A great loss..

[The_Doc_Man]

My very limited knowledge tells me before you become a "White Hat", you've earned your wisdom working as a "Black Hat".

Your knowledge is out of date since at least the 2010 decade, because that was when Microsoft introduced the course title "Certified Ethical Hacker" and made it available for numerous consultants who DIDN'T have to become a Black Hat hacker. If the Navy would have paid for the course tuition earlier, I would have considered taking the course. However, their notably ... frugal approach convinced me that 2016 would be the year I retired - and I did.

 

[KitaYama]

Your knowledge is out of date since at least the 2010 decade, because that was when Microsoft introduced the course title "Certified Ethical Hacker" and made it available for numerous consultants who DIDN'T have to become a Black Hat hacker. If the Navy would have paid for the course tuition earlier, I would have considered taking the course. However, their notably ... frugal approach convinced me that 2016 would be the year I retired - and I did.

If not all, can we at least agree that a part of those white hats, started as a black hat? Like the one I showed?
They have been criminals at some point in their lives, and got away from it, by cooperating with FBI or likewise organization. Am I wrong?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Am I wrong?

No. But this all comes down to an age-old debate that we cannot answer definitively, because it is philosophical in nature. What is the purpose of prison?

Is prison meant to keep dangerous, violent people off the streets? If yes, hackers are generally not violent and prisons ARE overcrowded and full of violent, dangerous people. Is it proper to expose a non-violent person to the risks of a maximum security prison? Because once that person has been incarcerated, his/her safety is now DIRECTLY in the hands of government.

Is prison meant to punish people? If yes, we have this little thing in the USA regarding cruel and unusual punishment, probably stemming from the phrase "Let the punishment fit the crime" which in turn comes from the Bible and Solomon's admonition, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life." For people who never killed anyone, and their victims got on with their lives, the question has to be whether the hacker deserves the same opportunity, which would mean his punishment has a limit. Once s/he reaches that limit, the punishment has to end. It sounds from what you have said like your standards wouldn't place a limit on punishment.

Is prison meant to somehow rehabilitate people into becoming productive members of society? If a hacker can be turned away "from the dark side" and start doing things that lead to better protection of others, is that not evidence of rehabilitation? In which case to prolong punishment might be counter-productive whereas giving that person a supervised job with decent pay and freedom of movement might lead to a positive feedback loop to persuade said hacker to keep that hat white.
s

 

[KitaYama]

In which case to prolong punishment might be counter-productive whereas giving that person a supervised job with decent pay and freedom of movement might lead to a positive feedback loop to persuade said hacker to keep that hat white.

It's getting interesting. So the whole justice system is for rehabilitating offenders. Not vengeance or punishment.

1. Do you mean that if people with high technical powers, do some crimes, because they are not violent, and the prisons are over crowded, we can say: OK, we forget your wrong doings. Instead you should help us stop other high tech criminals?
   But wait..... those bad hackers may at some point change to be a good ones. Why you want to arrest black hat hackers after all, if you don't arrest the one if front of you?
   
   
2. If someone kills another person, the jail time is because he's dangerous to the society? or it's a punishment for what he has done?
   I'm sure there are people who have made a mistake and caused an accident that killed someone and went to jail. I'm also sure a part of them regrated what they've done and will never do it again. Are you ready to tell the victims : He's not dangerous to the society and our prisons are over crowded and we let him go?
   
   
3. This is the exact copy of your response:
   Is prison meant to somehow rehabilitate people into becoming productive members of society? If a hacker can be turned away "from the dark side" and start doing things that lead to better protection of others, is that not evidence of rehabilitation?
   Why do you give this chance only to hackers, or some gurus? Why not to other types of crimes? DUI, Hit and run, Burglary , theft.......
   In simple words, stupid people should go to jail, but we give a chance to elite (high tech) ones to get away with what they've done?

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Would you have sympathy for a hacker who steals your identity, takes an equity loan on your house, maxes out credit cards in your name, and demands a huge ransom to decrypt your company's data?

Heck no. I'm of Italian descent. We get even.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Would you have sympathy for a hacker who steals your identity, takes an equity loan on your house, maxes out credit cards in your name, and demands a huge ransom to decrypt your company's data?

