Judge Sentences Hacker to 6 Years Without Computers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Magefeanor:
I thought internet had turned into a human right over the years?
Apparently not

Signa:

No, not in the Land of the Free.

Some people can't afford internet access and those who can might not always have coverage. People live in areas where they can barely get mobile telephone connection these days in the Western world; I don't quite see how internet access is a 'human right'. The teen still has internet access anyway, he just has to ask before he uses it. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable for a fifteen-year-old.

OT:

Punishment fits the crime like a glove. The kid has to use his talents for something more constructive on his computer, he (hopefully) cannot repeat the crime, he still can use the internet so long as he has written permission (from whom I don't know, but I assume the parents), and it avoids dragging a teenager out of his home and community and banging him inside a place built to hold dangerously misguided youths.

I'm all for this, really. The fact that people are equating this to torture is a bit...

Catch me if you can(movie) much? Also no, this kid knew what he was doing so he deserves to be punished. Also computer has a more uses than just the internet. While most cannot relate to this fact a computer was created before the internet. Plus the kid gets to probably play minesweeper, pinball or freecell, he got off way too easy.

knight4light:
i would love to get a retro review of the movie hackers by movie bob.

ot: 6 years without internet.. are they insane.. it will just make him figure out how to hack into the internet itself from some unknown unlikely device. does that mean he cant play on xbox live? or the psn? or the wii? i mean wth man... 6 years is too hard =(

He can't use the internet...

So he can still use the Wii

*rimshot*

OT: An interesting take on punishment. More creative than sticking him in a jail, I'll admit.

It's like every story that remotely relates to hacking has to have that damn screenshot of that terrible hackers movie... get over it FFS!

"At some level it's like taking away Mozart's piano," the lawyer said.

The lawyer is an idiot - this guy hacked into Paypal and Amazon accounts - the computing world does not need his services, we have enough malware and spyware and fucktard hackers who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, never mind use a computer. Boo fricken hoo his career, his skills, his talent - 1 less hacker to worry about.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

So he can still use the Wii

Ya, because the Wii doesn't have any form of internet access. ಠ_ಠ

surg3n:
The lawyer is an idiot - this guy hacked into Paypal and Amazon accounts - the computing world does not need his services, we have enough malware and spyware and fucktard hackers who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, never mind use a computer. Boo fricken hoo his career, his skills, his talent - 1 less hacker to worry about.

Ya, because there's no way his talents could be used for anything else besides stealing information. ಠ_ಠ

1337mokro:
This is cruel and unusual punishment.

No man should be without internet access.

If you start a UGGs Nazi movement, you deserve way more cruelty.
Seriously, retarded Germans with equelly retarded footwear, what was he thinking?

OlasDAlmighty:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

So he can still use the Wii

Ya, because the Wii doesn't have any form of internet access. ಠ_ಠ

surg3n:
The lawyer is an idiot - this guy hacked into Paypal and Amazon accounts - the computing world does not need his services, we have enough malware and spyware and fucktard hackers who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, never mind use a computer. Boo fricken hoo his career, his skills, his talent - 1 less hacker to worry about.

Ya, because there's no way his talents could be used for anything else besides stealing information. ಠ_ಠ

The Joke

_________

Your head

OlasDAlmighty:

surg3n:
The lawyer is an idiot - this guy hacked into Paypal and Amazon accounts - the computing world does not need his services, we have enough malware and spyware and fucktard hackers who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, never mind use a computer. Boo fricken hoo his career, his skills, his talent - 1 less hacker to worry about.

Ya, because there's no way his talents could be used for anything else besides stealing information. ಠ_ಠ

Nothing that would actually benefit anyone, that's for sure. People need to give up on this idea that hackers are in any way positive - like they took a wrong turn in life and ended up trying to rip people off, otherwise they'd be president, or cure cancer, or some other pish because they are sooooo smart and mis-understood... give me a break. They are the lowest of the computer world low, the equivalent of a mugger in the street. He wasn't hacking to proove a point or support anyone, he was hacking to steal money, if he could, he'd be taking your money right now.

OlasDAlmighty:

surg3n:
The lawyer is an idiot - this guy hacked into Paypal and Amazon accounts - the computing world does not need his services, we have enough malware and spyware and fucktard hackers who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, never mind use a computer. Boo fricken hoo his career, his skills, his talent - 1 less hacker to worry about.

