Comment by hparadiz
4 years ago
Posts like yours validate the insane over criminalization of what essentially amounts to a prank. I had literally the exact same experience in high school. Got expelled and had to get a GED. They could have easily pressed charges.
Part of the issue is people like you who advocate for respecting "the system" and essentially scaring kids into not doing anything. Except that simply re-enforces the draconian laws that are currently in place. If more kids rebelled and this was a regular occurrence it would help to desensitize society to digital pranks instead of always treating these kids like terrorists.
GP isn't validating over criminalization. GP is trying to steer people clear of catching charges. The end results for both is, "Don't hack your school district for a prank," but the context of the two are very different. Students' minds are still developing. You can tell them not to respect Draconian laws surrounding hacking, but do the students understand what's at stake?
Yes, students get in trouble all the time, but most of the consequences for their stupidity are slaps on the hand. Lunch in a classroom, a parent-teacher conference, after school detention, in-school suspension, getting grounded - none of these things carry civil or criminal charges that are a matter of record. What should be a harmless prank can turn into a life altering civil and criminal charges. With high school kids, things quickly go from, "I hacked the school network to do a Rick Roll; they laughed and sent me on my way," all the way to, "I gave my friend the exploit to do something similar; I didn't know he was going to change everyone's grades to 69%."
Further, I would not want to teach in a district where students doing digital pranks is the norm. I volunteer at a high school. Unchecked digital pranks would quickly turn into a constant stream of disruptions. Everyone would think that their prank is better than the last.
Unfortunately, "desensitizing" people to existing law by illegal rebellions is a Pyrrhic victory at best when the consequences are so impactful to the individuals that martyr for The Cause.
There are processes for changing the laws without sending kids to jail, having to treat kids like terrorists, or potentially making the law even harsher because it isn't effective enough to dissuade lawbreaking. If the laws feel draconian, perhaps following those processes might be a better approach to change the system without as many sacrifices.
>There are processes for changing the laws without sending kids to jail, having to treat kids like terrorists, or potentially making the law even harsher because it isn't effective enough to dissuade lawbreaking.
And none of them work, or will ever work in this oligarchy. The rich own the congress, and the senate, and they benefit greatly from these things. America hasn't been a functioning republic in at least 50 years.
I don't understand this response. Having been on the wrong end of it you should be advocating harder than anyone to teach kids the complexities of cybersecurity law and ensure they can make the right decisions rather than throw away their future over a stupid prank. There is no "validation" happening here, the OP is just stating reality. Random high schoolers' rebellions aren't going to result in Congress overturning the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a hundred related laws.
> ensure they can make the right decisions rather than throw away their future over a stupid prank.
Is it a good system if a "stupid prank" can "throw away your future" ?
No it is not a good system. But nothing I said is invalid because of that.
No, but that doesn't mean you should deliberately play into it.
This is a very complicated problem.
Unless you kill someone I generally don’t believe in life long criminal records. They only serve to drive people into further criminality.
I imagine for a robbery you could get 5 years in prison, 5 years with it on your record and then automatically get it expunged.
Back to the topic at hand , what if the IT hack stopped people from getting paid on time. How many suffered emotional distress ? Evictions can literally cause suicide.
Maybe someone can’t afford medication, skip it and have a stroke.
The entire criminal justice system is broken. So you did something stupid at 20, at 46 you still can’t find a job due to your record.
People want simple easy solutions. Things are much more complicated. If you release a dozen felons 5 years early and 2 go on to commit horrific crimes it’s easy to ignore the good the other 10 did
I dunno. Assault that permanently injures someone, rape, kidnapping, and trafficking are lifelong scarring for the victims. I may not rank computer hacking or selling drugs as deserving of a permanent record, but there are lots of other violent crimes short of homicide that do.
> The entire criminal justice system is broken. So you did something stupid at 20, at 46 you still can’t find a job due to your record.
Welcome to the War On Redemption. Primary participants are the harmful people who create these systems and the people who remain silent while countless lives are ruined for no good result.
I don't think it's the record's duty to keep you from being employed. That's the employer's decision.
Even if I agree that it's a dumb practice, you're proposing a world where employers are free to refuse your hire if you (eg.) were fired from a job 26 years ago, but not because you were convicted of a crime.
