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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
... 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.
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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...
> 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.
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.
Seems to me that (small) property crimes are a crucial part of many pranks. http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/1994/cp_car/
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.
There needs to be one! It's still going strong.