While the jury may be out in the case of mr. Lamo, mr. Ranum can only be described as a bloody effin moron. The point that he chose to present in the article is that if something is against the law it should be punnished swiftly and surely, and that society isn't comfortable with anything that is agaist the law.

Starting with the second part, how many people not only don't feel that speeding is bad, but actively encourage it - however the laws on speeding don't seem to be changing. So too with other laws - how many people can say that they could stand up to a charge of mail fraud or conspiracy, to mention the two most well know. This isn't even getting into such things as drug laws (marijuana, anyone?) and other such popular and illegal pastimes. On the flip side, how many people here would have sex with a six year old if it were legal. Or how about murder, rape or even plain old assault? Not I, for one, and I am confident that most people here would answer likewise. Indeed, people do things not because they know the law (after all, people don't know the law - only lawyers do, and then only a small part thereof) but because they believe that what they do is morally right.

That brings me to the first part of Ranum's statement. I will conceed that there should be a swift and sure reponse to caught hackers, much as there is a swift and sure response to shoplifters and other petty criminals. However, much like shoplifters, punishing hackers with equal or greater severity to murderers, rapists and armed robbers is far more detrimental than good. There might be the matter of finantial dammage, however, that possibility had previously been stipulated to null.

Therefore, hackers don't automatically deserve a goto jail card.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/358/11448#11448