Me personally? Oh, HELL no. I'm a retribution kind of guy. But I'm aware of the philosophical arguments (and the Bible's emphasis on forgiveness). Lawmakers don't go that way. They usually go the route of redemption because it's cheaper (in the long run) if it works.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

It's getting interesting. So the whole justice system is for rehabilitating offenders. Not vengeance or punishment.

1. Do you mean that if people with high technical powers, do some crimes, because they are not violent, and the prisons are over crowded, we can say: OK, we forget your wrong doings. Instead you should help us stop other high tech criminals?
   But wait..... those bad hackers may at some point change to be a good ones. Why you want to arrest black hat hackers after all, if you don't arrest the one if front of you?
   
   
2. If someone kills another person, the jail time is because he's dangerous to the society? or it's a punishment for what he has done?
   I'm sure there are people who have made a mistake and caused an accident that killed someone and went to jail. I'm also sure a part of them regrated what they've done and will never do it again. Are you ready to tell the victims : He's not dangerous to the society and our prisons are over crowded and we let him go?
   
   
3. This is the exact copy of your response:
   Is prison meant to somehow rehabilitate people into becoming productive members of society? If a hacker can be turned away "from the dark side" and start doing things that lead to better protection of others, is that not evidence of rehabilitation?
   Why do you give this chance only to hackers, or some gurus? Why not to other types of crimes? DUI, Hit and run, Burglary , theft.......
   In simple words, stupid people should go to jail, but we give a chance to elite (high tech) ones to get away with what they've done?

Many people have been rehabilitated that contributed to society afterwards. These opportunities are offered to others but usually it means they turn state's evidence or assist law enforcement with the capture of more dangerous criminals. If a non violent offender is given the opportunity to capture more dangerous individuals, then I'm all for giving deals.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It's getting interesting. So the whole justice system is for rehabilitating offenders. Not vengeance or punishment.

1. Do you mean that if people with high technical powers, do some crimes, because they are not violent, and the prisons are over crowded, we can say: OK, we forget your wrong doings. Instead you should help us stop other high tech criminals?
   But wait..... those bad hackers may at some point change to be a good ones. Why you want to arrest black hat hackers after all, if you don't arrest the one if front of you?
   
   
2. If someone kills another person, the jail time is because he's dangerous to the society? or it's a punishment for what he has done?
   I'm sure there are people who have made a mistake and caused an accident that killed someone and went to jail. I'm also sure a part of them regrated what they've done and will never do it again. Are you ready to tell the victims : He's not dangerous to the society and our prisons are over crowded and we let him go?
   
   
3. This is the exact copy of your response:
   Is prison meant to somehow rehabilitate people into becoming productive members of society? If a hacker can be turned away "from the dark side" and start doing things that lead to better protection of others, is that not evidence of rehabilitation?
   Why do you give this chance only to hackers, or some gurus? Why not to other types of crimes? DUI, Hit and run, Burglary , theft.......
   In simple words, stupid people should go to jail, but we give a chance to elite (high tech) ones to get away with what they've done?

To your point #1, we arrest them before they have turned away from the dark side because they sometimes need the incentive that goes with "three hots and a cot" that you get in prison. The arrest comes BEFORE the determination of alternatives. Some time in prison becomes the main motivator to consider other alternatives. After all, hackers aren't totally stupid. Misguided? Absolutely. Greedy? Not unhear of. But unable to learn from getting caught? That, they can learn. Frequently, release to become a White Hat hacker ALSO occurs with conditions such as closely supervised parole and probation. As in, mess up again and back in the slammer you go.

To your point #2, that is an impossible question to answer monolithically because our 50 states have 50 potentially different viewpoints on the exact purpose of incarceration. When I mentioned the possible reasons, I left off the "retribution" option (my error of omission) as a 4th reason to put folks in jail. But each state can emphasize their individual purpose and be different than its neighbors. You see, we have this strange setup that allows the states to become the crucibles for legal theories such as punishment, retribution, restoration, rehabilitation, etc. Once a state has tested a theory, we can see how well that worked - or didn't work. That's why the constitution is relatively small. The states have sovereignty to make many legal decisions as experiments and they have their own constitutions - so the US constitution doesn't have to be so big..