Ya, because there's no way his talents could be used for anything else besides stealing information. ಠ_ಠ

But it wasn't.
If someone is really good at shooting, then goes on a killing-rampage, no-one's going to advocate letting him use a gun again "Because his skills could be used for good".

TKretts3:

cidbahamut:

TKretts3:
Like taking away Mozart's Piano? This is more like taking away an assassin's favourite gun. Yes, they may be astoundingly talented with it, but that doesn't change the fact that he uses that gun to break the laws. That's exactly what this person did and deserves day of those six years that he gets.

It's not cruel or unusual to take away someone's means of crime. Next time he should think before he acts.

Get the hell off my internet.

Next we'll be hearing about how it's ok to tell someone they can't read books anymore because they learned how to create makeshift weapons in some novel they read.

That book gave them the information on how to make a weapon, it was not used as a weapon. The person in question used a computer as the weapon against these sites, and as a possible crowbar into people's personal lives and details.

Bullshit, now you're trying to twist this in a way you shouldn't.
The internet gave him the knowledge, the computer gave him the ability, the book in that statement is just as much of a "means of crime" as that computer as it also gave him the knowledge and ability he otherwise wouldn't have.

"No internet on my devices I currently have, and you need to know what all of them are? Yes sir mr Judge!!!" *goes to walmart buys android tablet hacks some WEP wifi in area* "I will make sure to do that sir" http://alltheragefaces.com/uc/4fa025303e320 "Get right on that...."

No unsupervised internet?!
This guy better be a fucking stud muffin and manage to get a girlfriend double-time lest he wishes his balls to swell to the size of melons ^_^

Ohh come on. We were all thinking it.

Warachia:

TKretts3:

cidbahamut:

Get the hell off my internet.

Next we'll be hearing about how it's ok to tell someone they can't read books anymore because they learned how to create makeshift weapons in some novel they read.

That book gave them the information on how to make a weapon, it was not used as a weapon. The person in question used a computer as the weapon against these sites, and as a possible crowbar into people's personal lives and details.

Bullshit, now you're trying to twist this in a way you shouldn't.
The internet gave him the knowledge, the computer gave him the ability, the book in that statement is just as much of a "means of crime" as that computer as it also gave him the knowledge and ability he otherwise wouldn't have.

The book was not crucial. He could have easily committed assault with a weapon without the book. He could have found out how to make a weapon from other sources. He could have just used a pre-made weapon, or a simple object (I.e. Pen, kitchen knife, et cetera). However in the case of the hacker his crime would not have been possible without the use of a computer. The computer may have given him the knowledge, but it was also his only means of using that knowledge.

I think monitoring and restricting HIS computers is a bit stupid. He can just use a friend's computer, unless the government physically follows him around, and monitors every single internet-connected device he can possibly come into contact with over the course of the day.
I mean, what's stopping him from picking pockets to steal Blackberries (other than the law)? Not to mention the fact that he uses social engineering techniques, not just hacking. So, how about this as an idea:

We put this kid in a big, secure building, away from the public, with law enforcement officers all around him. We 'imprison' him, you might say. This prevents him from committing crimes, unless he breaks out. Maybe we put other criminals in there, too.
We keep him there for a few years, then let him out once society says he's been suitably punished for his crimes.
I can't see why the judge never thought of doing this! It's a brilliant idea.

Greg Tito:

"At some level it's like taking away Mozart's piano," the lawyer said.

Mozart didn't break the law. (As far as I know anyway)
I think this is a very fitting punishment, if he went to prison, he would get to know what life would be like in prison, but with this punishment he is forced to live without the computers, which will probably be pretty boring, and I reckon he'd be less likely to break the law again because of it.

"To keep someone off the Internet for six years - that one term seems unduly harsh."

Unduly stupid IMO, it's not going to hold, trying to keep someone away from computers in this day in age would be like sentencing him to no candy. You can sit there and tell him all day he's not allowed to eat any, but eventually he's going to get a hold of some.

ViciousTide:
I say hire him part time at $5.15/hr. There must be a little exemption for minimum wage with deliquents.

It's called working at McDonald's BAZING

TKretts3:

The book was not crucial. He could have easily committed assault with a weapon without the book. He could have found out how to make a weapon from other sources. He could have just used a pre-made weapon, or a simple object (I.e. Pen, kitchen knife, et cetera). However in the case of the hacker his crime would not have been possible without the use of a computer. The computer may have given him the knowledge, but it was also his only means of using that knowledge.

