, Hitler.”
“Hack the planet”?
Gotta teach 'em early, that if you fuck around, you’ll find out.
He’ll probably go down to the hoosegow for a couple years, maybe link up with the Aryan Nations inside, and come out a changed man.
I think people get the impression that my problem is with charging the kid at all. I don’t have a problem with that. He’s going to go away for violations of the CFAA, and he’ll be threatened with taking a plea deal or facing hate crime enhancements, the 10-15-life sentence, multiple counts of felony defacement of property, and everything else they want to use to pressure him to plea guilty. ANd he will plea guilty.
My complaint is against the CFAA. Because I’ve seen that used as a hammer against people like Aaron Swartz. ANd if you think this kid’ll get away with it because of various reasons, guess what? Aaron Swartz should have too, but they dropped the hammer on him.
Don’t worry, this kid’s life is likely ruined. I hope he wasn’t aiming for a career in tech, because he won’t even get past the resume name search at this point. I just want the CFAA to be more narrowly applied.
Here’s the law in question
(a) A person is guilty of computer crime in the third degree when he commits computer crime as defined in section 53a-251 and (1) the damage to or the value of the property or computer services exceeds one thousand dollars or (2) he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person.
(b) Computer crime in the third degree is a class D felony.
(a) A person is guilty of larceny in the fourth degree when he commits larceny as defined in section 53a-119 and the value of the property or service exceeds one thousand dollars.
(b) Larceny in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.
(a) A person is guilty of telephone fraud in the fourth degree when such person (1) knowingly or intentionally devises or participates in a scheme to defraud another person of money or property, (2) employs false pretenses or false promises, as described in section 53a-119, to obtain such money or property and the amount of such money or the value of such property exceeds one thousand dollars, and (3) uses a telephonic call, including, but not limited to, a call made by an individual, an automated telephone call and a recorded message, to obtain such money or property from such other person.
(b) Telephone fraud in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.
The use of a computer essentially advances the crime by one degree. Not quite as open ended as CFAA, but still puzzling.
I had to read into this to see if it wasn’t misusing a law in a case of social engineering, as I first thought the student slipped the quote past editors. Seems it wasn’t, that the alleged perp really did do the electronic equivalent of jimmying the locks and sneaking into the editing room to swap the print plates, and ruining something other students had payed actual money for, as it wasn’t discovered until the books were printed, bound and distributed.
I’d have guessed Lincoln. He seems to say all kinds of stuff. /s
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.