Romanian Man Indicted for Hacking NASA

[213374U]

And you are taking my analogy out of context. I was responding to those who basically said that since he didn't destroy any data, then nothing was lost. I explained in words I thought folks could relate to what costs the intrusion itself would incur even if no data was disturbed.

And in "putting things in words you think folks can relate to", you are putting things in a different scale, which incidentally turns the offense into a personal attack. Which is not. That's your fallacy right there.

 

And by the way, nobody here knows whether any data was disturbed or not. The stories I read indicated a "loss of data"... people are pretty much inferring the details, as far as I can see.

 

As for as "organizational damage" not affecting individuals, I beg to differ. Organizations consist of individuals. Lots of individuals. Over 150 government computers were hacked, including (but not limited to) the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, NASA and various military. How do you personally know that individual's personal data on those computers has not be compromised or copied? Payroll records. Background information. Tax data. Social security numbers. Bank account numbers.

 

If the "organizational damage" causes the organization to close down for a period of time, paychecks stop for everyone who works there. That's pretty personal. And in this case, the "organizational damage" might actually have compromised national security. There really has been no confirmation by US officials of exactly what kind of damage has or has not been caused... for obvious reasons... so I think the presumption that this guy's little forays have not harmed individuals has no real basis in fact.

Speculation. I'm sure you can find more consistent stuff than that to base your arguments on. I don't know the details, but neither do you.

 

 

Okay. How many years in jail do you think each count of computer hacking should have? Two? Three? A couple of months? Would you think more years appropriate if somebody lost a whole bunch of money? If people lost jobs? If a security breach led to people dying? Where is your personal line, and how much jail time would you recommend?

Yes, those very extreme (and unheard of if I'm not mistaken) consequences of high-profile hacking would probably warrant longer sentences. That is not the case, so the point is moot.

 

My personal opinion, since you asked for it, is that it's nuts that the man can (I know, theoretically) spend more than half a century in prison because he hacked n computers, and at the same time, the system would apply less severe penalties to a brawler convicted of manslaughter.

 

 

So based on your best guess of how much or how little damage he might have done (which nobody can really know until the trial, I suppose) how much time do you think this guy ought to get?

That's pointless, as adequacy in penal terms is decided arbitrarily when elaborating the penal code, in accordance to the perceived seriousness of the offense. But otherwise, it's pretty random. You say 54 is fine and I can not find an argument to prove formally that you are wrong. The opposite is true as well, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[thepixiesrock]

Okey-dokey, let's analyze that big, bad number 54.  Let's say that the maximum sentence for each count of hacking is only about 3 years.  So 9 counts of hacking x 3 years = 27 years.  That leaves another 27-year maximum for a major felony, conspiracy (actually, I'm pretty sure the maximum for conspiracy is more than that, but math is math!).  The more times you hack, the more counts of hacking, the more time you serve.  If you conspire with others to hack, you get a big fat conspiracy which basically doubles your time.  The moral of the story is not to make a club where you and others conspire to hack into other people's computers lots and lots of times.  Then nobody has to ever be outraged on your behalf while ignoring the outrage of the real victims, whose computers were hacked.

 

The end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are you trying to argue here?

 

Let me break it down for you.

 

The point of my statement was to clue you in as to why people were using the number 54, because you seemed to think that people weren't justified in their outrage, because the guy wouldn't face the maximum sentance anyway. So in essence, you appeared to have been saying that they shouldn't be crying about him getting 54 years, because he probably won't.

 

I said that they were saying it was ridiculous that he could possibly be sentanced to that. I was just saying that they can think it's a ridiculous ammount of time in jail if they want to, and that just because you are saying he probably won't get that, or even get charged, doesn't mean their outrage useless. They can still feel outraged about that being the maximum sentance for the crime. I'm not arguing what you think I'm arguing.

 

And you look like a huge jerk when you use that incredibly condescending attitude. I'm just telling you for your benefit in case you don't want to look like a huge ass*.

 

*let's stop this term at this point eh? tarna

[Gromnir]

personally, we don't know how so many of you can be outraged w/o having further info. number of thefts and cost of damage to nasa and others would seem to be important factors, but 'cause it is just govt. that is taking the hit, and 'cause it is just hacking, then you not thinks we is dealing with serious crimes?

 

need more info.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

...And you look like a huge jerk when you use that incredibly condescending attitude.  I'm just telling you for your benefit in case you don't want to look like a huge ass*.

 

*let's stop this term at this point eh? tarna

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to be light-hearted. If I failed in that regard, I apologize for expressing myself poorly.

 

You, on the other hand, are deliberately trying to be rude and insulting, as you have done with me many times in the past. You do not have to like me, but please stop the personal attacks.