He could not have built the weapon in question without the book, that makes it pretty crucial, and saying he could have found out how to make it from other sources is ignoring the issue, wouldn't those sources also be at fault if he used them? And if he did use a simple weapon would you ban him from being around kitchen knives, or pens?

Reginald the Butler:

w9496:
It's not at all like taking away Mozarts piano. Mozart wasn't being an asshole with his piano,

I don't know man, have you seen the movie "Amadeus"? Mozart was a bit of an asshole.

Yes I have, and he was quite the asshole. But in Mozarts defense, he never hijacked peoples Amazon accounts or shutdown websites.

Warachia:

TKretts3:

The book was not crucial. He could have easily committed assault with a weapon without the book. He could have found out how to make a weapon from other sources. He could have just used a pre-made weapon, or a simple object (I.e. Pen, kitchen knife, et cetera). However in the case of the hacker his crime would not have been possible without the use of a computer. The computer may have given him the knowledge, but it was also his only means of using that knowledge.

He could not have built the weapon in question without the book, that makes it pretty crucial, and saying he could have found out how to make it from other sources is ignoring the issue, wouldn't those sources also be at fault if he used them? And if he did use a simple weapon would you ban him from being around kitchen knives, or pens?

He could not have built that specific weapon without the book, but murder is a crime which has very many methods. You could stab someone, shoot someone, strangle them with your bare hands, poison them... The list goes on. There is no one device/weapon which is crucial to the act of murder. If you take away someone's internet, they can't hack websites. Furthermore the book is only teaching them how to make a tool, how they use that tool is up to them. A computer, while also being a means to information, is also the weapon in internet hacking. Simply put, the book was not crucial to the murder.

If someone's Modus Operandi is using a certain item (Kitchen knife, for instance) then they should have restrictions placed on them when using that item. But if someone just murders people with any weapon then they should just be put on trail and sent to prison. There are many sources that could be at fault, but that's just it, there's a massive number of tools to kill people with. When it comes to hacking a website, a computer is essential.

Captcha: Let it be.

Aureliano:
It's still a bit fascinating to me how there's nothing legal you can do to get more rights as a minor but there are a number of illegal things you can do as a minor to get you treated as having the recognizance an adult.

No display of maturity as a 17-year-old will make it legal for you to bone somebody, drink, smoke or vote; but if you kill enough people as a twelve year old you can get tried as an adult. Modern society is fun that way, isn't it?

Lunar Templar:

renegade7:

Besides, the kid is 15. Cut him some damn slack, they don't punish teenage drug dealers nearly that harshly. They really are wasting his talents.

No, he doesn't deserve any slack. He's close enough to 'adult hood' that he should be held accountable as one. He knew he was breaking laws, more over, he very likely laughed about it while he was breaking them.

or would you rather he went back to swiping peoples personal information? This is no different then revoking some ones right to own a firearm after they shoot some one, so i don't see what the big deal is. The punishment hardly fits the crime though.

He explains it for me:

Aureliano:
It's still a bit fascinating to me how there's nothing legal you can do to get more rights as a minor but there are a number of illegal things you can do as a minor to get you treated as having the recognizance an adult.

No display of maturity as a 17-year-old will make it legal for you to bone somebody, drink, smoke or vote; but if you kill enough people as a twelve year old you can get tried as an adult. Modern society is fun that way, isn't it?

Though the whole killing example was extreme you get the point.

Mick Golden Blood:
snip

he's talking about how sever the crime is in relation to age, and stealing peoples personal info is pretty serous these days, maybe not 'kill some one' bad, (and really, why is THAT still the worst thing you can do to some one ... worse things then death after all) but stealing some ones personal info can lead to identity theft, which can destroy some ones life.

which i think is a federal offense? not sure

ether way, taking away the method some one uses to commit the crime is fine with me, after all, it's only 6 years, once you lose your right to own a fire arm i'm pretty sure you don't just get that back with out massive hoop jumping, if its even possable

TKretts3:

He could not have built that specific weapon without the book, but murder is a crime which has very many methods. You could stab someone, shoot someone, strangle them with your bare hands, poison them... The list goes on. There is no one device/weapon which is crucial to the act of murder. If you take away someone's internet, they can't hack websites. Furthermore the book is only teaching them how to make a tool, how they use that tool is up to them. A computer, while also being a means to information, is also the weapon in internet hacking. Simply put, the book was not crucial to the murder.

