Autistic UK Hacker faces being shipped out to the US.
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"Is it right to punish this mentally underdevelopment man in the same way as you would a fully developed one"
Whoa whoa whoa let me stop you RIGHT there mate!!!
i don't know if your aware or not about this, but Aspergers syndrom does not make a persons brain underdeveloped.
Aspergers syndrom affect a multitude of things and can be quite unique in differant people.
That said the most common things that the syndrom affects are:
*A persons ability to socialise with other people (especially strangers)
*the person may become overwhelmed by audio or visual images and objects
*the person may become fixated on attention to details while blocking obvious large details
The list goes on but none of these make a person UNDERDELEVLOPED I should know this bloody well because I myself have Aspergers syndrom and can attest to my brain being fully developed and able.
"....Even if I keep forgetting how to work the sodding quote system on the site"
Whoa whoa whoa let me stop you RIGHT there mate!!!
i don't know if your aware or not about this, but Aspergers syndrom does not make a persons brain underdeveloped.
Aspergers syndrom affect a multitude of things and can be quite unique in differant people.
That said the most common things that the syndrom affects are:
*A persons ability to socialise with other people (especially strangers)
*the person may become overwhelmed by audio or visual images and objects
*the person may become fixated on attention to details while blocking obvious large details
The list goes on but none of these make a person UNDERDELEVLOPED I should know this bloody well because I myself have Aspergers syndrom and can attest to my brain being fully developed and able.
"....Even if I keep forgetting how to work the sodding quote system on the site"
As an autistic American I salute you and agree with everything you said (including the bit at the bottom with the picture).FalloutJack said:
Regardless of where he is sentenced, the sheer amount of problems which arise are going to make this such a hard case. He got in there, and i doubt the US is going to reveal exactly what he saw. This essentially makes the guy a target for people who would use the information he potentially found against the US, and i doubt they'd be any friendlier than either the US or UK prison system to him.
Extradition is a bit much. I can understand why the US want to be able to try him, but really what's the point. The idea of prison isn't essentially to punish people what for what they have done, it's to protect the rest of the population from someone who has proven their malicious intent. Now this guy is probably sh**ting bricks anyway, facing extradition and having the US government against him, i'm pretty sure that he's learned his lesson. However, can he control himself? That's the bigger problem. Best solution is definitely to keep him monitored and for him to stay in the UK, it's not like he's going to go on a murderous rampage, and it's not a particularly difficult thing to keep him away from computers or simply not give him an internet connection...
Personally, i think the main problem now is keeping him protected since his name has been plastered all around the world along with the fact he knows US secrets...
Extradition is a bit much. I can understand why the US want to be able to try him, but really what's the point. The idea of prison isn't essentially to punish people what for what they have done, it's to protect the rest of the population from someone who has proven their malicious intent. Now this guy is probably sh**ting bricks anyway, facing extradition and having the US government against him, i'm pretty sure that he's learned his lesson. However, can he control himself? That's the bigger problem. Best solution is definitely to keep him monitored and for him to stay in the UK, it's not like he's going to go on a murderous rampage, and it's not a particularly difficult thing to keep him away from computers or simply not give him an internet connection...
Personally, i think the main problem now is keeping him protected since his name has been plastered all around the world along with the fact he knows US secrets...
I do understand that. I was just stating that even if they didn't have the evidence they could have him taken to America to be trialled.asinann said:
Silly those are prison years. Unless he kills someone in jail thats like only 25 real years.Fat Man Spoon said:
No, just see it as proof that the US goverment wants to bluster and make a big deal of this to scare people away from doing it again, rather then you know being productive and making protection that cannot be broken by a mental challenged individual.Altorin said:
I would like you to answer this man's question, if it's not too much to ask.Amnestic said:
Anyway, I believe he should be extrad... sent to American courts because he did break into America's servers. I don't belive he should be given the maximum probably 5 years max.Laughing Man said:
Okay those are two different things. I think the US should be able to punish him, but I do agree that 60 years is WAY too harsh.TickleMeGaryG said:
Yes, I agree. The only problem I can think of is the fact that The US will be WAY too harsh (which is funny, killing a child over here get's parole and/or a few years, hacking into a computer get's a possible 60) and the UK will be WAY too easy on him.Salem_Wolf said:
But you bring up a good point, one I thought in the back of my head, he may just be trying to divert blame. How do we know for sure he wasn't trying to hack something else. If he can't control himself from hacking it, who's to say that he CAN control himself to tell the truth?
To be honest, if people are that smart and get caught, the government can at least pay them a decent enough sum of money to work on their net security. Or they can stop being morons and create a standalone network, wires an all that shit, and store their data locally.
