Blaster Worm Kid Caught - Page 2

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.

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.

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.

09-03-2003, 05:26 PM	#16
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	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?) __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

09-03-2003, 06:51 PM	#19
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	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. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

09-03-2003, 06:53 PM	#20
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	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. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

09-03-2003, 08:04 PM	#21
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	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. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-03-2003, 09:14 PM	#22
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	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. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

09-03-2003, 06:39 PM	#17
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	The suspect speaks.

09-03-2003, 11:12 PM	#24
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	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. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

09-04-2003, 12:29 AM	#25
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	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. ) Last edited by juju; 09-04-2003 at 12:32 AM.

09-04-2003, 07:18 AM	#26
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	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. __________________ Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

09-04-2003, 07:27 AM	#27
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	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?

09-04-2003, 07:33 AM	#28
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	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? __________________ Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

09-04-2003, 07:49 AM	#30
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	I didn't say lock him away forever. I said give him a few years, a huge fine, and ZERO access to computers forever. __________________ Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)