If someone's Modus Operandi is using a certain item (Kitchen knife, for instance) then they should have restrictions placed on them when using that item. But if someone just murders people with any weapon then they should just be put on trail and sent to prison. There are many sources that could be at fault, but that's just it, there's a massive number of tools to kill people with. When it comes to hacking a website, a computer is essential.

Captcha: Let it be.

I'd like to get back to the question that started all of this, if a book enabled the person to do the crime should that also be taken away? And in this case it would seem your answer is yes, but I want to go into an issue that you aren't focussing on.

The computer is NOT the weapon in question, the programs on his computer and the information on his computer were the weapons, that's why the book comparison started, both enabled the person, and both chose to use them in ways that were unintended by the creators.

Should the person be monitored on their computer after this? Yes, they should be banned from using whatever programs they used to do their hacking? Most definitely, but computers can do far more than knives, or pens, or books, closing somebody off from all of that is short-sighted, as you assume that's all they ever used their computer to do.

surg3n:
Nothing that would actually benefit anyone, that's for sure. People need to give up on this idea that hackers are in any way positive - like they took a wrong turn in life and ended up trying to rip people off, otherwise they'd be president, or cure cancer, or some other pish because they are sooooo smart and mis-understood... give me a break. They are the lowest of the computer world low, the equivalent of a mugger in the street. He wasn't hacking to proove a point or support anyone, he was hacking to steal money, if he could, he'd be taking your money right now.

No one said anything about running for president or curing cancer. I just think it's a little close minded to assume that having hacked a computer before means he must be completely incapable of ever doing anything remotely beneficial to society ever again. Maybe he won't, but to dismiss even the possibility seems extreme.

Besides, the kid's just 15 years old, he's not even fully developed mentally or psychologically, and you're talking about him like he's some hardened lifelong criminal. He still has practically his entire life to turn himself around.

Also, how is hacking to to prove point somehow better than hacking to steal money? Hacking to prove a point is essentially a mild form of terrorism. People who hack just to hack are probably far more messed up than people who just use it for personal gain. If he's just an opportunist he can be reasoned with. He might someday realize it's in his best interest to work with the society he's in and not against it. If he hasn't already realized that.

Though being a 15 year old I imagine it's more along the lines of him just thinking that hacking is cool and wanting to show off his skills to the world. People his age tend to act immature, it doesn't entirely reflect how he'll be as an adult.

OlasDAlmighty:

He might someday realize it's in his best interest to work with the society he's in and not against it. If he hasn't already realized that.

Though being a 15 year old I imagine it's more along the lines of him just thinking that hacking is cool and wanting to show off his skills to the world. People his age tend to act immature, it doesn't entirely reflect how he'll be as an adult.

His ship has sailed already - no real company would trust him with sensitive information, he simply won't be able to work in the IT industry with a track record that includes a 'Nazi' hacking group, accessing peoples information including Paypal and Amazon accounts. Would you trust this guy with anything?

He would be better off concentrating on another career path, he should know that in this day and age, criminal acts stick with you. 15 is plenty old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I have to deal with malware a lot, I've seen how upsetting it can be for people to have their PC, with their personal information and documents held to ransom, I've seen how upsetting it can be for people to have their bank account rifled by some greasy 'hacker'. Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy, maybe if the little shit was sent to jail I might have more.

I think the people saying he deserves this should read this article
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/12/hacker-god-cosmo?page=all

Warachia:

TKretts3:

He could not have built that specific weapon without the book, but murder is a crime which has very many methods. You could stab someone, shoot someone, strangle them with your bare hands, poison them... The list goes on. There is no one device/weapon which is crucial to the act of murder. If you take away someone's internet, they can't hack websites. Furthermore the book is only teaching them how to make a tool, how they use that tool is up to them. A computer, while also being a means to information, is also the weapon in internet hacking. Simply put, the book was not crucial to the murder.

If someone's Modus Operandi is using a certain item (Kitchen knife, for instance) then they should have restrictions placed on them when using that item. But if someone just murders people with any weapon then they should just be put on trail and sent to prison. There are many sources that could be at fault, but that's just it, there's a massive number of tools to kill people with. When it comes to hacking a website, a computer is essential.