If, as has been stated, this man lacks impulse control and therefor could not stop himself from committing this crime, then it would not appear to be moral to try him, at least in the U.S. However, my feelings about the judicial system is that the law must sometimes punish someone who is not deserving of punishment. This is because if we were to make exceptions to who at the behest of government officials, such as Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson, it could lead to governmental corruption, a result none of us desire. Additionally, based on some of his remarks and views, it seems that he is very high-function. He apparently did not even show symptoms significant enough to point to Asperger's. Although his condition may have impeded his efforts to stop his hacking, he did make the initial decision to start. It is impossible not to sympathize with this man, but he did commit a crime, and making a legal exception for him would be unjust and unfair to others who are jailed or fined for similar crimes.
A few lines of reasoning I'd like to take on:
1)Crime was committed in UK, therefore trial in UK.
I don't understand net jurisdiction, but until someone comes on who does does, I think we should all clamp down on this. In the end, he stole information from an American database owned by the American government. Just like the page 1 Osama Bin Laden example, though the Twin Towers were blown up in America, Osama never set foot on American soil; all his plotting was done elsewhere. Can he then not be prosecuted for second degree murder just because he wasn't there himself?
Moreover, what if this were a real cyberattack that had taken place in (say) pre-invasion Afghanistan (or North Korea, or Iran, or...). Crime committed in Afghanistan, crime to be trialled in Afghanistan. And so what if the government is delighted by the whole thing? As you can see, it's alright to claim that the UK should run the trial when it's the UK but that's a bad precedent to set when the next cyberattack could be a real one that takes place in a passively unfriendly country. Of course, getting extradition in those cases would be hard anyway, but it's not helpful at all to set a precedent with your friends and then demand different treatment from your estranged eighbours.
2)US overrreacting. He's got Asperger's and he was only looking for UFOs!
Yes, he had Asperger's, he didn't do anything serious and he was a bit loopy. I'm sure this will be taken into account. The fact is, though, that a crime is still a crime. As stated in an earlier example, it's not as severe a crime to break into a store and not steal anything - but it still is. It's breaking and entering and it's still a crime. A crime you'll likely be punished less for, but a crime nonetheless.
We can't conflate the US's desire to put him on trial with the US overreacting in an effort to put him away until 107. There's a difference between understanding his Asperger's when he's on trial and giving him a free pass because he has Asperger's. When and if he's put on trial I'm sure the severity of his Asperger's and the role it - and other mitigating factors -played will be considered.
1)Crime was committed in UK, therefore trial in UK.
I don't understand net jurisdiction, but until someone comes on who does does, I think we should all clamp down on this. In the end, he stole information from an American database owned by the American government. Just like the page 1 Osama Bin Laden example, though the Twin Towers were blown up in America, Osama never set foot on American soil; all his plotting was done elsewhere. Can he then not be prosecuted for second degree murder just because he wasn't there himself?
Moreover, what if this were a real cyberattack that had taken place in (say) pre-invasion Afghanistan (or North Korea, or Iran, or...). Crime committed in Afghanistan, crime to be trialled in Afghanistan. And so what if the government is delighted by the whole thing? As you can see, it's alright to claim that the UK should run the trial when it's the UK but that's a bad precedent to set when the next cyberattack could be a real one that takes place in a passively unfriendly country. Of course, getting extradition in those cases would be hard anyway, but it's not helpful at all to set a precedent with your friends and then demand different treatment from your estranged eighbours.
2)US overrreacting. He's got Asperger's and he was only looking for UFOs!
Yes, he had Asperger's, he didn't do anything serious and he was a bit loopy. I'm sure this will be taken into account. The fact is, though, that a crime is still a crime. As stated in an earlier example, it's not as severe a crime to break into a store and not steal anything - but it still is. It's breaking and entering and it's still a crime. A crime you'll likely be punished less for, but a crime nonetheless.
We can't conflate the US's desire to put him on trial with the US overreacting in an effort to put him away until 107. There's a difference between understanding his Asperger's when he's on trial and giving him a free pass because he has Asperger's. When and if he's put on trial I'm sure the severity of his Asperger's and the role it - and other mitigating factors -played will be considered.
personally i think that the US is only doing this so that someone else doesn't convince him to try and do it again, but this time with malicious intent. they should know that he is not a threat, but others may turn him into one.
in this situation i would change his identity as opposed to locking him in prison for 60 years. that should make him harder to find at least.
in this situation i would change his identity as opposed to locking him in prison for 60 years. that should make him harder to find at least.