Crime and Puzzlement
While reading the essay by Barlow, I was sympathetic to the individuals who were put through so much trouble by the government. The crackers were probably wrong on some level, but they were definitely taken advantage of by our government. Today in class I was surprised that John was the only one standing up for the "criminals" talked about in the essay. I know he is the prof and has to be the devils advocate in most situations, but where was everyone else? I think that the rights of those involved were highly violated. Our constitution guarantees that we are not held without being charged. We did not really focus on this point, but I think that it is very important. In my opinion the issues of rights violation is the biggest issue. Whether or not a crime was committed, the crackers were not treated up to the standards of US Law. The fortune 500's of the country were scared and had the power to influence the rest of the country into fear along with them. The essay talked about FBI agents being very poorly informed. Because of this crackers, in most cases, knew far more about the subject then those who were doing the questioning. I think that fear consumed the government and this caused the accused to be taken advantage of. Civil rights thrown out the window because of fear, is that where we want to take this country? Not that this was written recently, but there are cases were you can see similar action. Today in our country there are people who are held without charges brought against them. Is that truly what our country stands for, is that fair? What do you think, is it fair to flip flop on the Constitution like we have seen from time to time?
posted by Jacob Muff at 9:59 AM
17 Comments:
I can see where Jake is coming from, but I still believe it was good for the hackers to be arrested. The gov't definately went overboard by holding their families 'hostage,' for lack of a better word. I feel like the hackers needed to be punished because they broke into accounts, and stole documents that were very important to the companies. Obviously because they were bigger companies, they have more power than I would. But I think they were right in punishing the boys, instead of pretending like taking their documents was 'no big thing.'
This article is one of the most controversal articles we have read all quarter in this class. I agree with some people that believe that the situation was handled wrong, but at the same time I don't think that it is ok to hack into someone's personal information and either post it for others to see or steal it. If the crackers are just stealing a phone number or something of that level and posting it then it's not that big of a deal, but when phone numbers turn into credit scores, or hospital files, it becomes a very serious matter. The question then becomes where do we draw the line of what is ok and what is not? Who is drawing this line? What should their punishment be? All of these need to be answered before anything can be done about this situation.
I completely agree, I think that the way the FBI agents treated the "crackers" was ridiculous. Their rights were stripped and were treated as if they weren't even human beings. The FBI agents completely destroyed the "crackers'" homes and even took their phones, simply because they did not even know much about what was being stolen. It is kind of amusing to see the government completely scared and paranoid due to the crackers and see their reaction. Simply to go in, raid their homes and take everything that looks like it could be related to the theft of intellectual property. I think in this situation there could have been a better way to search the "cracker's" homes. Nonetheless, the year was 1989, so not many people knew that much about the internet or it's capabilites.
I do think that it is important that people do not lose their rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. However, I do not feel this is the most important issue in the article. I feel that where we are going to have to draw the line in this new technology and how we see crimes in this new technology is the most important issue.
I completely agree with Jake. I think it was wrong how the government handled this situation. They were scared and wanted to fix the problem fast, because they did not know what the hackers were capable of. But that is no reason for breaking the law, because nobody is above it. The way the FBI agents acted was as if they were though. Barging into the houses and stealing all of the electronics that the kids were using, and not charging them. Hacking can be a scary thing, like when the hackers got all of Barlow’s credit information, and showed him that they had it. But I don't believe that the kids were going to commit terrorism or anything. They were just being mischievous kids.
I agree with you, Jake. I think the Constitution should be our basis for every legal decision in this country. However, what can we do when the Constitution doesn't address issues of Internet theft/cracking? I think we could probably use what the Constitution says to figure out a solution, but we need an ammendment addressing the Internet.
The issue of being held for a crime you are not charged with is insane. I can't believe that actually happened. We can't allow the government to take matters into their own hands, even when it comes to crackers; we have the Constitution for a reason.
In this article, the companies were the ones wronged no matter how you looked at it. The "criminals" may have had their rights violated in a manner because there aren't specific rights for that kind of behavior yet. No we don't want our country to allow holding without charges brought against them, but I think it's safe to say that at least if it isn't completely 'illegal' yet, it is still immoral. If we let these people do something so immoral, do you think that is what we should let our country stand for? That is like voyeurism before there were laws, people weren't doing anything wrong because they were just 'looking' and there were no laws against it, but it got to the point that it was so wrong and immoral that there had to be a law passed because privacy is personal space, you can't trespass personal space even if it is only on a computer.
I too agree with your statements with regards to civil rights and your liberties. Today this is a very relevent issue as according to some reports, are liberties are broken everyday in the name of protecting us from terror.