Captcha: Let it be.

I'd like to get back to the question that started all of this, if a book enabled the person to do the crime should that also be taken away? And in this case it would seem your answer is yes, but I want to go into an issue that you aren't focussing on.

The computer is NOT the weapon in question, the programs on his computer and the information on his computer were the weapons, that's why the book comparison started, both enabled the person, and both chose to use them in ways that were unintended by the creators.

Should the person be monitored on their computer after this? Yes, they should be banned from using whatever programs they used to do their hacking? Most definitely, but computers can do far more than knives, or pens, or books, closing somebody off from all of that is short-sighted, as you assume that's all they ever used their computer to do.

I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer. The reason I strayed from the book comparison was because it was faulty. There are numerous ways to gain knowledge on how to make weapons, how to murder, and numerous methods on how to commit murder. The murderer should be sent to jail, but unless their M.O. is using books to beat people to death, they shouldn't be restricted access from them.

Captcha made this a double post, ignore this.

TKretts3:

I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer. The reason I strayed from the book comparison was because it was faulty. There are numerous ways to gain knowledge on how to make weapons, how to murder, and numerous methods on how to commit murder. The murderer should be sent to jail, but unless their M.O. is using books to beat people to death, they shouldn't be restricted access from them.

Done. I'll be at the convenience store and Take a picture of somebodies credit card number, I now have a back door into several websites they've used that credit card on, and since I have the number, all I have to do is get some friends together, and have them take this person down for me, I can tell their gmail (or any other email) account I lost the password and want them to send it to another account, and since I have their credit card number they'll send the password, and now I've got their email account I can tell their twitter, facebook, and escapist profiles I've forgotten those paswords, so they'll send them to me.

The best part about this is all I needed to do was just hand the instructions to some friends who'll do these things for me, and I know this will work, because recently I saw a news story where this exact thing happened, and that is why this judge is short-sighted, they assume the problem is solved instead of monitoring the person, they could have caught them in the act of doing something else and given them jail time, but no.

Your turn now, I challenge you to build a machine gun with no instruction in how to do so.

Captch: wild goose chase.

Just want to point out that Cosmo did not use much code/scripts/software tools etc to hack these accounts.

Cosmo is a social engineer, not a 'hacker' as the word is now commonly used. He mostly used a phone and a variety of 'verbal judo' moves to access these accounts.

infinity_turtles:
I think the people saying he deserves this should read this article
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/12/hacker-god-cosmo?page=all

I lost any sympathy for him when I read he DOSed a pizza company for delivering late.

TechNoFear:
Just want to point out that Cosmo did not use much code/scripts/software tools etc to hack these accounts.

Cosmo is a social engineer, not a 'hacker' as the word is now commonly used. He mostly used a phone and a variety of 'verbal judo' moves to access these accounts.

infinity_turtles:
I think the people saying he deserves this should read this article
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/12/hacker-god-cosmo?page=all

I lost any sympathy for him when I read he DOSed a pizza company for delivering late.

I'd point out the UGNazi did that, not necessarily him. More likely it was someone else in the group, as Cosmo and Josh both have their own twitter accounts where they bragged about what they did, but admission/bragging of that came from the UG twitter. He's definitely a piece of work, but if you look into UG, he comes off as better then the rest of the group. That plus his age,the stuff he's done like giving away his bargaining chips before he pleaded guilty, and him warning people before hacks(he had a bit of a reputation as a leak within' the group) makes me feel he should get off more lightly so he has a better chance to turn things around.

Warachia:

TKretts3:

I challenge you to use those programs without the internet, without a computer. The reason I strayed from the book comparison was because it was faulty. There are numerous ways to gain knowledge on how to make weapons, how to murder, and numerous methods on how to commit murder. The murderer should be sent to jail, but unless their M.O. is using books to beat people to death, they shouldn't be restricted access from them.

Done. I'll be at the convenience store and Take a picture of somebodies credit card number, I now have a back door into several websites they've used that credit card on, and since I have the number, all I have to do is get some friends together, and have them take this person down for me, I can tell their gmail (or any other email) account I lost the password and want them to send it to another account, and since I have their credit card number they'll send the password, and now I've got their email account I can tell their twitter, facebook, and escapist profiles I've forgotten those passwords, so they'll send them to me.

