I'm somewhere in the middle on this one. You make a few good points. I do not think there is an easy answer to this problem. A problem of both crime and terminology, however when you break things down to the nitty gritty people basically need to be held accountable for what they do. If someone does something which is illegal they should pay for their actions. If a law is broken it is broken. So if you do some malicious hacking for example and are caught you must take responsibility for your actions....however later down the line if you are found to be associated with a terrorist organization you and your organization must be dealt with according to your potential threat in the scheme of things. Obviously you will probably be dealt with a little differently then if your some young punk up too late on a Saturday night drinking red bull's. Basically what it boils down to is distinguishing "terrorist hackers" and "hackers". I think the reason for this is quite obvious. If you are that young punk and cause $5000 worth of damage you will pay for what you have done, if you are a terrorist who has done $5000 you will also pay, but upon further investigation if the terrorist is found to be affiliated with a terrorist organization I am sure that the terrorist will have other things,people,contacts and goals to answer for and it is not that we have to draw the difference in the consequences of the criminal act but that we need to use the full universe of information regarding the one who committed the act.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/38/9040#9040