Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonathan James

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 125 posts

Re: Jonathan James

#31

Post by GuiA »

cremnob wrote: post #21
jmspring wrote: post #10

The problem I have with the justice system in cases like this is that there are curious people, they will have, probe, poke, tickle, whatever systems are available. The justice system, as mentioned, only sees those making these "intrusions" in black and white terms -- criminals. In the case linked, "NASA had to shut it's systems down for 3 weeks at the cost of $41000 to check and fix it's systems"...This is bullshit.…

She shouldn't have been walking down that dark alley at that time anyway.

I sincerely hope that you didn't post this analogy sincerely believing it, as the two are diametrically opposed.

Re: Jonathan James

#32

Post by leoh »

I think one thing that users of HN are picking up on during this crisis is the sense that in some ways, "hackers" are alike--whether a relatively egregious case as in this article, a very mild to innocuous case such as Swartz's, or a truly innocuous case like reverse-engineering open source software--in that we are all curious and we are all sometimes foolish. What the justice department and the masses among us forget is that even very successful people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were and are hackers, and that in the case of the former's hacking (Jobs' blue-boxing days), it could have gotten him in really, really big trouble.

So I think a big part of this is that we know that people make mistakes and that justice is absurdly harsh and out-of-proportion, not to mention the fact that as hackers, we definitely have the ability to do really insanely great things with our lives.

But one thing to remember is that the justice system in this country is absurdly harsh to a lot of people. It's absurdly harsh to minorities and to drug users for example, too. The fact is, the way that justice is executed in this country needs to be re-thought for everyone.

Edit: I just wanted to add to this. The key to a better outcome is greater kindness. Kindness to others and kindness to ourselves. There will always be foolish people like Swartz's prosecutor or the people at MIT. But in this technological age, in first-world countries, our immediate needs are usually taken care of. The things that make a true difference is kindness. The kindness of mentors, the kindness of friends and lovers, the kindness of strangers. Swartz's prosecutor could have been more kind. Even Swartz, I think it could be said, could have been kinder to himself, loving himself and taking more caution for himself instead of placing himself in such peril. We all need to be kind to others and ourselves as much as we can, without putting ourselves in danger. Sometimes a little danger is what it takes to change things, true. But kindness is what we all need more of in this age and what, I think, we truly desire. RIP Aaron.

Re: Jonathan James

#33

Post by InclinedPlane »

Relevant, journalist David Gregory blatantly violated Washington, DC firearms law, on air. He won't face charges:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_davi...

I hate to say it but if these trends continue we'll be well on our way to a new sort of feudalism, where laws are selectively enforced and the little guys who hold political views or who are part of minorities that are despised by the powers that be get hit hard while the people who are rich or politically connected get a break. We've seen it with drug laws (where even cocaine possession translates to much different charges when the accused is white and affluent vs black and poor), with prescription drug abuse, with tax laws, with gun laws, with computer crime (where a corporation can install rootkits on people's computers with few legal ramifications), etc.

Re: Jonathan James

#34

Post by ghshephard »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #26
ghshephard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to go too far off track here - but should I get a penalty for not locking my door at home?

OK, forget the fine then, we'll just go with the stern warning. The point is that they should both get the proverbial slap on the wrist -- the person who breaks in should be chastised but hasn't caused any real harm and the person who allowed it to happen should endeavor to be more careful and not redirect responsibility for something trivially harmful that they could have themselves prevented if they deemed it worth…

So, what your are saying, is that I shouldn't be penalized if I don't lock my door at home, but I have no basis to complain if someone comes into my house, snoops around, looks in drawers, and then leaves without damaging anything.

I'm actually ambivalent about this, but I'm always intrigued as to whether people's sense of "Protect yourself on the internet or you deserve what you get" translates to "Protect yourself at home, or you deserve to be burgled".

