Hacker News Reader

Comment by interfixus | Hacker News Reader

Someone clearly needs to be punished. Several someones. I'd let this intrepid and talented 15 year old go, and let the US (and whoever else concerned) prosecute the living crap out of all those in public positions of trust and clearly not up to it.

Suggest starting from the top. A head of CIA with classified material stored on his computer in such a way that access is dependent on some external internet provider? Under the always ressourceful American penal system, that sounds to me like any number of centuries on the inside looking out.

View on HN

Why should the person committing the crimes be let go? Because you identify with them? Because they are seemingly intelligent in how they committed their crimes? I don't understand wanting to punish "dumb" criminals when the "smart" ones are far more dangerous

> Why should the person committing the crimes be let go?

Because a child calling a helpdesk and pretending to be someone else is a prank. Slap on the wrist, followed by a job offer. It seems on a similar level to ringing a bar and asking for 'Amanda Hugginkiss' or 'Mike Hunt'. At least this kid found the problem before the Russians did.

A child impersonating government officials in order to gain access to classified networks, remotely vandalizing people's computers, reading their emails, harrassing them, doxxing them and threatening to rape their children is not ringing up a bar and asking for "Amanda Hugginkiss."

If it had been a cop doing this, everyone calling this kid a hero or merely a precocious youth would be crying out for blood.

> If it had been a cop doing this

Then it would not be an even similar case. It is a feature of many civilised societies that we tend to forgive misdemeanors by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'. Should it be a crime because this autistic kid happened to be good at his prank?

> It is a feature of many civilised societies that we tend to forgive misdemeanors by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'.

Except many of the things he's accused of doing are clearly not misdemeanors. You're also assuming there was no malicious intent in what he did. He was perfectly aware that what he was doing was wrong, and he intended to do harm to people because they worked for the US government. You seem to have the actual legal system confused with the plot of Dennis the Menace or Leave it to Beaver.

>Should it be a crime because this autistic kid happened to be good at his prank?

Oh, he's autistic? Never mind, free pass then.

No... it wasn't merely a prank, and being autistic doesn't imply being legally incapable of judgement.

In civilized societies we also tend to forgive the more serious offences by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'.

Trying minors for "more serious offences" is a thing just about everywhere. It's clear this particular minor knows right from wrong, and that what he did was on the 'wrong' end of the spectrum.

Would you feel the same way if he'd actually followed through on his rape threats? Or if he'd SWATted someone? At what point would you be willing to admit this "prank" wasn't harmless?

>Trying minors for "more serious offences" is a thing just about everywhere.

And not locking them up, i.e. "letting them go" is a thing in just about every civilized country.

>Would you feel the same way if he'd actually followed through on his rape threats?

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. There isn't a single mention of "rape" in TFA, you're discussing a 15 year old kid possibly threatening someone on a different continent.

    He bombarded Mr Johnson and his wife with calls, 
    asking her: “Am I scaring you?” and left 
    messages threatening to “bang his daughter”, 
    the court heard.

Unless you want me to believe he was threatening to "bang" Mr. Johnson's daughter consensually, it's a rape threat.

It is a stretch to describe that as a rape threat. I don't believe a native English speaker would choose that wording to convey a rape threat.

And again, if this was a rape threat it was a very unclear rape threat by a 15 year old kid on another continent. Not something any sane person would treat particularly seriously.

Honestly, this sounds more like something along the lines of "I'm going to bang your mom", with the "mom" replaced.

No sane person would assume that "I'm going to bang your mom" is a rape threat, but rather a threat of embarrassing you by engaging in sexual relations with a close family member.

> Not something any sane person would treat particularly seriously.

... because the person making the rape threat disclosed that they were on another continent so as to assure his victims and minimize psychological harm?

I understand he's sympathetic because he shares the same anti-US government bias that many HN users have, and anyone with a computer and a hate-on for the Feds is a hero around here, but it shouldn't be impossible to concede that what he did was not merely a harmless prank, but a crime that deserves something more than a mere slap on the wrist and tousle of the hair.

> I understand he's sympathetic because he shares the same anti-US government bias that many HN users have,

There is something else here. The UK and the US have very different criminal justice systems, I have noticed a definite 'bias' as you put it against the US system on HN[0]. It has been noted, for instance in the far to long running Lauri Love case, that the UK is much more lenient to young computer hackers that the US. Perhaps it is not bias, but simply different cultures?

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16171239

> It's clear this particular minor knows right from wrong

> Medical experts for the defence argue that he is on the autism spectrum and at the time of his offending had the mental development of a 12 or 13-year-old.

It is entirely unclear from the article that he knows right from wrong, and furthermore it is entirely unclear that he knows that that it is any worse than any other childish prank that went wrong. My son knows it is wrong to eat in his room, but he still does it, perhaps this child feels this is on the same level?

Unless you can share some other resource that suggests something else, I find your claim to be completely unfounded.

>Unless you can share some other resource that suggests something else, I find your claim to be completely unfounded.