To your point #3, you over-projected, which lead to misunderstanding. The surrounding discussion was about hackers so I focused on hackers. But in fact many people who couldn't even turn on a computer, much less become a hacker, DO become rehabilitated and are given early release from prison. Many become ministers. Some become lawyers. I can't tell you all the things they try. But the point is, they get the chance to try.

 

[KitaYama]

To your point #2, that is an impossible question to answer monolithically because our 50 states have 50 potentially different viewpoints on the exact purpose of incarceration. When I mentioned the possible reasons, I left off the "retribution" option (my error of omission) as a 4th reason to put folks in jail. But each state can emphasize their individual purpose and be different than its neighbors. You see, we have this strange setup that allows the states to become the crucibles for legal theories such as punishment, retribution, restoration, rehabilitation, etc. Once a state has tested a theory, we can see how well that worked - or didn't work. That's why the constitution is relatively small. The states have sovereignty to make many legal decisions as experiments and they have their own constitutions - so the US constitution doesn't have to be so big..

I was not interested what the law says or how the states work. I was interested to hear what you, as a person, think is correct and what is wrong.

are given early release from prison. Many become ministers. Some become lawyers. I can't tell you all the things they try. But the point is, they get the chance to try.

Yes, but they first are sent to jail, and then are paroled after most of their time is served. But here's a part of hackers:
It seems that we have too many 0 years.

Name | Time Served in Prison | Notes
---------------------------------|------------------------ |---------------------------------------------------------
Hector Monsegur ("Sabu") | ~0.6 years (7 months) | LulzSec leader; sentence reduced due to major FBI help
Adrian Lamo | 0 years | Received probation + 6 months home detention
Justin Tanner Petersen | ~3.4 years (41 months) | FBI informant; still later convicted for new crimes
Kevin Mitnick | ~5 years | Later became security consultant; cooperation minimal
Ehud Tenenbaum | 0 years (suspended) | Suspended sentence + community service
Robert Tappan Morris | 0 years | 3 years probation for the Morris Worm
Albert Gonzalez | ~15 years | Cooperated early, but limited help; mastermind of major credit-card hacks

And we have Justin Tanner Petersen, FBI informant - 41 months jail time. later, he was arrested on different charges. There are stories that even while he was helping FBI, he was continuing his fraud. (No one is sure about it. May be only rumors. But it's fact that he was arrested again on same charges.)

 

[KitaYama]

If a non violent offender is given the opportunity to capture more dangerous individuals, then I'm all for giving deals.

I need to think about what you said.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I was not interested what the law says or how the states work. I was interested to hear what you, as a person, think is correct and what is wrong.

With limited exceptions, I believe in second chances. It's a balancing act to keep someone in jail for a long time, in that the long incarceration has to be the counterbalance to a really heinous crime. Animals get caged, but humans should not... except that sometimes we need to do exactly that, when discussing heinous crimes. And therein lies the difficulty... what is a heinous crime? It is the answer to that question that you seek from me, but you are strictly out of luck here. I doubt that I am consistent in my belief of what constitutes "heinous" in the crime arena. So many crimes, so many severities.

 

[DickyP]

I love these simplistic debates. They nearly always ignore consequences (and harsh reality).

And I promised myself I wouldn't contribute to this sort of thread again ... sorry.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I need to think about what you said.

You have to realize that the majority of middle and lower class individuals get incarcerated in extremely violent prisons which can turn a gentle person into a monster . Wealthy and well connected individuals go to minimum security institutions or their families send them to country club medical facilities before they are arrested or sentenced. Juvenile facilities are just as bad.

Shouldn't the non violent person get an alternate punishment? A few years back, a billionaire from my area, Ty Warner, of Beanie Baby fame, was arrested for tax fraud. He was so ashamed of what he did that he pleaded guilty, paid back all of the taxes, plus a very large fine. Do you think that was fair? I do because the man was extremely generous to the community before the crime was committed. Thousands of people in the area, including my daughter and myself, enjoy the beautiful park and indoor pool facility that bears his name. He donated the land and funds to the park district. It's located across the street from his corporate headquarters. Not all criminals should go to prison.

