Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by techdirt.com


We were just discussing whether or not banning internet access for criminals involved in internet-based crimes made any sense (or was really viable), and along comes another story about just such a ban. It turns out that the kid who famously hacked Paris Hilton's T-Mobile Sidekick and revealed all of her contact info has now been barred from posessing or using anything that can access the internet for two years. Anything? That sounds a bit extreme. While the guy apparently was involved in a long string of hack attacks against a variety of different targets, with so much being internet enabled these days, it seems a bit silly to completely ban him from any device that can access the internet. It rules out an awful lot of mobile phones. Modern gaming consoles are pretty much out. Many DVR devices can access the internet. Increasingly, cars have some form of internet access as well. What about VoIP phones? They access the internet. What if the guy doesn't even realize he's using a VoIP phone? This isn't to say the guy doesn't deserve some punishment. But, the ban doesn't seem to take into account the realities of the world.

---

Source: http://techdirt.com/articles/20050914/0248251_F.shtml

My comments: No comments.

I'm sorry, but if someone commits cybercrime via the Internet, it's perfectly acceptable to ban thaty person from the Net. Given so much uses the Net these days, it won't take a long ban to show people how much they depend on the Net. Hell, I'm fully legal online, and I get a bit ratty over a couple of days with no connection.

"Hey, hold my phone for a sec?"


"SIKE!!"

I mean everyone is entitiled to their own privacy and of course he should be banned.

I certainly disagree with the decision.

On a different note, would anybody even care if he hacked my phone, not Paris'?

Banned From The Internet?

its not guna last...

the internet is a addictive place...

Take it to General!

Firstly, this guy isn't what you'd call a "hacker" a true hacker is someone that explorers the internet to find problems and then solves them, in the hopes of making the internet better. This guy is more of an offencive cracker than a hacker, there is a difference that must be noted.
However I don't have a problem with this sort of banning, if people take the piss on the internet and misuse it with the purpose of doing wrong things, why shouldn't they be banned?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo
Well, that will show others not to do this kind of thing.

---

Edit: merging because it doesn't make sense to have 2 opinion posts in the same thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis
Firstly, this guy isn't what you'd call a "hacker" a true hacker is someone that explorers the internet to find problems and then solves them, in the hopes of making the internet better. This guy is more of an offencive cracker than a hacker, there is a difference that must be noted.

---

Indeed, that whole "hacker" propaganda is annoying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paperless
barred from posessing or using anything that can access the internet for two years

---

Now, my question would be: only two years?! He shouldn't be able to access the Internet for more than that. And I don't care if the toilet has access to Internet, people should think before risking the integrity (and even lives) of others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rav0
On a different note, would anybody even care if he hacked my phone, not Paris'?

---

Everyone's privacy is important, and if someone leaks your cell phone's content to the Internet, you have the right to call the authorities and let them do their job.

afaik all the guy did was try login with her account, click 'I forgot my password' and answer the secret question (which was the name of her dog). It was all commonly known info, anyone could have done it.

It's kind of stupid banning him from the Internet for 2 years for something that simple. Maybe if Paris Hilton didn't keep photos on the phone of her kissing her naked lesbian friends eh...

It's her own fault for doing something as stupid as answering a secret question truthfully.