The paragraph prior to the one you quoted:

    At one point on an internet chat he said
    that he had considered not sharing any more
    information “because it put lives at risk, 
    but then I thought they are killing innocent
    people every day”, the court heard.

He was aware that he was doing harm to people, and justified it based on his belief that his victims were doing greater harm.

That merely establishes a mixed and confused picture, in that one article directly contradicts itself. I suggest we let the jury do their job, since they hear all of the evidence

Fair enough, but I'd suggest that for everyone who insists he should be let off the hook and given a parade as well.

But he didn’t do either of those things. This is an idiotic argument.

> forgive misdemeanors

> clearly not misdemeanors

Please don't read this to mean misdemeanors in the US legal sense of 'not a felony'. In the UK (where the trial is) misdemeanor would normally be understood to be 'something some people consider wrong' [0]. There is no concept of felony and misdemeanor in English law. I meant this in its ordinary English sense and I am sure we can both agree that this was a misdemeanor, as in 'not the right thing to do'.

[0] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/misdeme...

> Oh, he's autistic? Never mind, free pass then.

> No... it wasn't merely a prank, and being autistic doesn't imply being legally incapable of judgement.

Well actually it raises the very real possibility. Unless he is guilty of strict liability offences the prosecution would have to show criminal intent

  In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides the frame of which the 'mens rea' is assessed. It states:

    A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,

        (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
        (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

If you cannot foresee the results of your actions you cannot be guilty. BTW publishing an opinion that suggests someone is definitely guilty, as you seem to at places in this thread, whilst a trial is ongoing is a crime in the UK.

Crimes are not pranks

Why not? Who are you to decide what isn't a prank?

Seems to me that (small) property crimes are a crucial part of many pranks. http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/1994/cp_car/

Most pranks can be prosecuted as crimes. Broad disturbing the peace and harassment statutes apply to most.

Here's 3 that come to mind:

- toilet-papering a house/tree

- ding-dong-ditch (harassment, possibly even rising to a hate crime in the right circumstances)

- flaming shit on doorstep (obviously)

Whether something is a crime or not is a pretty bad test for whether a child should be held accountable as an adult for the act.

Lots of pranks are criminal. Graffiti for instance. But if the police found your child drawing a penis on a poster of a politician do you think he deserves telling off, or jail?

Or the Chinese!! Or the North Koreans!!!

Is there already a Reductio Ad Russiairum?

There needs to be one! It's still going strong.

you think swatting is a prank?

I would answer you, but for the "Because you identify with them?"

Me & my friends were script kiddies who broke into school & government systems for laughs while we were in school.

All went on to good careers in tech & VC.

I’m actually more worried about the mindset that doesn’t want children to question authority and test the boundaries.

This may explain why there are so many sociopaths in tech and VC. I wonder what Travis Kalanick did for laughs when he was in school.

Questioning the authority is by no means sociopathic.

Testing boundaries is a natural part of growing up. My 5yo daughter does it all the time. Unfortunately, for some kids, their abilities may place the boundaries well beyond what would be considered criminal. Some go for drugs, some go into exploring other realms.

When I was a teenager, I used to connect to BBSs outside the country by using the unconnected but active phone lines that came into the building.

Only later someone told me that it was a relatively serious offence in my home country, going against national security laws and that it was done in a military dictatorship that, luckily at my time, was no longer keen on disappearing people.

Later I learned many of my colleagues on college used to do the same.

> I’m actually more worried about the mindset that doesn’t want children to question authority and test the boundaries.

Thought exercise: Does/should the same hold true for children who question authority and test boundaries through petty theft, or muggings?

Why or Why not?

It seems mad that access to sensitive databases, for instance, is a simple password reset issue. I would have hoped for some kind of additional hardware security, like a keyfob/dongle. I remember reading that MI6 spooks have them.

I too have little sympathy for the likes of the FBI or CIA when they suffer this kind of breach, it shows they are not competent. Unfortunately they will instead try to extract retribution from some autistic kid...again.

A smartcard is usually used for access to SBU material from regular computers, but apparently some agencies have not caught up and are still using username/password for authentication.

> Someone clearly needs to be punished.

Do they? What does that achieve?

It's one area where punishment might actually serve as a deterrent. I really am all for holding public servants to very strict standards, not least where security is concerned.

If it were common knowledge that your cavalier disregard of prescribed rules would see you on the street within ten minutes of it being discovered, I'm sure it would sharpen the attention of some, and get rid of others.

A deterrent to future pranksters maybe. But I would imagine that the real danger is from malicious actors (say, foreign governments) who would not be deterred by the threat of punishment. So what does punishing this kid get us, other than satisfaction?

I wrote the toplevel comment, advocating punishment for various officials, and letting the kid go.

You may wish to turn your comment around by roughly 180 degrees.

It would achieve the very negative thing of not dealing with the real issue.

It reminds me of the story of Richard Feynman demonstrating to a superior how not spinning the dial of the standard GI safe at Los Alamos after closing it allowed someone to read the combination. His superiors response was to send a memo saying, 'Don't leave Mr Feynman alone in your office'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com