Shiggily wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Due to the spectrum nature of Autism, it cannot always be as clear cut as "he knew what he was doing". Did he really truly understand the implications of entering US government computers? Given what he was looking for, I suspect not.
he wanted proof of aliens. he thought he could find the proof in top secret government files. So he compromised government security to find proof of aliens.
if he knew where to look and how to get it, he knew what he was doing.
But as with the difference between murder and manslaughter, motivation and intention come into play, surely?
Murder is pre-meditated, whereas manslaughter isn't intentional.
I'm not a qualified lawyer, but I do have a bit of a legal background, and I'm trying to explain my understanding of the situation in ways that other non-legal people can understand.
What seems to be happening is that the US authorities are determined to plough ahead with a prosecution on the basis of the hacking equivalent of murder [cyber-terrorism and all that], whereas the more appropriate allegations to make would be computer equivalent of manslaughter or even 'lesser crimes' something along the lines of the computer equivalent of 'death by reckless driving' or whatever because whatever he did or didn't do, there was apparently no intention to commit cyber-terrorism [he was, allegedly, a bit of a stoner and looking for UFOs, by all accounts].
So it's not just a matter of possible sentencing at the end of a trial, if he is tried and found guilty, there's a major problem with the whole basis of the case. The premise is totally, totally wrong.
Again, to draw analogies, there's a big difference in what someone *knows* they're doing wrong... there was a bit of a debate on WrongPlanet recently about some small child that shot himself at a gun fair. If the father pointed the gun and shot the child, then yes, of course, that would be murder. But the child had the gun, so could a case be made for something like that be some kind of manslaughter on the part of the father or the gun fair organisers or the gun owner? Because they obviously didn't intend for the child to accidentally shoot himself and die, but that's what happened, so are they culpable in any way? Or would it be some kind of lesser case of negligence or recklessness, again, because the intention wasn't there? Some people might argue that whoever put the gun in the hands of that child should have the book thrown at them, but other people here were definitely saying that there is training and safety precautions in place at these kind of events, they couldn't necessarily have *known* the consequences of their actions and it was just a tragic accident.
he should be tried for what he did (which was break into a secure government network). He should not be tried for any underlying intentions that he probably did not have such as terrorist activity, money or whatnot.
I think he should be tried in the same way we prosecute teenage wonder hackers who decide one day to hack, or attempt to hack, FBI/CIA/GOV/MILITARY, etc. networks. Because that's basically what he did. He was screwing around and hacked multiple networks. He should be treated like he was screwing around and hacked multiple networks.
In the US that is a criminal offense. One that we prosecute people for, including minors. Of course minors and I presume people who may have an impaired capacity usually get light sentences, fines, and/or placed on a watchlist.
he should get the same.
not life imprisonment, but not scot-free.
09 Dec 2008, 8:20 am