The best part about this is all I needed to do was just hand the instructions to some friends who'll do these things for me, and I know this will work, because recently I saw a news story where this exact thing happened, and that is why this judge is short-sighted, they assume the problem is solved instead of monitoring the person, they could have caught them in the act of doing something else and given them jail time, but no.

Your turn now, I challenge you to build a machine gun with no instruction in how to do so.

Captch: wild goose chase.

Except even by going through that entire process, if your internet or computer had been removed from you all of that would have been impossible to do. Where as for murder, if the instructions for a machine gun were removed from me, I just just by a gun, or I can just use a knife. Heck, if the person isn't someone that is very securely guarded, I could even use my fists.

TKretts3:

Warachia:

Done. I'll be at the convenience store and Take a picture of somebodies credit card number, I now have a back door into several websites they've used that credit card on, and since I have the number, all I have to do is get some friends together, and have them take this person down for me, I can tell their gmail (or any other email) account I lost the password and want them to send it to another account, and since I have their credit card number they'll send the password, and now I've got their email account I can tell their twitter, facebook, and escapist profiles I've forgotten those passwords, so they'll send them to me.

The best part about this is all I needed to do was just hand the instructions to some friends who'll do these things for me, and I know this will work, because recently I saw a news story where this exact thing happened, and that is why this judge is short-sighted, they assume the problem is solved instead of monitoring the person, they could have caught them in the act of doing something else and given them jail time, but no.

Your turn now, I challenge you to build a machine gun with no instruction in how to do so.

Captch: wild goose chase.

Except even by going through that entire process, if your internet or computer had been removed from you all of that would have been impossible to do. Where as for murder, if the instructions for a machine gun were removed from me, I just just by a gun, or I can just use a knife. Heck, if the person isn't someone that is very securely guarded, I could even use my fists.

Reread my post, I never used the internet, I'd take a photo, write some instructions, hand them to some friends.
Of course if none of them had internet, it would be impossible to do, but that wasn't the terms of the challenge, and that isn't the terms of this sentence.

You can't buy a gun without going through a background check, and if they found you murdered somebody with a gun in the past and just got released they couldn't legally give you one.

infinity_turtles:
He's definitely a piece of work, but if you look into UG, he comes off as better then the rest of the group. That plus his age,the stuff he's done like giving away his bargaining chips before he pleaded guilty, and him warning people before hacks(he had a bit of a reputation as a leak within' the group) makes me feel he should get off more lightly so he has a better chance to turn things around.

You should always be careful of just accepting what a social engineer tells you....

Cosmo has a motive for generating sympathy surrounding his acitivities in UGNazi.

Making people think Cosmo was the 'nice one who warned people before they were hacked' may just be another social engineering move designed to reduce his sentence (possibly working as he did not get a custodial sentence).

It's like a confidence trick. Most people think it is about the trickster gaining the victim's trust, but is about making the victim feel superior (to the trickster).

To make your victim feel superior you tell them something embarassing about yourself.

'I got so drunk last night, I passed out in a gutter and got robbed, can you lend me $20 to get home?'

TechNoFear:

infinity_turtles:
He's definitely a piece of work, but if you look into UG, he comes off as better then the rest of the group. That plus his age,the stuff he's done like giving away his bargaining chips before he pleaded guilty, and him warning people before hacks(he had a bit of a reputation as a leak within' the group) makes me feel he should get off more lightly so he has a better chance to turn things around.

You should always be careful of just accepting what a social engineer tells you....

Cosmo has a motive for generating sympathy surrounding his acitivities in UGNazi.

Making people think Cosmo was the 'nice one who warned people before they were hacked' may just be another social engineering move designed to reduce his sentence (possibly working as he did not get a custodial sentence).

It's like a confidence trick. Most people think it is about the trickster gaining the victim's trust, but is about making the victim feel superior (to the trickster).

To make your victim feel superior you tell them something embarassing about yourself.

'I got so drunk last night, I passed out in a gutter and got robbed, can you lend me $20 to get home?'

I'm not talking about what's just in the article. I'm talking about the history of stuff before he was arrested too. While it's certainly possible he did everything that isn't as bad or somewhat nice to make him look better, the fact that he had a reputation as a leak months before he was arrested isn't something I'd think he'd want to cultivate. That lends a bit more credence to some of the other things he's done.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here