Indeed - one could take it so far as, "Protect yourself with a weapon late at night/in your home, or you deserve to be beaten/mugged/etc..." - but, in general, we recognize the black and white line somewhere between "ssh server" and "put in hospital with contusions" - I think the "snooping around my house with unlocked door" is the gray area.

Re: Jonathan James

#35

Post by antoncohen »

ALee wrote: post #6

Our government used to hire the brilliant minds who taught us about our security flaws. See here for RTM: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-compute... Even Sean Parker of Napster, Facebook, and now Spotify glory was offered a job when he was younger. Somehow something changed in the past 10 years.

The Secret Service did hire Albert Gonzalez, the guy Jonathan James was accused of conspiring with. The story, including Jonathan James' involvement is well told by the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?p...

Re: Jonathan James

#36

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ghshephard wrote: post #34
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, forget the fine then, we'll just go with the stern warning. The point is that they should both get the proverbial slap on the wrist -- the person who breaks in should be chastised but hasn't caused any real harm and the person who allowed it to happen should endeavor to be more careful and not redirect responsibility for something trivially harmful that they could have themselves prevented if they deemed it worth…

So, what your are saying, is that I shouldn't be penalized if I don't lock my door at home, but I have no basis to complain if someone comes into my house, snoops around, looks in drawers, and then leaves without damaging anything. I'm actually ambivalent about this, but I'm always intrigued as to whether people's sense of "Protect yourself on the internet or you deserve what you get" translates to "Protect yourself…

I think there is also an argument that the internet is different, both because pretty good security is reasonably within reach for the typical server operator (unlike the cost of e.g. vault-quality doors and walls in a home), and because your government can't protect you from the wider internet because most of it is outside of its jurisdiction.

In that situation having a bunch of mostly harmless curious kids banging around creating antibodies in the system is probably a net positive, so that you find out your security is broken when some kid (who isn't trying to avoid detection and steal your trade secrets) is the one who opens your eyes to the vulnerability instead of the eye opener being a Chinese company selling your secret formula for near-cost on the world market.

Re: Jonathan James

#37

Post by greghinch »

philwelch wrote: post #23
w1ntermute wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I recently read about this phenomenon in the book Who Stole the American Dream? , by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it. The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young…

> Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. Well, that's nothing new.

I have hope. The generations born since the early to mid 80s have been raised in a world where change has become at least constant if not accelerated. These generations, as they age and take over the roles of the higher echelons of business and government, may prove more adaptable to an ever changing world.

But this may just be a dream

Re: Jonathan James

#38

Post by cremnob »

GuiA wrote: post #31
cremnob wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She shouldn't have been walking down that dark alley at that time anyway.

I sincerely hope that you didn't post this analogy sincerely believing it, as the two are diametrically opposed.

It absolutely was sincere. I'm not sure why you think they are "diametrically opposed". In both cases it is victim blaming.

Re: Jonathan James

#39

Post by w1ntermute »

greghinch wrote: post #37
philwelch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. Well, that's nothing new.

I have hope. The generations born since the early to mid 80s have been raised in a world where change has become at least constant if not accelerated. These generations, as they age and take over the roles of the higher echelons of business and government, may prove more adaptable to an ever changing world. But this may just be a dream

One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high.

However, the internet has proven to be a very effective way of getting people to go to the polls, and you can target your campaigns much more specifically, so as to include young people and exclude the elderly (who don't use the internet much anyway).

This is an important thing to keep in mind in a country like America, which has relatively low voter turnout. Election engineering can make all the difference in the results, as we saw with the success of Obama's reelection campaign machine.

Re: Jonathan James

#40

Post by linuxhansl »

rwmj wrote: post #29
doktrin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "who won a record 20-year sentence" I know this is common verbiage, but it's frankly sickening. Do they view their targets as people, or are they merely a collection of scalps?

Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets, bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time. This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who w…

Punishment is unfortunately needed for deterrence. But 20 years? Does anybody here have any grasp about how long 20 years are in prison?

Where I'm from the maximum sentence is 15 years in prison.

Post reply on HN