Court allows extradition of AS hacker to US

Post Reply New Topic

I can see someone breaking into places, just to see if they can, whether physical or virtual, to be an innocent act (and a small amount of punishment fitting; nothing special like jail, really, as it's helping the place he or she broke into too).

Wrecking the place once you've broken in is vandalism, at least (jail time there).

If he didn't know right from wrong, then one can ask for insanity (which AS can fall under), but you'll still be locked up; it'll just be in another form of jail.

This is completely irrelevant.

If computer hacking weren't illegal, no one would bother.

What I mean is: a crime is a crime, the fact that the person who commits it is or isn't aware that what he is doing is a crime is completely irrelevant.

Yes.

You've got to be kidding me. A burglar who wonders through "open doors"is still a burglar. He still doesn't belong there, it doesn't matter how easy the owners have made it for him by leaving doors open or unlocked. If I leave my car doors unlocked, does that then give people the right to come in and take what they want, up to and including the car itself? No, I don't think so. Not by an logic whatsoever. It doesn't matter if there were no "passwords", he still didn't belong there.

His AS should have nothing to do with it. They still know right from wrong, for the most part (except in a lot of social situations and interactions and appropriateness). I do understand, in a way, what you're saying about viewpoint as far as if he'd hacked into Bin Laden's computers. But he didn't. He went where he wasn't supposed to go, where he knew he wasn't supposed to go. That means he's subject to charges and AS should have nothing to do with it. This isn't a matter of him staring at someone too long or acting "weird" when he didn't realize he was doing so and it was bothering someone.

Actually, in the law it IS relevant. In order for them to be considered guilty, or even charged in some cases, they have to understand that it was a crime and that what they did was wrong.

And, aside from the obvious crimes, (theft, robbery, murder, rape, assault, etc., etc.) crime is often subjective in most cultures. In many countries it's a literal "crime" to express an opposing opinion other than the "official" opinion. In many others, it's a "crime" be raped, for "letting it happen and dishonoring your family" while the man gets away scot-free. In most ME countries, it's a "crime" for women to go anywhere without being covered with that damned burka and without being accompanied by a male. In Saudi Arabia, it's a "crime" for women to drive, period; even in emergencies when she or someone will die if she doesn't drive, she can, and often is, charged. Some cattlemen wanted to make it a "crime" to say anything negative about beef several years ago, in this country. It used to be a "crime" for blacks to drink from the wrong water fountain, go into the wrong store, etc. Interracial marriage used to be a "crime", punishable (and often was) by jail and banishment, for God's sake. That was true for some states up until just a few years ago. I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.

Oh, ok..

[quote="westernwild]Actually, in the law it IS relevant. In order for them to be considered guilty, or even charged in some cases, they have to understand that it was a crime and that what they did was wrong.

And, aside from the obvious crimes, (theft, robbery, murder, rape, assault, etc., etc.) crime is often subjective in most cultures. In many countries it's a literal "crime" to express an opposing opinion other than the "official" opinion. In many others, it's a "crime" be raped, for "letting it happen and dishonoring your family" while the man gets away scot-free. In most ME countries, it's a "crime" for women to go anywhere without being covered with that damned burka and without being accompanied by a male. In Saudi Arabia, it's a "crime" for women to drive, period; even in emergencies when she or someone will die if she doesn't drive, she can, and often is, charged. Some cattlemen wanted to make it a "crime" to say anything negative about beef several years ago, in this country. It used to be a "crime" for blacks to drink from the wrong water fountain, go into the wrong store, etc. Interracial marriage used to be a "crime", punishable (and often was) by jail and banishment, for God's sake. That was true for some states up until just a few years ago. I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.[/quote]

Don't make this into something it's not. Computer hacking has nothing to do with human rights or human rights violations.

You do realise hacking itself is not illegal. I have many times hacked into computers to retrieve access to it.

Of course - I had to get past passwords - now - was this a crime?

It would depend on where you go in cyberspace and why you go there. Any kind of theft or fraud is obviously against the law. Spying is out, too. If by "get passwords" you really mean "steal information," my case is self-evident.

I deliberately left out a few pieces of my last post to see what would be said. I never said I went into cyberspace ... who said I did?
Bit of a large presumption there, I mainly hack to help people get into their computers or accounts. Comes with the job

Yes, you seem to be overreacting. Have you been hacked? Might be this be why you are so bitter about this?
On the other hand, viruses and spyware are incredibly annoying and incredible dangerous.


Do you want to get rid of half of all aspies in the world?

Well, if it's all legitimate and done as part of honest employment, I can't see a problem with it. It's that word, "hack" that's the problem. "To hack" is commonly understood to denote an ilegal computer transaction, but you also use it to describe your work.

Hmmm.

It's like using the word "rape" to describe every single instance of sexual intercourse.

Maybe we need new terminology to set you guys apart from the criminals, no?

No, just the cyber-geeks. If I were able, I'd make it so they all get caught with their hand in the till.

Remembering that AS is not considered a form of insanity, this perp must be treated as mentally competent. If Aspies want to be treated the same as NTs, then they should be treated the same in all things, including justice.

Look at it this way, would you want people to be let off from committing a crime just for a learning disorder? Keep in mind that Asperger's Syndrome is a behavioral disorder, and that neither Asperger's Syndrome or Dyslexia is a form of insanity.

"Your honor, my client pleads 'Not Guilty' by reason of being dyslexic - you must exonerate him from the charge of cold-blooded murder because he is unable to read."

Again, Dyslexics, just like Aspies, are not insane. Thus, they can not be excuse of crimes simply because they see the world differently - they simply can not process certain forms of information in the way that NTs do.