[taks]

And you look like a huge jerk when you use that incredibly condescending attitude.  I'm just telling you for your benefit in case you don't want to look like a huge ass hole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

gromnir, ironic or incongruous?

 

taks

[~Di]

And in "putting things in words you think folks can relate to", you are putting things in a different scale, which incidentally turns the offense into a personal attack. Which is not. That's your fallacy right there.

 

We are not talking about the same thing. My explanation was centered on how the intrusions could cost large sums of money even if no data was touched, since some were saying that they didn't have to spend money fixing anything if the hacker hadn't done anything. I don't understand why I cannot express myself clearly enough on this issue, lol.

 

Speculation. I'm sure you can find more consistent stuff than that to base your arguments on. I don't know the details, but neither do you.

 

That is exactly one of my main points. Nobody knows the details, so how can any of us make an informed argument about how damaging or non-damaging the attacks were? How can we be outraged when we know nothing about what was actually done, or the results?

 

 

Yes, those very extreme (and unheard of if I'm not mistaken) consequences of high-profile hacking would probably warrant longer sentences. That is not the case, so the point is moot.

 

First, those consequences are not unheard of. Hacking has cost people tons of money, and more than one company has had to close down when their system was compromised. Second, how can you possibly say that is not the case here, when you've already conceded that none of us know anything about the details of what the hacker did? *boggle*

 

My personal opinion, since you asked for it, is that it's nuts that the man can (I know,  theoretically) spend more than half a century in prison because he hacked n computers, and at the same time, the system would apply less severe penalties to a brawler convicted of manslaughter.

 

I don't disagree in principle. But again, the devil is in the details.

 

 

...so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Yep, that's probably best.

[Gromnir]

And you look like a huge jerk when you use that incredibly condescending attitude.  I'm just telling you for your benefit in case you don't want to look like a huge ass hole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

gromnir, ironic or incongruous?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

depends... does answering make Gromnir seems like an incredibly condescending, huge jerk?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[taks]

LOL!

of course, i'm sure you remember the comments you made a while back regarding the inappropriate use of the word "ironic" when in fact someone intends "incongruous."

 

taks

[thepixiesrock]

I hulked-out and lost control.

[kumquatq3]

I hulked-out and lost control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tell me, how do your pants always manage to stay on when everything else rips off?

 

 

 

Again, he didn't get 54 years, he can get that in theory is what was said. He won't get 54 years.

Edited December 6, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Diamond]

Yes, those very extreme (and unheard of if I'm not mistaken) consequences of high-profile hacking would probably warrant longer sentences. That is not the case, so the point is moot.

 

First, those consequences are not unheard of. Hacking has cost people tons of money, and more than one company has had to close down when their system was compromised. Second, how can you possibly say that is not the case here, when you've already conceded that none of us know anything about the details of what the hacker did? *boggle*

Well, I can 100% guarantee that NASA won't be out of business any time soon. These cases are humongous time-critical systems, where a downtime of 1 minute costs millions in lost revenues. It is a different kind of attack, and different type of organization, applying these examples in our case is inappropriate.

 

And national security is not at stake either (see previous post). Or any people's life for that matter. If any NASA's systems connected to the Internet indeed contained highly classified information and/or any vital shuttle control systems, NASA's entire IT department should be lined up and shot because of their ultra-stupidity. I highly doubt they get their money for nothing. The most that the hackers could do is to prevent scientists from analysing their data.

 

So all we have here is combined monetary damages totalling $1.46M (and not "nearly two million bucks").

 

My personal opinion, since you asked for it, is that it's nuts that the man can (I know,  theoretically) spend more than half a century in prison because he hacked n computers, and at the same time, the system would apply less severe penalties to a brawler convicted of manslaughter.

 

I don't disagree in principle. But again, the devil is in the details.

My biggest issue was that you specifically said that he deserves all 54 years in prison. I think this conclusion was a bit hasty. Then how much murderers should get?

 

 

And I think we will still end up agreeing disagreeing.

[Walsingham]

I should clarify my previous post to say that as ~Di points out, what did he THINK was going to happen if he goosed Uncle Sam? A pat on the head and a girl scout cookie?

[taks]

If any NASA's systems connected to the Internet indeed contained highly classified information and/or any vital shuttle control systems, NASA's entire IT department should be lined up and shot because of their ultra-stupidity. I highly doubt they get their money for nothing.

uh, i have to disagree with this statement. there exists a classified network across the US specifically set up for contractor communication. it still has to route through the phone system, which means there is still a potential for breach. NASA is, without a doubt, on this network. this has nothing to do with the IT department.

The most that the hackers could do is to prevent scientists from analysing their data.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or steal classified information. see above point.

 

taks