You don't have to tell them you were fired
I don't think telling kids not to narc on themselves "validates the insane over-criminalization". I think telling legislators or parents would, though.
The comment didn't say "respect the system", it said to deal in the realpolitik and don't try to effect legislative change by ruining your life as a high school student.
Probably better to try and reform the law instead of suggest children break the law and ruin their lives.
Clarifying that the ruination of lives here is the direct result of profoundly bad laws that inappropriately criminalize benign behaviors.
Hence the need for reform.
> a prank
Why do we tolerate pranks? You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'. Leave other people's things alone. Don't create work for other people. Don't bother people just trying to do their jobs. Don't impose your sense of humour on others. These all seem like basics to me?
If you think someone's funny? Great. Just don't bother other people with it. Do it with your own stuff, not other people's.
> Why do we tolerate pranks?
Pranks can be an outlet for creativity and learning that might not otherwise happen.
The post concludes with:
> This has been one of the most remarkable experiences I ever had in high school and I thank everyone who helped support me. That's all and thanks for reading!
I'm certain this kid learned so much working through the execution of this prank, and without being criminalized by the district, he's better off for it. Likewise, the IT department is better off with a more secure system, and staff and students experienced shared moments of unexpected joy.
Call me naive, but I'd say this kid made his small slice of the world a bit better, if only for a fleeting moment.
> Pranks can be an outlet for creativity and learning that might not otherwise happen.
Great.
But do it with your own things then. Don't bother anyone else or touch anyone else's things.
And no worker should ever have to do any work (such as reset a computer system) because of your prank. Workers have enough work to do and enough hassles in their lives.
7 replies →
> Why do we tolerate pranks?
As the author points out early on in this article, most school districts would not have tolerated a prank like this. In fact this is the only example I know about a prank this big that got the response of toleration the author documented in the article.
> You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'.
The students made a report of what they did and presented it to the administration.
I guess to be generous I could reinterpret your concern to be, "Do students in every school district in the U.S. get to avoid criminal prosecution under the draconian CFAA by constructing a complex hack tailored to avoid interrupting regular school business, then writing up a report and giving a powerpoint presentation to an apparently enlightened and tech-savvy administration to help them strengthen their network defenses?" In that case, point taken.
> The students made a report of what they did and presented it to the administration.
So what?
Can I push you down in the street and then hand you a report explaining how I was able to push you down and that makes it all ok?
1 reply →
By saying that you're imposing your sense of humor on others too (as in, the prankster's sense of humor is "pranks are funny"; your sense of humor is "pranks are not funny"; according to your comment your stance is that pranks shouldn't be tolerated). You don't have to laugh, and you're free to say you don't like pranks. But tolerating other people's opinions/sense of humor/whathaveyou seems like basics to me.
(Maybe we just have different experiences and thus different definitions of the word.)
It’s like smoking. I should tolerate someone smoking in their own home. Should I have to tolerate someone smoking on public transport next to me? Absolutely not. Even if it’s their opinion that smoke is nice.
Many criminal cases require establishing intent. Pranks may be harmful as you allude to, but the intent still matters.
How does that work? Can you murder someone for a prank and say your intent was just a prank so it was fine?
3 replies →
validate the insane over criminalization
I think you misread the GP. He's not defending the system, just describing it, and how the OP was lucky that the people in charge were unusual and open-minded. He's warning others that the risk/reward implied by the OP's experience is misleading.
I suspect that most commenters on this site applaud the kids adventurousness and style. A great hack! But we are uniquely aware of how rare it is that anyone with authority, school administrators or law enforcement, would show any leniency or self-restraint in these cases. On balance, the instinct seems to go for the jugular, dehumanize the kid as a criminal hacker, and ruin his life. No-one is saying that's good, or reasonable. It's just how it is.
Warns kids against jumping off cliffs. Accused of causing gravity.
We need to have harsh penalties for this. People who don't understand the complex systems they were able to access, might introduce vulnerabilities that more malicious entities can exploit. An example of this would be a student at a university accessing internal network from a physical terminal in a building, (intranet), and accidentally disabling a firewall, (say to play a video from a remote location). In doing so, its no longer just a prank as they may have exposed the entire internal network to outside internet.
This is a super basic example, but it serves to illustrate my point. It's not just a prank bro, even when it is.
What? How is warning someone that they are going to ruin their lives the same as endorsing it?