254
Developer gets 4 years for activating network “kill switch” to avenge his firing (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.zip
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -27 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

I actually cannot believe you have any upvotes for this type of comment.

If computers and networking were not involved, and we lived in the 1970s, this would be the equivalent of setting off a remote bomb in every factory across the country for your former company when you get fired.

This was a severe and premeditated act, and 4 years is what I would consider to be a moderate sentence for this type of computer crime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'll agree to start imprisoning people for using their job to affect profit when CEOs start getting jailed for affecting the profit of those laid off.

    Also, the equivalent to setting off a bomb? Get a grip on reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Ah, yeah, by the way - if you do something harmful at work and are hold responsible for it legally, it's weird because when you do something clearly beneficial at work the company holds all the responsibility for that, and you hold your paycheck independently of the outcomes of your work.

    So how the hell is this even treated as any kind of crime, let alone worth 4 years, is unclear for me. Some people seem to be forgetting that where peaceful protest is punished, violent protest finds a way.

    If an intern damages a production database, they (or whoever else) are not (legally) held responsible, despite someone there definitely making a few mistakes leading to loss of profit. But it's not even considered.

    In this case it's not a mistake, but does it matter? Unless they violated some security process inside the organization, thus illegally gaining access wherever, the story means that they used "maliciously" the access they were given.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    In the 1970s this, first, would be an equivalent of what another guy wrote, changing a lock combination and not telling people, a minor mischief, and second, he'd have a union protecting him.

    This is clearly disproportional.

    A bomb kills\maims people and harms equipment, this is very clearly not a bomb.

    In the 1970s this would be a scandal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)