Re: Botnet Hacker Gets Four Years

[krymson () gmail com]

I don't think anyone will argue that botnet crimes are victimless.

I don't think anyone will argue that identity theft or botnet crimes *may* increase your taxes.

I don't think anyone will argue that identity theft or botnet crimes *may* annoy you or make you worry about your 
family's identities and credit.

But it seems irresponsible, even downright insulting, to compare a botnet operator to a perpetrator of a very 
potentially violent crime. Or the victims of such. 

Which would you rather be the victim of, an in-person mugging or a cyberthief who planted a trojan in your computer and 
snarfed your bank account info? If you've been a victim of a physical robbery, would you choose it again? If you argue 
that you'll only lose x amount one way and x*10 the other way, you have some weird values.

Which one impacts society more? I consider that arguable, but only if you properly weight it. For instance, 1 violent 
robbery may equal 100 cyber robberies? Don't even attack those numbers, it's just an example to illustrate the point...

Sure, it might not be utilitarian to compare $100, a wallet, and possibly a beating/psychological pain (or potential 
escalation) to the loss of $1m over 100,000 people, but that's really the point, right? It's not just about dollars or 
your personal annoyance that your taxes may go up or your identity may be at risk...

<- snip ->
Apparently you're looking at a small picture of the potential
damage that can occur from cybercrime kiddiot botnet herders.
While you see it as money that will likely get reimbursed, I
see it as possibly higher taxes since more botnet idiots will
mean we'd need more botnet idiot hunters (LEO's) to track
them. That means higher taxes in the places where there is no
presence.

What? Is your ISP raising the cost of your connectivity? Could
be to support the influx of traffic. What? Were you annoyed
that the transaction you were making timed out, you never got
the confirmation, yet you were billed for it? No sweat, you
can go through those motions to have your money reimbursed as
well.

What? You just found your classmate was once molested and
abused - and oh my that botnet idiot herder was helping some
organized crime gang out by shutting down sites for them
a-la moronic pings of death-and the likes?

While you may think it's a victimless crime it is not. Though
monies may be reimbursed, there is a cost associated with the
reimbursements. Might come via way of banks lowering the amount
of interest you WOULD have gotten with a savings account, or
perhaps a service charge that wasn't there before. There is no
such thing as fre money. So while an armed robbery usually
affects ONE person, or may even a few in the community who
might be scared to use ATM's, the other ATM's in other areas
will be fine. However, when Citibank.com goes completely down
because of moron kiddiots, if you have an account at Citibank
somewhere down the line you may be affected by it. Even if
you don't have an account at Citibank, guess who'll be forking
out higher taxes on the next installation of some antibotnet
cybercrime task force? You will. Guess who'll be really annoyed
when that idiot botnet herder allows cybercriminal gangs to
use his botnet for other things such as fishing, etc., guess
what happens when that botnet compromises yours and millions
of others' information.

It is not a "victimless" crime and many need to stop thinking
about it as such. The last thing I worry about when seeing the
news and hearing about an armed robbery is my immediate safety
or finance whereas when I get a whiff of botnet related news I
stay wondering whether or not my or my family's data is at risk.
Will be paying higher taxes this year. There is more to this 
issue of botnet idiots than calling someone "a nice kid who
made a mistake". Some of these guys deserve a harsher sentence
with examples set on them. He's lucky he got four years he
deserved more.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
J. Oquendo