But for some reason every politician's reaction to cyber events is to make the CFAA more draconian. President Obama is actually in favor of adding more provisions by amendment this year.
I'm not sure of the correct way to handle cybercrime laws, but I know the CFAA isn't it.
I forget who said this, but it's because to a lot of this generation of politicians, a lot of "hacking" and "cybercrime" is a modern-day witchcraft. Aside from a few allies in Congress, technological aptitude (and those that actually understand cybersecurity) will likely lag until a lot of these older career politicians are replaced by "digital natives".
It's not just politicians, either. Some execs at non-tech companies respond to penetration tests in the same way. "How did you do that?" "Why is this possible?" It's just completely outside of their realm of knowledge, and they trust their systems to be as failsafe as most mechanical ones.
Reading the indictment he comes across to me as a credit card thief wrapping his crimes in activism.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/10/lauri_love.pdf
"LOVE and his conspirators unlawfully obtained information the victims identified in thisIndictment morethan 100,000 employee records, including names, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and salary information, and more than 100,000 financial records, including credit card numbers and names, and caused loss aggregating in excess of $5 million"
"On or about July4, 2013, LOVE wrote the following in an IRC chatroom using the online nickname "peace": "it worked ... we have... easily 5-10k contractor and gov credit cards "
"That same day, LOVE uploaded to a computer server a spreadsheet containing information obtained from iq.govwin.com, including names, job titles,addresses, phone numbers, and approximately 23,000 credit cards numbers with expiration dates and items purchased. Other members of the conspiracy obtained copies of the spreadsheet from the server on or about January 24,2014, and on or about March 10,2014"
In other chats published in the indictment, Love is alleged to have said: "You have no idea how much we can fuck with the US government if we wanted to," and, after describing the data as "really sensitive", adding: "It's basically every piece of information you'd need to do full identity theft on any employee or contractor for the [government agency]."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/us-briton-hack...
>He's a genius? I thought the US was embarrassed by how dumb the vulnerabilities he exploited were. Which is it? [0]
Probably assumed you were an astroturfer and/or troll, because, hey, that's pretty shitty behaviour.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515199 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12515231
Mods, please read this exchange, including 'tptacek's initial reply to 'zelon88. If this style of trolling is accepted on HN, I'd appreciate knowing about it -- I dearly love it and would like to ply it in these digital halls. Do you have to be as well-known a user as 'tptacek in order to get away with it?
What I don't acknowledge is that it's reasonable to comment about the "shitty behavior" of someone who makes a civil statement you happen to disagree with --- or, worse, a civil statement you actually do agree with, but don't want to acknowledge.
If you want to ask the "mods" something, the best way to do that is to mail [email protected]. It's unlikely they're going to see your comment (this thread is old, and this part of the thread is buried pretty low in it).
Whether I disagree with you is immaterial. I merely refuse to stand by while some popular bully puts words in others' mouths. You can go on all day about how very, very civil you are, but it's clear to me that replying with a totally unsubstantive comment like
>He's a genius? I thought the US was embarrassed by how dumb the vulnerabilities he exploited were. Which is it? [0]
when the only the first three short words are relevant to the parent's actual statements [1]. The others were from the article, which you demonstratively either a) believe 'zelon88 wrote or b) have chosen to conflate with 'zelon88's statements. "Which is it?"
You're obviously not interested in discussions with people who don't agree with you -- I can tell by the way you choose not to engage with their arguments. You've obviously calmed down now, but hiding behind claims of civility shows a shocking lack of self-awareness, particularly in light of what's actually happened. Hope you're doing OK! Keep trolling!
You seem upset that I didn't address the entirety of someone else's comment, but instead only part of it. But so long as the part we choose to address isn't taken out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment, responding to the entirety of someone else's comment is unnecessary --- in fact, it's unproductive, if you don't have much to say about it.
So, in case this wasn't clear to you:
I object to the notion that the person we're talking to is a "genius", and to the idea that society is losing the potential of a genius because it's punishing him for breaking into government websites.
You are free to disagree with me and to make a case for his genius. You won't, because you don't disagree with me. But you're unhappy that I chose to bring this up; that's clear. I'm not interested. Move on? Or find some way to object to what I said that is actually coherent and productive; that would work too.
For what it's worth: the story is likely to be true. That bit is my own opinion, of course, but it's a reasonably informed opinion.
I seem upset with you responding to an idea that wasn't actually in a comment. Conflating the ideas of the author of a piece you disagree with, and the poster you initially replied to, is wrong, plain and simple. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't belong on a forum like HN. You should know better -- you're ostensibly a power user around here. That's why I asked about the trolling, because this is pretty obviously that. 'zelon88 claimed the autistic man in question was a 'genius', you then attacked the idea that the US was embarassed by the hacks, which 'zelon88 didn't claim. It's very simple.
>But so long as the part we choose to address isn't taken out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment, responding to the entirety of someone else's comment is unnecessary --- in fact, it's unproductive, if you don't have much to say about it
Are you seriously trying to claim that grabbing a single word out of a comment, fixating on it, and then continuing by attacking an idea not present in the comment is somehow not "out of context or inconsistent somehow with the rest of the comment"?!
So, in case this wasn't clear to you:
I object to the notion that the person who said "he's a genius" and the person who said "these hacks embarassed the US" are the same person when they're obviously, verifiably not. I've linked both posts ('zelon88's and your initial reply) several times now! Is it that you don't care?
You're not fooling me; yet you are replying. Perhaps you're fooling yourself? If this doesn't clear things up, then it surely must be trolling. Since you opened the comment above this one with an intentional misrepresentation of my argument (and the rest of the comment flowed from there), it's gotta be trolling.
I think you and I talking more is unlikely to be productive.
Eh, my goal has been reached. Your unbelievable perspective has been fully elaborated; several non-me comments clutter our discussion, each confused by your intransigence. For whatever reason (I'm guessing an ignorance defense, so's you can continue to troll in this way elsewhen), you're unable to accept or realize that a comment that puts words in another's mouth is not OK, and that you have done this. I can't put it any more simply than that. I'm sorry. I hope you get it someday.
UK should be giving lauri love a new identity and a fat paycheck. Not pandering to the administration of a country soon to be run by either a crazed sickly war hawk or a full retard that gets all his world news from fox.