The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Blaster Worm Kid Caught (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=3881)

wolf 09-03-2003 05:26 PM

When I saw the kid's pic my first thought was "There's a kid who ate lunch alone in the cafeteria..."

(and had stupidly overindulgent parents ... SEVEN computers?)

elSicomoro 09-03-2003 06:39 PM

The suspect speaks.

xoxoxoBruce 09-03-2003 06:43 PM

Quote:

(and had stupidly overindulgent parents ... SEVEN computers?)
Now let's not jump to conclusions. Maybe he shook down kids for lunch money or stole them. You can't blame his parents just because they didn't happen to notice 7 computers sitting around.:haha: You know how messy teenagers are.

wolf 09-03-2003 06:51 PM

I have noticed that teens today have something that we never had when we were kids ... privacy.

What is with that ... the fear of getting our rooms tossed by mom was what kept many of us either totally straight, or totally sneaky.

The CIA could learn a lot about undetectable searches from old-style moms.

Whit 09-03-2003 06:53 PM

     Hmm, according to the family they didn't have seven computers. I kind of blew this off at first but now it's getting interesting.

xoxoxoBruce 09-03-2003 08:04 PM

I wonder if, being a nerd, he had piles of old component pieces piled up and the feds called each piece of memory a computer? there is plenty of people upgrading and dumping old PC's that nobody wants. :confused:

Whit 09-03-2003 09:14 PM

     Well, again, according to the family he wasn't some hardcore compu-geek. He even said his computer was a "piece of junk". If that's even half-accurate then I doubt he had all these computers. Also, the media might take it in the ass a bit, as his driving was referenced and he didn't even have a license. We'll see how much of the early reports were accurate as time goes on.

LUVBUGZ 09-03-2003 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Whit
     Well, again, according to the family he wasn't some hardcore compu-geek. He even said his computer was a "piece of junk". If that's even half-accurate then I doubt he had all these computers. Also, the media might take it in the ass a bit, as his driving was referenced and he didn't even have a license. We'll see how much of the early reports were accurate as time goes on.
His family looks like the "inbred Jed's" for one. Just because they say he isn't a "hardcore compu-geek" doesn't mean he isn't. Anyone who can write a variation of a virus and send it out is at least a "semi-hardcore compu-geek". His "piece of junk" computer is probably way better than my "piece of shit" computer. Oh...and I know of tons of kids that drove a car before they had a license, myself included. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the media is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread, but I don't think this kid's poor-pitiful-me shit is going to fly very far. Sure, he may not be the "big fish", but there is no question that he did send out the variant worm. Therefore, he should suffer the consequences and pay for his crime.

Whit 09-03-2003 11:12 PM

      As I said previously in this thread, the jerk should have his life ruined over this. Nail him to the wall.
      Now to reiterate the point of the last couple of posts, there's a clash of stories here. If he was regularly driving recklessly without a license then all the 'scared neighbors' would have to do is take a pic of him behind the wheel. Bang, proof he was driving. If this family can't afford to go to Seattle for the trial how the hell did they afford seven computers, just for the kid? Or even four around the house for that matter? The number seven came from the feds, by the way, not the media. So, even if Bruce is accurate in them calling "pieces of memory" a computer, it'll be a point of contention in court. If the dude and his family is lying then that'll come back too.
      So, as I said, this is finally getting interesting.

juju 09-04-2003 12:29 AM

It looks like they're talking 10 years max, and a fine of up to $250,000. To answer your question, Steve, I think 1 or 2 years would be much more fair. Sure, it created a bunch of extra work for a whole lot of people, but it didn't destroy anyone's life.

(Yes, yes, I know you all disagree vehemently. :) )

OnyxCougar 09-04-2003 07:18 AM

Whether or not he destroyed anyone's life is irrelevant to the principle that he INTENDED to create havoc and chaos on the internet, and make people suffer because he COULD.


I say he should have a couple years getting screwed by Bubba, a huge fine he'll never be able to pay off in this lifetime, and be permanently banned from using computers. For life.

juju 09-04-2003 07:27 AM

I think that the results of his actions are very relevant, and that his actual intent isn't. Isn't that how our legal system is supposed to work?

How much did people really suffer? For me, he wasted two hours of my life. At most, it ruined someone's day or week. Even if you were extra busy all week, does that justify ruining someone's life?

Computers are obviously something he loves doing. Did any of the victims have a part of their life that they love taken away from them?

OnyxCougar 09-04-2003 07:33 AM

So my ex husband loved killing Steven. He didn't intend to, but it happened. That mean he doesn't deserve to fry?

I understand that murder and a virus are completely opposite things. Was anyone injured? No. Did it cost people across the United States and around the world a bunch of headaches and MILLIONS of dollars (and other currency) in lost production time and other concerns? Hell yes.

So you think, juju, that this kid should be allowed to be around computers and do this AGAIN? Oh HELL no. What about the next time (and trust me, there WILL be a next time!)? Next time he'll be a "repeat offender". Would you feel so fuzzy for him when he takes out your computer?

juju 09-04-2003 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
So my ex husband loved killing Steven. He didn't intend to, but it happened. That mean he doesn't deserve to fry?
In this case, the repercussions of his actions were very bad -- he eliminated a life. The punishment you suggest is what I'm arguing for: Fair punishment.

Quote:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
So you think, juju, that this kid should be allowed to be around computers and do this AGAIN? Oh HELL no. What about the next time (and trust me, there WILL be a next time!)? Next time he'll be a "repeat offender". Would you feel so fuzzy for him when he takes out your computer?
I'm betting if he spends a year or two in jail he won't do it again. But if you lock him away forever, there will always be people who write worms and viruses.

OnyxCougar 09-04-2003 07:49 AM

I didn't say lock him away forever. I said give him a few years, a huge fine, and ZERO access to computers forever.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.