Brit teen Jack Chappell has avoided being sent to prison after pleading guilty to helping launch DDoS attacks against NatWest, Amazon and Netflix, among others. Chappell, 19, from Heaton Moor, Stockport, launched 2,000 DDoS attacks and aided several others as part of the vDos "booter" service. The site posed as a server stress …
As facts are presented, I am not happy with the results.
One of the big risks of running online services is DDOS. You either pay to whoever menaces you or go with DDOS protection schemes. Anyway you lose money, and nicurr in risks.
If people run a risk for conducting DDOS operations, most would stop.
While in many respects I agree there is perhaps another perspective.
Many companies make a lot of money out of the Internet despite it being obvious from the beginning that it was insecure in its design. So, you could possibly argue that these companies went ahead and made huge profits while expecting the courts and police to sort any problems out for them.
"Yes, I pay taxes I am law abiding member of society, so why should I not expect the courts and police to sort out the criminals "
I suspect that you are not willing to pay enough tax to sort out all the criminals. I further suspect that you are not a law abiding member of society, purely because I know of nobody who is.
"Yes, I pay taxes I am law abiding member of society, so why should I not expect the courts and police to sort out the criminals - "
Lets go for your justice
Cost of young offender in prison
Approx £100,000 per year, (excluding any costs if he needs hospital treatment for things like attempted suicide, self harm or assault). So what do you want 2. 5 , 10 years?
Cost of benefits, because he can't get a job afterwards.
Loss of taxes because he could be reformed (yes it does happen believe it or not) and gotten a job.
So remind me again, how much tax have you paid?
"Cost of benefits, because he can't get a job afterwards."
He still has a criminal conviction against his name.
One shortcoming of the the rehabilitation system is that a number of supposed rehabilitees seem to get away with failing to meet their obligations with no substantive escalation of punishment to deter this. There are a surprising number of instances reported in the local press where so-and-so has missed appointments with probation officers/failed to turn up for their unpaid work/whatever and simply get a further term of whatever it is they're ignoring added or maybe a week or two's curfew.
The courts presumably think they're sending the message that the offender can't get away without extra punishment. The offender receives the message that he can continue without being punished. The first law of communication: the message communicated is what's received, not what's transmitted.
I don't think a full prison sentence is the answer in this case but I do think 7 days in the clink is what should have happened. The only incentive this kid now has is to not get caught next time. The pull of all that money will be too much of a temptation so expect to see him again in the not to distant future.
article: "You were taken advantage of by those more criminally sophisticated than yourself"
"As facts are presented, I am not happy with the results."
neither am I. A _reduced_ sentence in "big boy jail" would have been appropriate, due to guilty plea AND maybe some assistance with prosecuting others. that's "standard operating procedure" in law enforcement.
Instead, the judge was subjected to "Hearts and Flowers" played on the world's smallest violin, "Oh, my heart, it BLEEDS, for YOUUUUUU!" etc. and this guy got off with a WRIST SLAP.
Sentencing is SUPPOSED to deter OTHERS from trying the same crap by MAKING AN EXAMPLE. you know, protect society and all of that. FEEWING SOWWY for the POOW CWIMINAL, Awwwww.... that's just *SICK*.
I suspect those tutting and shaking their heads in flaky disapproval are not completely aware of all the facts - because all the facts of a court case are not generally given on a tech site.
It's entirely probable that the closing remarks given by Judge Greene reflected the circumstances of the young guy's fall into criminality. Presumably he was coereced into doing what he was told, or the other two had something over the guy which acted as an...incentive to continue doing naughty things.
Generally speaking, judges don't witter on in a sympathetic manner if they didn't have reasoning.
"Presumably he was coereced into doing what he was told, or the other two had something over the guy which acted as an...incentive to continue doing naughty things."
or maybe... JUST maybe... the case was heard before a liberal-leaning "feel sorry for them" judge, and the criminal's lawyers PLAYED HEARTS AND FLOWERS during the trial, to manipulate and "tug at the heart strings" and generate waterfalls of tears and sympathy for the "poor cwiminal, Awwwww" to get him off with a WRIST SLAP and ONLY threat of "kiddy jail" if he screws up again within the next 2 years.
I think my explanation is the more likely one to be correct. It's based on past history.
Using the SAME LOGIC of "he was coerced" or manipulated or whatever, MANSON'S WOMEN should be parolled. But I doubt ANYONE wants THAT...
I think CONSISTENCY in law enforcement is KEY to an orderly society. "We feel sorry for you" should *NEVER* (repeat *NEVER*) be *ANY* excuse for ultra-light sentencing or *ANY* kind of favoritism, just like economic circumstance, social status, or "who you know/blow" should ALSO be excluded from ANY conviction or sentencing.
Here in the USA we're running into a few problems with this last part... "equal justice for all" should be THE ONLY RULE, but you find many (OJ, Mrs. Clinton being 2 examples) who seem to "get away with it" ALL too EASILY! And *THAT* is *WRONG*.
And I don't blame the lawyers. They're actually doing their jobs. If they did not AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND their clients, the system would not work. Prosecutors need to be JUST as good, and judges and jurors need to JETTISON THEIR POLITICS AND FEELINGS AT THE COURT ROOM DOOR (and be TRULY impartial!).
Come on, the bloke's 16 and committed the equivalent of putting a padlock on the front door of a shop preventing it from opening on time ... Yes, he was behaving like a punk ... but sounds like, for a 16 yo, he is quite computer literate ... not a useless idiot like ordinary crims are ... let him grow up a bit and he will choose an infosec career!
So he's part of a gang that netted $600,000 , launched 2,000 attacks, sells his services and assists the attackers, and he gets a suspended sentence...
I should get my hands on a server and a copy of the code and get to work straight away.
Oh wait, I'm not a teenager...
I must be a criminal
I will get a jail sentence and it will not be suspended.
Judges like Judge Maurice Greene have no concept of reality. This guy knew exactly what he was doing and pocketed his fees. All in exchange for taking a rehabilitation course. "Please Judge Maurice Greene, I realise the errors of my ways and repent. And next time I will not get caught so easily."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022