I think in our nations history, or any government, it has been very normal to have a "reactionary" stage preceeding any crisis. The Civil War, Japanese war camps during WWII etc. Although, thankfully our country has had a pattern of rejecting these practices only a few years later, lets just hope its the same this time around.
I agree that their rights were violated. They were going through their houses, with younger children in their presence, and getting everything that belonged to these boys without even having a warrant. I thought it wasn't even possible to do such a thing because it was against the rights of the person being accused. There should have been some kind of warrant involved but what they did was still causing a threat to people and their possessions. But, like the post said, it is wrong for them to go into the boys houses without the proper papers to do so.
The article written by Barlow discusses computer hacking and the people who do it. These people are called 'crackers' in the article. While I support the seizing of Optik and Acid's computer equipment for the things that they did; especially for crashing the AT&T system, I do not support the secret service keeping their equipment months later when no charges had bee filed. I also think it was really rash to go in and take citizen's elextronic equipment just for subscribing to a hacker's publication. If these people had not been proven to be hackers, then there were no grounds for the seizure. Something that really disturbed me about the article was the mention of a family who was held at gunpoint while secret service agents took all of their electronics, and kept it, on no grounds. This brings up the question why do we not have any jurisdiction regarding internet violations. I for one, think that we should in order to avoid things like operation Sun Devil happening again.
I sided with the companies in the article beause they are the one's with power. I agreed with the companies and FBI because they had cause to look into the matter because the crackers hacked into the phone companies system and stole information. It does not matter what the information was, the fact is it was stolen. In this day and age there is potential to steal in the real world and cyberspace. Stealing is stealing. The phone company and FBI may not have handled the matter in the best way possible but they did have the right to question the crackers. I feel that our constitution was designed for flexibility. We try to interpret it the best we can. That is why there have been so many cases questioning its meaning. We try to create standards in this world and I feel that the standards of stealing are the same no matter where the action is completed.
I think that in this case, the fbi may have gone too far with their punishment of the hackers. But i think that we have to take into account when the article was published. We taked a lot yesterday about who should decide what the punishment should be for hackers and i think that it is up to the courts to decide. i think that there should be experts brought in whenever things like this happen involving hackers, to ensure that the police do not over react, and give a sentence that is not fair for the action.
There's no doubt that what these people did was illegal, but using a S.W.A.T. team to bust down their door is a little much. To the FBI's credit there was no way of knowing who was on the other side of the computer doing the hacking. Perhaps the backup could have waited outside and a single detective could have gone to the front door. On the other hand, I understand that for the most part what thses individuals did was harmless, but they must face the consequences. In real life, if you break into someone's house and don't take anything, it is still a crime. Why shouldn't hacking into a company's security system be a virtual breaking an entering? As technology progresses, we are forced to make new laws regarding these sorts of things. Just like in real life, if you are to illegally enter someone's domain, make a copy of a file and publish it, there should be a value assigned to that document and you should be punished according to that value. You should never be held without charges, but these people cannot get off scott free.
the answer to your rhetorical question is no. The government has no right to treat these people like they did. However the fear of why someone would be trespassing where they shouldnt be does bring up serious suspicions that should be acted on (although in a different way). Especially if these people had certain skills that could be dangerous to the company. I did agree with Barlow when he said that these people weren't cyber punks but just punks, and although it was wrong, it felt like they got what they deserved. In the beginning the hackers were the threatening ones, telling people that they could destroy their credit as they please. I liked how the situation was reversed, and they became the victims. Maybe for a lesson learned.
I see that the situation might have been handled wrong but case in point they still commited a crime and they should be punished for it. So what their rights were violated, I understand they should not have held their families in responsibility unless they are minors which you can hold the parents accountable. They should have been arrested for stealing but they got off lucky and just got held without any charges pressed on them. Perhaps it was just a scare tactic to say do this again and you will be charged. So maybe they should consider themselves lucky.
I agree that the laws of the U.S. government should have been upheld. There should have been a some sort of trial where a jury decides the fate of the young men at question. However, you can not just hack into a company's system and expect nothing to happen. Whether you stole some important information or just copied something irrelevent, you pose some type of threat that needs to be handled. Hopefully the consequences at this point are decided by the American people, rather than the companies who were violated.
This article almost makes you feel bad for the way the hackers were treated. However, at the same time, you want to agree with what the government was doing. But maybe that's what it was supposed to do. To me, I think if anything of any matter is going to be taken to court, then all cases SHOULD be treated the same way, even if the evidence is proving to be illegal and morally wrong. This goes back to what I was saying in class... Previous cases are used to make for final decisions in present court cases. That's what they're there for, and that's why they're logged. Perhaps these precedents are a little bit outdated, but a legal courtroom is supposed to follow the general verdict of these cases. It's part of the constitution of the United States, and without following these standards... does that make our country unconstitutional? I think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home