I don't think putting someone away for life is equal punishment for hacking a computer if there is NO damage. That would mean no financial loss, intellectual theft, identity theft, or invasion of privacy.

I do think that if there is damage done, charges should be filed, and the persons who committed the crimes should be prosecuted and punished. Imprisonment is not too harsh a sentence; Life in prison, (depending on the crime accomplished and the damage done) may be. Now for example if people lost their lives as a result of the actions of a hacker that is another matter that translates the crime into some kind of murder charge. Depending on the damage done additional charges should be filed and the seriousness of the damage should be considered in the sentencing.

I also think that if you hack into a system and do so knowingly violating expressed prohibition to unauthorized individuals you should be prosecuted if the attacked entity wishes to press changes. Even Adrian Lamo and those like him. There is no Robin Hood in real life. The concept is flawed because it exults and condones lawless behavior as if the end justified the means. Legally Robin Hood was still an outlaw. And legally if you knowingly break into someone's house just to show them how vulnerable they are, you are still breaking and entering. If a hacked organization wants to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law they have that right. And furthermore they also shouldn't be stigmatized because they choose to do so.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/358/11466#11466