|
Grex > Agora35 > #28: Prosecution in the case of the Great M-net Crash | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 145 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 109 of 145:
| 
Oct 3 22:02 UTC 2000 |
Well, the only elements of the crime that I've seen mentioned either here or
in the paper were that m-net was hacked into and that the alleged hacker used
his connection to m-net to get to the university of maryland. other than that,
i haven't seen any other details. jerryr, what else is there? i mean, i
haven't really seen you telling us anything other than that (and i just went
back through the whole item to check what was said).
|
jp2
|
|
response 110 of 145:
|
Oct 3 22:53 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
bobcat
|
|
response 111 of 145:
|
Oct 4 06:05 UTC 2000 |
So what's the deal with all the doubled posts?
And, hey boys, don't fight!
Anyway, so far you all agree:
It's not to be expected that a free system will be totally secure.
All users should be responsible for themsleves.
VANDALism is wrong, but it should not expose the VANDAL to anal rape by
dangerous felons.
Let's discuss appropriate actions for for vandalism, and maybe we can solve
the problem.
And yes, as someone previously said, there are folks here who have gotten into
places they were not invited to.
So? Did they trash anythiing or just poke around?
What do you see as the difference?
mrow.
|
scg
|
|
response 112 of 145:
|
Oct 4 07:26 UTC 2000 |
bobcat's #85 contains somewhat of a misunderstanding of how tax deductions
work.
Taxable income, to grossly oversimplify, is computed by taking the total
amount of money you made in a year, and subtracting the amount of money you
had to spend to make that money, and any money you spent on charitable
contributions. So, if I were to make $100,000 in a year, and donate 10,000
to charity, I would have a taxable income of 90,000. If on top of that, I
were to do $2,000 worth of consulting, but then donate the $2,000 to a
charity, my taxable income would still be $90,000, because I would have
donated the $2,000 I made, and would then be able to deduct it. Volunteer
work is much the same situation, except that rather than being paid and
donating the money back to the charity that paid you, you don't get paid at
all. Therefore, you don't get a tax deduction for the volunteer work, but
that's because you didn't get any income for the volunteer work, and as such
wouldn't be taxed for the value of the volunteer work.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 113 of 145:
|
Oct 4 13:36 UTC 2000 |
re: #109 you are correct. i have not posted any details, nor will i. i was
attempting to save a lot of people energy because they were trying to find
ways to let this miscreant slide out from under whatever he did to m-nut.
and yes, the university of maryland is involved. that should be sufficient
to understand that the scope of the charges goes beyond m-nut.
i suggest you contact the prosecutors for further details or show up for this
moron's next court date.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 114 of 145:
|
Oct 4 16:19 UTC 2000 |
If nothing else, jazz has implied that it's ok for women to be raped, if
they're wearing provocative clothing.
If that doesn't speak volumes about his opinions, I don't know what does.
|
brighn
|
|
response 115 of 145:
|
Oct 4 17:12 UTC 2000 |
#98 certainly sounds like sarcasm, especially in situ (John had previously
spoken a few paragraphs about how systems SHOULDn't be held accountable for
faulty security if that security's maliciously breached, which runs counter
to the blame-the-victim mentality depicted in #98).
(er, SHOULDN'T, wrong epmhasis ;} )
If nothing else, twinkie has implied that he doesn't get rhetorical subtlety.
If that doesn't speak volumes about his intelligence, I don't know what does.
;}
|
twinkie
|
|
response 116 of 145:
|
Oct 4 17:19 UTC 2000 |
Oh please.
Are you collectively still stuck in the "calling someone 'dumb' is a brilliant
retort *and* flame!" mindset, or is it just people like you?
For the record, I do, in fact, "get" rhetorical subtlety. Perhaps you should
work on recognizing the patently obvious.
|
flem
|
|
response 117 of 145:
|
Oct 4 18:07 UTC 2000 |
I have to confess, though I consider myself cautious and generous in forming
opinions of people based on their responses, #114 baffles me. If you *do*
understand rhetorical subtlety, what could your point possibly be? I'm really
curious about this. Perhaps I'm more familiar with posts by jazz than you
are, or perhaps the coincidence of my reading pattern gave me a better feeling
of context, but it seemed really obvious to me that #98, to which I assume
you're referring in #114, was sarcastic. Even without your claim that you
understand rhetorical subtlety, I'd have a lot of trouble believing that
you failed to see it as anything other than sarcastic; I have to assume
that you understood it not to contain jazz's real opinion at the time you
wrote #114.
It would make sense, and even be fairly clever, if in #114 you were
actually agreeing with jazz, and poking fun at people who disagree with him
by implying that they're so incapable of recognizing rhetorical subtlety as
to think that #98 contains an actual opinion of jazz's -- but from other
things you've said, I really doubt that was your intention. I confess,
though, that I haven't been able to come up with any other possible intentions
that could logically have motivated #114.
|
jazz
|
|
response 118 of 145:
|
Oct 4 18:35 UTC 2000 |
Re #113:
That's my understanding, and to be perfectly clear, I don't have any
problems with your posting or not posting information as you deem appropriate.