 

[KitaYama]

Burglar

You have to realize that the majority of middle and lower class individuals get incarcerated in extremely violent prisons which can turn a gentle person into a monster . Wealthy and well connected individuals go to minimum security institutions or their families send them to country club medical facilities before they are arrested or sentenced. Juvenile facilities are just as bad.

Shouldn't the non violent person get an alternate punishment? A few years back, a billionaire from my area, Ty Warner, of Beanie Baby fame, was arrested for tax fraud. He was so ashamed of what he did that he pleaded guilty, paid back all of the taxes, plus a very large fine. Do you think that was fair? I do because the man was extremely generous to the community before the crime was committed. Thousands of people in the area, including my daughter and myself, enjoy the beautiful park and indoor pool facility that bears his name. He donated the land and funds to the park district. It's located across the street from his corporate headquarters. Not all criminals should go to prison.

You make me think harder.

 

[NauticalGent]

@KitaYama,

Since I know my opinion of you matters to you...

Your 2 responses regarding "Let me think about that..." exhibit a level of maturity and level-headedness rarely seen. Most folks, myself included, are so caught up in being right that they simply will not/can not take the time to even consider someone else's point of view. Even if you do not change your mind one iota, the fact you even took the time is honorable.

Looking forward to how you respond. Truth be told, I am not sure how I feel about this either..."the greater good" concept has been one of the biggest moral hazards of our lifetime and enablers of evil.

 

[KitaYama]

@KitaYama,

Since I know my opinion of you matters to you...

Your 2 responses regarding "Let me think about that..." exhibit a level of maturity and level-headedness rarely seen. Most folks, myself included, are so caught up in being right that they simply will not/can not take the time to even consider someone else's point of view. Even if you do not change your mind one iota, the fact you even took the time is honorable.

As I mentioned in my previous DM, the purpose of debating or discussing a topic isn’t to establish who is right or wrong. It’s to create a space where ideas can be shared. We’re all human, and every one of us has limits in our understanding. That’s why discussions are valuable. they give us the chance to learn from one another and to see things from angles we might not have considered.

A meaningful conversation requires listening, not just waiting for our turn to speak. It requires the willingness to question our own beliefs and to give the possibility that someone else might have insight we don’t. Without that openness, a debate becomes one-sided and ultimately pointless. If we refuse to listen and reflect, we lose the opportunity to grow, both personally and intellectually.

I'm not here to "win". I'm here to see if what I believe is correct or not. And it needs to listen and think what I'm told.

Looking forward to how you respond.

I'm at work now and I need to be alone with myself and concentrate. I also need to talk to someone from my culture (my wife) and discuss it live. Words, speially a forign languge is not enough. I'll be around and reply.

And million thanks for all your kind words.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Burglar

You make me think harder.

I really don't consider burglars to be non violent. When discovered by their victims, many stay and attack. Then there is the stress the victims feel because they are no longer safe in their homes .

I also think harder after reading your opinions.

 

[Jason Lee Hayes]

I love these simplistic debates. They nearly always ignore consequences (and harsh reality).

And I promised myself I wouldn't contribute to this sort of thread again ... sorry.

I regret ever starting it—reading back, the meaning feels lost in translation. I won’t be posting to the watercooler anymore. Still, I have to admit, revisiting some of the comments is entertaining, even if many strike me as laughable in their ignorance.

 

[AccessBlaster]

People should really lighten up, these conversations aren't altering the space time continuum. It's just humans expressing themselves.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Sometimes it is the implicit contact with another person that DOES lighten up the day. Otherwise, why would social media exist? Even if it is really an illusion, we can all benefit from that exchange of ideas - whether we are in a pub tossing down a pint or in a forum tossing down an idea. Man is a gregarious animal - specifically in this case meaning Man does not like to be alone.

The conversations DO alter the space-time continuum in the same sense as the Butterfly Effect. Spreading a sense of connection isn't a bad thing.