Posted on 07/13/2005 11:34:31 AM PDT by phoenix_004
Last year a German teenager named Sven Jaschan released the Sasser worm, one of the costliest acts of sabotage in the history of the Internet. It crippled computers around the world, closing businesses, halting trains and grounding airplanes.
Which of these punishments does he deserve?
A) A 21-month suspended sentence and 30 hours of community service.
B) Two years in prison.
C) A five-year ban on using computers.
D) Death.
E) Something worse.
If you answered A, you must be the German judge who gave him that sentence last week.
If you answered B or C, you're confusing him with other hackers who have been sent to prison and banned from using computers or the Internet. I'm tempted to say that the correct answer is D, and not just because of the man-years I've spent running virus scans and reformatting hard drives. I'm almost convinced by Steven Landsburg's cost-benefit analysis showing that the spreaders of computer viruses and worms are more logical candidates for capital punishment than murderers are.
Professor Landsburg, an economist at the University of Rochester, has calculated the relative value to society of executing murderers and hackers. By using studies estimating the deterrent value of capital punishment, he figures that executing one murderer yields at most $100 million in social benefits.
The benefits of executing a hacker would be greater, he argues, because the social costs of hacking are estimated to be so much higher: $50 billion per year. Deterring a mere one-fifth of 1 percent of those crimes - one in 500 hackers - would save society $100 million. And Professor Landsburg believes that a lot more than one in 500 hackers would be deterred by the sight of a colleague on death row.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Now can we get him extradited to stand in front of a judege for the crimes he committed to American property?
The author is going after the wrong criminal.
The criminals are the programers at Microsoft.
I continue to be appalled at the light sentences doled out to computer hackers. The attitude seems to be, "Oh, he's so clever it would be a shame to give him serious time; it's really just a prank." This makes me livid. These guys are worse than bank robbers, and should be given a MINIMUM sentence of 10 years, with no computer privileges.
I don't have a problem with it.
Perhaps caning would be sufficient. Everyone that suffered harm would be allowed to get in one good lash.
The criminal justice system is very screwed up about hackers.
Most "break-ins" involve almost no actual damages.
The hackers that work for the Russian Mafia engaged in identity theft cause HUGE damages, but are generally out of the reach of our LEAs.
So, our LEAs who do not want to look as stupid as they are catch some kid defacing Web sites want to give him the needle - befefit to society - ZERO.
If you can figure out how to make cops smarter, immediately fill out your application for a Nobel Prize.
all in the name of "it's so easy to use even an idiot can plug it in".
“Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort.”
-- The Mikado.
Unfortunately it will get worse before it gets better. As one who conducts business online everyday I say the penalty should be death.
The criminals are the programers at Microsoft.
Most FReepers are advocates of the 2nd amendment. Their position is guns don't kill, people do. If that's true, we must blame the hackers, not Microsoft; regardless of how easy Microsoft made it to pull the trigger, it's still the hacker who did it. Perhaps Microsoft could make their products harder to hack (and remember that not all hacked software is by Microsoft), but (1) there's a cost-benefit calculation involved (would people be willing to pay enough more for the software to include the costs of making it more difficult to hack?) and (2) there's no such thing as totally unhackable software.
Arson is the 'old' crime most like hacking.
Think fire-bug.
In the absence of loss of life, capital punishment would seem to be disproportionate.
But you can get life without parole for arson.
Cut off fingers as punishment for a first offense. Maybe that will become new Sharia law in the Muslim world for hacking and computer virus creation.
That is the same logic the lefties use to try to sue the gun companies when a bad guy uses one in a murder.
Everyone that suffered harm would be allowed to get in one good lash.>>>>>>>>>
Old Leroy down at the sawmill says,"I speck dat come out ta be 'bout de same as de def penulty, jes mo' pain involved".
I would cut off the right hand for a first offense, the left for the next offense and then after he uses a pencil in his teeth to hack again cut his frickin head off.
This is a little tongue in cheek , but not much, Hackers are stealing people identities and their checking account besides writing viruses. Writing virus's is about as stupid a thing as can be done, They do it just to prove they can.Causing millions in damages, anyone who has had to hire a geek to clean his computer would probably agree with me to cut the bastids hand off.
You do do want someone of this nature in jail, but working as a consutant to company's advising them how to avoid worms.
Two thoughts:
1. Leave it to the NY Times to see no harm done by a murderer besides his "cost to society."
2. But hey, at least the NY Times acknowledges the cost of a murder as being $100 MILLION. Have we seen an end, now, to the argument that the death penalty is too expensive?
Two differences:
1. Windows is not protected by the 2nd amendment.
2. Microsoft's bugs serve no societal purpose, unlike guns.
offer him the choice of 10 years, paying back everyone who was harmed, or taking a (tighty supervised) job with the gov't writing software to COUNTER hackers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.