Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[XXSockXX]

My point for thinking on, though, was if it was noticed, would it be prosecuted as aggressively?  My guess is authorities could be aware that sort of invasion of privacy was taking place and they likely wouldn't care.  This is only different because it embarrassed the local authorities in front of the world.

Could be that they want to discourage vigilantism and have the opportunity to do so now, because it's high profile.
Wasn't there a case where some guy stole pictures from some famous actresses phone a while ago? How did he get punished?

EDIT:
After googling through many distracting pictures (should not have tried "scarlett johansson hacked pictures" first), I found it. That guy got 10 years too, but it was also a high profile case...
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/strategy/item/30789-hacker-who-put-scarlett-joh

[Devling]

Law for the sake of law is worthless and self-serving. What would you have done if you had known about this? Not leaked it because "THE LAW"?
The law is only so good as it serves society's interests, which in this case it did not.

Fair enough.

Guy's a goddamn hero, doesn't mean what he was doing was super shady!

[Sheb]

Depends exactly what he did to get his evidence, but citizens hacking into private accounts is not better than the state doing it. This guy is kind of a Batman, doing ultimately the right thing, but you don't have to like the way he do it.


So, would you prosecute Batman?

[da_nang]

Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
Change the law, don't condone people breaking it for good.

I would agree with this if I had any level of faith that it's actually workable in practice, at present or in the foreseeable future.  Currently, the letter of the law is quite blatantly the tool of the powerful to be used against everybody else.

Oh ye of little faith...

Call me a bright eyed optimist, but I think that laws should be obeyed, and people should work to change them if they feel they are not right and just laws.

If only the people who are capable of changing the law actually did change them. As an example, how long does one have to wait for the FRA law to be repealed?

[SalmonGod]

Depends exactly what he did to get his evidence, but citizens hacking into private accounts is not better than the state doing it. This guy is kind of a Batman, doing ultimately the right thing, but you don't have to like the way he do it.


So, would you prosecute Batman?

I don't think the comparison holds up completely.  Batman punishes criminals.  This guy only extracted evidence for a case.  If you want to interpret the principle as strictly as possible, yeah it's the same.  They're both doing things they don't have the authority to do.  Extreme differences in order of magnitude and types of action carried out, though.  I hesitate in even calling the guy a vigilante, because that's commonly perceived as someone (like Batman) who punishes people based on their personal conviction.

But to more directly answer the question, I would not support prosecution of Batman if I lived in Gotham City, where he's basically the only reason the city hasn't been wiped out.  I don't know how it is in the comics, but in the movies, the police are supposed to be horribly corrupt when he shows up and just letting crime run rampant.

If I lived in a place that was relatively safe and had a police force and government with a lot of integrity, I would support prosecuting Batman.

And personally, I find the current style of government surveillance to be verging on vigilante behavior itself, and they're not doing it for the sake of true justice.  This sort of makes vigilante behavior in response excusable, in my opinion, both in self-defense and to make up for the failings of the establishment.  I wouldn't go as far as all-out vigilante justice, but if a police department doesn't even bother to gather evidence for a case where someone has been severely victimized... sure... get that evidence yourself, so long as you're not doing anything extreme to get it.

[GlyphGryph]

SHOULD he be punished? Did he actually do anything wrong?

If a cop searches through your house, then yes he did something wrong.

He's not a cop and he didn't search anyone's house, so I'm not sure hows that's relevant.

Again, what did he ACTUALLY DO WRONG? This wasn't a rhetorical question. The article didn't say.

[SalmonGod]

He's not a cop and he didn't search anyone's house, so I'm not sure hows that's relevant.

The article mentions that the FBI raided Lostutter's home.  This is the house search that he is referring to.  He's implying that if a cop searches someone's house, it means that person did something wrong to deserve the house search.

[GlyphGryph]

Seriously? Do you mean "wrong" in the "pissed of someone more powerful than you sense, and bad consequences will come now and there's nothing you can do about it" or in the "morally wrong" or "legally wrong" sense?

If it's one of the second two, what country are you from? Because it obviously isn't the US.

[scriver]

The rapists only got that short a sentence because they were minors (not that I know how long the average sentencing is for adults). And yeah, if the guy actually did hack their accounts to get that information he should be punished, the same as if he had broken into their homes to get it. Laws exist to protect all people. Yes, even rapists.

Now, I completely agree that ten years is too long, but A) it's the maximum sentence and he hasn't been sentenced yet; and B) US sentence times are completely fucked up in general.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't see why hacking should be a crime. If you can't safeguard your data, that's your problem, not the state's. Data isn't like physical property, it can be copied indefinitely.

[Frumple]

So... should be fine if someone points infrared or whathaveyou at your house, right? Fairly equivalent concept t'that. Nothing being stolen, just (likely personal) information being taken without your consent. S'all on the up and up, you could always lead line or house or whatev'.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Physically spying on someone is not really equivalent to breaking into a computer system. For one thing, spying is generating information that only one party will ever know of while hacking is accessing existent information.

[scriver]

I don't see why hacking should be a crime. If you can't safeguard your data, that's your problem, not the state's. Data isn't like physical property, it can be copied indefinitely.

In other words, breaking into your house and going through all your stuff shouldn't be a crime unless they steal something. I guess you're also completely fine with the patriot act and your government reading all your mail and listening to all your calls and having all your records. After all, they're just copying data.

See, it's not about the "data" itself, it's about privacy and what the data actually means.

Physically spying on someone is not really equivalent to breaking into a computer system. For one thing, spying is generating information that only one party will ever know of while hacking is accessing existent information.

...That's just. Completely irrational. What you do in the flesh is also just information. Spying on somebody does not "generate information", it generates digital data. All it does is copy what's happening anyway ("already existent information"), and storing data. There is absolutely no difference.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In other words, breaking into your house and going through all your stuff shouldn't be a crime unless they steal something. I guess you're also completely fine with the patriot act and your government reading all your mail and listening to all your calls and having all your records. After all, they're just copying data.

The government is different. They're large and proven untrustworthy to possess such power. The Patriot Act and reading everyone's mail and calls has always been unconstitutional.

See, it's not about the "data" itself, it's about privacy and what the data actually means.

You have an expectation of privacy against the government and against corporations, but not really against individuals. People are always trying to pry into each others lives, and if you aren't willing to make allowances on that front nobody is ever going to talk to you.

This is why if somebody you've met starts inquiring as to what your political and religious beliefs are, that's not really concerning, but if the state or corporations start asking it is EXTREMELY concerning.

...That's just. Completely irrational. What you do in the flesh is also just information. Spying on somebody does not "generate information", it generates digital data. All it does is copy what's happening anyway ("already existent information"), and storing data. There is absolutely no difference.

There is a difference in that the individual being spied upon does not possess a copy of the digital data. Digital data is spread almost infinitely easier than non-digital data.

(Truth be told I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that you'd send this guy to prison for exposing rapists who would otherwise get away with their crimes is pretty concerning.)

[Scoops Novel]

The point of spying is to discover information, not (necessarily) stealing. In terms of that concept, scriver is entirely right and conceptually there's no difference between physically examining you in close proximity or doing it from afar.