It's only germane in that Jamie mentioned that you were the only one who had
posted accurate details, and I'd commented that you hadn't posted any details
regarding the case at all (at least until the comment about using M-Net as
a springboard for other hacking attempts).
Re #114 ... ah, to be honest, I'm not sure if Twink's kidding here or
not. If he's serious, he's forgotten a ton about me and what I've written
in the last few responses in this item. If he's not, it's pretty funny.
|
brighn
|
|
response 119 of 145:
|
Oct 4 18:48 UTC 2000 |
#116> Um, how can you criticize a post that was in essence identical to your
own, unless you mean to be criticizing yourself as well?
|
jp2
|
|
response 120 of 145:
|
Oct 4 18:56 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 121 of 145:
|
Oct 4 19:46 UTC 2000 |
Actually, what you said was:
I gotta make a note of that cookie trick. But, all you dumb mother fuckers
seem to be forgetting what actually happened. Well, except for jerryr.
Which entails, among other things:
Jerryr doesn't seem to be forgetting what actually happened.
Which doesn't actually lead to either #118 or #120, necessarily.
#118> Twink never kids. He's dead serious. Trust me on this.
|
jazz
|
|
response 122 of 145:
|
Oct 4 20:15 UTC 2000 |
Sure he does. He used to call himself the Rap King of South Lyon.
No one, not even Eminem, could say that with a straight face.
|
brighn
|
|
response 123 of 145:
|
Oct 4 20:49 UTC 2000 |
Well, especially since Eminem isn't from South Lyon...
|
mdw
|
|
response 124 of 145:
|
Oct 5 06:27 UTC 2000 |
My impression is that the vandal actually did do damage to the data
online, either deleting files or changing critical files such as
/etc/passwd . I gather the problem was serious enough that legitimate
users could no longer use the system, and there wasn't any real
short-cut to getting the system back up. I think that makes it a bit
more serious than relatively harmless pranks such as getting people to
run "!yes".
|
bobcat
|
|
response 125 of 145:
|
Oct 5 07:10 UTC 2000 |
RE: 112
The point I guess I failed to make about the value of volunteer labor is:
A non-profit that uses volunteer work to fix a system cannot prove monetary
loss, unless they actually have to spend money on repairing hardware damaged
by the vandal. Which ain't likely. SO, if you WANTED to ruin a system, and
keep the damage below statutory levels that will get you arrested, trash a
non-profit. Many states have a $ level that needs to be crossed before they'll
prosecute. (Mine doesn't). Fed law varies. There's no $ loss to free users
- they get what they pay for.
Interestingly enough, if your packets pass thru MY state, and you damage a
system in another state, you can be prosecuted here. I don't think it's
happened yet...
|
jerryr
|
|
response 126 of 145:
|
Oct 5 13:00 UTC 2000 |
i think the point being made was i know that what happened went beyond m-nut
and it's hardware. a point i kept trying to make. no details are necessary
to say that. unless one chooses not to listen or believe me. y'all have that
right. believe it or not, i was just trying to save folks the time and
trouble of trying to figure out how to get this kid off with just a slap on the
wrist - based on the perceptioin that the only damage he had done was to m-nut.
|
jp2
|
|
response 127 of 145:
|
Oct 5 15:14 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 128 of 145:
|
Oct 5 15:18 UTC 2000 |
Greg's got a point, but I don't think anyone was disputing the point
(though it could be read that way) that the damage (to society) was greater
than that of m-net. The only discussion I was aware of was whether a system,
in a civil case (and this one isn't a civil case, if I've been reading the
news correctly) should be able to sue for more than the actual hard cost to
fix, and whether or not a system's staff were responsible for intrusions, in
a general sense.
|
mdw
|
|
response 129 of 145:
|
Oct 5 21:00 UTC 2000 |
I don't think that staff being negligient is going to be a viable defense
for the kid.
|
scg
|
|
response 130 of 145:
|
Oct 5 22:20 UTC 2000 |
re 125:
Why not? Even if no money was spent, the value of donated labor is
sitll pretty easy to calculate. If you have somebody who normally charges,
say, $125 per hour, you can calculate the value of their donated labor at $125
times the number of hours they spent volunteering. Even if somebody normally
only works for their employer, and as such doesn't have a consulting rate,
you can look at what the market is paying consultants with similar skills.
It's not tax deductable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 131 of 145:
|
Oct 6 04:07 UTC 2000 |
I think it's a riot that jazz is the only one who got the joke.
|
brighn
|
|
response 132 of 145:
|
Oct 6 04:19 UTC 2000 |
Good one.
You're still a twinkie.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 133 of 145:
|
Oct 6 04:29 UTC 2000 |
Ooooh...struck with another famous Grex zinger...
|