Leicestershire teen admits attempting to hack director of the CIA A teenager from Leicestershire, England, has admitted to trying to hack US government officials including the director of the CIA and Obama's Director of National Intelligence. Kane Gamble, 18, pleaded guilty on Friday to 10 charges at Leicester crown court. Other targets included Avril Haines, Barack Obama’s deputy national …
Oh wow! you have a function like this: codeIsSecureFromAllThreats(program):bool
that takes an arbitrary program as an argument. While you're at it could you also provide me with:
doesHalt(program):bool
that would be much appreciated :)
While the point is that everyone should take basic security measures, neither of the above functions exist so guarding against all threats remains an exceptional feat. Equally true is: just because you can, does not mean you should. Secondly, your analogy suffers from the same problem that most analogies do, it is bad. If ineptitude excused a person's legal obligations, I'm almost certain that many legal representatives would urge the courts that their clients could not possibly have a guilty verdict rendered upon them, on the grounds that they were in some way stupid, like analogies.
If I say "abracadabra the US 6th fleet to turn into frogs" is that an attempted act of terrorism?
And if I answer, is that "supplying information likely to be of use to a terrorist"?
Rest assured, the government is undoubtedly mad, but that means they can expect to successfully plead "corporate insanity".
You obviously don't know what the C, I and A stand for
There is a company based in the south of England called "Christie Intruder Alarms". The alarm boxes they put on buildings are badged "CIA"
It sounds like the pertinent statute is the Computer Misuse one https://goo.gl/BkynJt . I don't think your argument will fly. In the US, indeed, if the act is impossible, then the person can't be charged with attempting to do it. The textbook example is that a eunuch can't be charged with attempted rape. But in this case (which is in the UK, of course), "causing risk" is the pivotal phrase.
Gamble's barrister, William Harbage QC, said his client is "on the autistic spectrum".
And? I know and am related to a fair few people with official ASD labels. Seems to me that they do know right from wrong (if anything, seeing it in far more B&W terms than people without ASD). So given that the vast majority of people with ASD didn't try and hack US state computer systems, it doesn't sound much of an excuse. Back in the day of McKinnon, I'd agree with the defence that "the door seemed open, I just pushed it gently", but we're now past that. We all know the Feds don't like being hacked (much as they deserve it), and that they'll go after white collar amateur hackers with a vengeance. Maybe Mr Harbage should have told the court "My client is a dick, but he's really, really sorry, and won't do it again".
go unnoticed for months maybe years and are never reported. Why? because they went unnoticed for months maybe years.
On another note:
Only skiddies attempt to hack from a location that can be traced back to them.
Running anothers' code is never hard, understanding what it does and what trails it leaves isn't so hard either... Unless one is a skiddie.
followed by the obligatory handwringing by UK (Conservative) government saying there is nothing they can do as it is all in the UK-US extradition treaty and we must honour our treaty obligations, whilst at the same time happily renege on all the treaties the UK government signed with the EEC/EU...
He entered his plea at crown court so it's probably because one or more of the offences were indictable (can only be tried at crown court). Only offences which are summary only or triable either way can be heard at magistrates court.
Had it been just for sentencing, the plea would have been heard at magistrates court and the case "referred to crown court for sentencing". That's not what the article says happened, so that means it was not taken to crown court just for sentencing.
Edit: Just looked it up - "causing risk of serious damage to human welfare/national security" is section 3ZA of Computer Misuse Act 1990, which was added by Serious Crime Act 2015, and is indictable only, therefore cannot be heard at a magistrates court, hence straight to crown court for plea hearing.
Oh another "I'm not xxx so I can throw stones at those who are" post.
When eugenics becomes a thing, I'm sure the elimination of autism people will be one of the (many) "improvements". If only to save the CIA from attacks by the low hanging fruit.
Not sure you'll be quite so keen to be counted amongst their ranks then.
Re: "ORLY"
"Eugenics - the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)".
What do you think is the real purpose of mapping the human genome then? Or is it just an interesting science project? Or are you just unable to stop yourself from being sarcastic?
Some day society will accept it in the same way as today, government mandated vaccinations are seen as "the right thing to do". To coin a Star Trek phrase - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Kid would do something stupid, cops/parents/random bystanders would kick his arse, everyone would move on, either lessons learnt or exercise to be repeated.
These days it seems no one can interfere with little timmies "Self Actualization" until he crosses boundaries he never learnt to respect, and the full weight and accompanying cost of the legal industry grinds into action, followed by baying media circus and several other tortured metaphors.
or
Smack your kids, its good for them.
"How about we review your life history and for everything we deem wrong we get to punch you."
I assume you don't have kids, seeing as you think "smack" means the same thing as "punch". I have two children (14 and 19) and although I have on occasion smacked them, I have never punched them. And before you say it's the same thing...it isn't.
but..
this is exactly what I meant about sense of proportion.
Instead of a response appropriate to the situation, its straight to DEFCON 5, crucifixions all round, midnight renditions and spitttle all over the keyboard.
As for reviewing my life history, I am old enough that when I WAS young, physical punishment was one of the consequences of excessive stupidity. Most of the voices in my head tell me I'm sane, even if some of them are compulsive liars...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
