Paris Hilton Hacker Banned From The Internet
from the where-will-he-get-his-Paris-Hilton-pics-and-news-now? dept
We were just discussing whether or not banning internet access for criminals involved in internet-based crimes made any sense (or was really viable), and along comes another story about just such a ban. It turns out that the kid who famously hacked Paris Hilton's T-Mobile Sidekick and revealed all of her contact info has now been barred from posessing or using anything that can access the internet for two years. Anything? That sounds a bit extreme. While the guy apparently was involved in a long string of hack attacks against a variety of different targets, with so much being internet enabled these days, it seems a bit silly to completely ban him from any device that can access the internet. It rules out an awful lot of mobile phones. Modern gaming consoles are pretty much out. Many DVR devices can access the internet. Increasingly, cars have some form of internet access as well. What about VoIP phones? They access the internet. What if the guy doesn't even realize he's using a VoIP phone? This isn't to say the guy doesn't deserve some punishment. But, the ban doesn't seem to take into account the realities of the world.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Shes not going to date you, acknowledge your existence or even send an autographed used napkin to this website in commemeration of your comment. So get some lube and pull your head out of your ass.
Sorry to ruin your dreams but kids, teens and adults have been screwing around with tech for years. When you were in highschool did you ever try to sneak someone elses journal (maybe a girl even?) to see if she was writing about you? Now imagine you could do this from across the school, as a teen would you see this as cool or "uncool"??? Now imagine you could see a multi-billion dollar hot chick's boyfriend list from down the street?
Most kids will do it. Does that mean we throw them in jail or maybe we should sue the parents!!! You could have the cops come to your door because your kid thought little Sally was cute (ewwww) and her brandnew camera/bluetooth/wifi/picture/mp3 ... phone had no password on it and wanted to check it out and have a laugh with his friends. Kids like that should just be jailed WITH their parents!!! After all they raised him!!!
Well I know Paris will take a long time to recover from this, especially now that her secret number for ralph lauren has been exposed, but others have come before your courts and have been given little in terms of punishment. All it means now is more kids will do it but they wont let you know ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Yah, because it's HIS life, not yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Secondly, T-mobile is stupid, they should've hired the kid to help make their network better. T-mobile is to blame because they had the security hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ban
Well, a computer w/o an internet service plan can't access the internet. An Xbox w/o an xbox live account and the above-mentioned computer can't access the internet.
There's no real way to enforce a ban keeping him from "accessing the internet" other than saying he can't own a device that can access the internet. As i mentioned above, most devices you mentioned can be made so they can't access the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ban
Good luck to those who are left trying to enforce this though and make sure he DOES pay for his actions because i dont see how it can be done !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wish there was a....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dumb Terminal?
He would open a phone book at random and look up the credit history of people, looking for people with high dollar credit card limits. He would look up the information on his Commodore-64 computer connected to a 12" color TV and a 2400 baud modem (if that gives you any idea how long ago this was).
As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to not operate a computer, unless part of his job, for the length of his parole. That didn't stop him from buying a dumb terminal at a garage sale and using it to access various BBSs and CompuServe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impossible To Uphold
What's to stop him going around to his friends house and accessing the internet on his computer.
Sure, you can confiscate his PC and stop him accessing the internet from his own home, but it's impossible to stop him getting on the internet in other places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly.
This is just silly. Same with DUIs and cars - you want the behaviour to change. Lots of folks with DUIs who've lost their license still end up driving drunk.
If you take away people's means of earning a living (cars or computers) in cases of criminal behaviour, you make it more likely that they will behave criminally, because it is harder to earn an honest living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Feel Good Ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punishment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I suppose their are too many angles to view to make me want to form an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the Punishment fit the Crime
I shall achieve in time--
To let the punishment fit the crime--
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
The Mikado, Gilbert and Sullivan, including song link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let the Punishment fit the Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuid logic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
As an adult, he will undergo two years of supervised release in which he will be barred from possessing or using any computer, cell phone or other electronic equipment capable of accessing the Internet.
To deconstruct this:
Barred from using any computer...
The following things are now computers (in most cases): ATM machines, Onstar, Tivo, Self Checkout systems at the grocery store, Digital Camera Kiosks in Walmart, Cash Registers, Library card catalogs, Diagnostic systems in auto shops, college registration systems, nicer calculators, and the list goes on and on.
So while he will be allowed to bag groceries, he won't be allowed to ring people up.
Electronic equipment capable of accessing the Internet...
Cars, ATMs, Onstar, Tivo, Cell phones, Satellite Dish control systems, some 'non-computer' cash registers, PDAs, Security Cameras, and recently several models of Refrigerator and Microwave.
Recently there's been a rash of adding TCP/IP communication ability to many embedded appliances (TVs, VCRs, DVD Players, etc).
It's like banning someone who went on a spree of knocking over convenience stores, from going to a gas station... It's stupid. Computers, whether you realize it or not, are pervasive in everyday life. In one way or another, he will have to break the letter of his sentencing. Whether he's prosecuted on it is another story. This is why many of these sentences are overturned these days. It's BS to ban someone from using any ATM machine. It's BS to ban him from getting a cashier job in retail. It's BS to ban him from using a Kiosk at Kinkos to print some pictures.
However poetic or just a punishment it seems, it's just not practical in this day and age. Unfortunately many Judges are too old to realize this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet ban
From the article:
"...he will undergo two years of supervised release..."
Isn't this usually called "parole"?
I suppose the part that goes "barred from poessesing or using any" would be the conditions of his parole. Violate that and he gets to serve the two years in prison...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban for life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban for life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about the consequences
Makes a lot of sense...
O.K., maybe that's not probable. But he also couldn't call the police to stop some woman from being gang raped either. That's not quite as improbable, now is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
If the guy can't post a critism of the government, including the judge, on a discussion board online, then his first amendment rights are being violated. PERIOD.
The courts are not allowed to make laws or break them. If congress can't restrict a person's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances or to express those grievances to the public, then neither can the courts. He has a constitutional right to email his senator or publish a political website. He should sue the judge and the court for violating his civil rights.
This would be true even if he committed a crime that actually caused harm. Quite frankly, reading some slut's email isn't like knowingly starting a war on the false premise of weapons of mass destructions or covering up atrocities and war crimes commited against prisioners of war. There are bigger criminals to worry about.
America, get your priorities straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]