A Miami hacker has admitted he pocketed more than $1m by selling millions of minutes of voice over IP calls and surreptitiously routing them through the networks of telecommunications companies. Edwin Andrew Pena pleaded guilty to two felonies in connection with the hacking spree, which spanned the years 2004 through 2006, …
...if he killed someone through drunk driving he *might* have got some points on his license and a big fine, a small amount of jail time tops.
I do wonder why you can defraud companies out of some money and get 25 years, but what amounts to a slap on the wrist for killing some one.
And in other news in the Daily Mail today....
I think it is highly unlikely that anyone who killed someone through drunk driving has ever got just points on his license and a big fine, particularly in the UK.
Do try to do something about that knee-jerk reaction of yours.
And this guy hasn't got 25 years yet - that's just the most he might get. Bear in mind he deliberately defrauded millions of pounds AND skipped bail on a $100,000 bond - which effectively means he stole that money from the person who put up the bond. Whereas your mythical drunken driver was merely stupid and unlucky. (Have you never driven over the limit in your life? Even when you were young and stupid?)
Drunk driving, almost by definition, is negligent behavior because alcohol alters your judgment and motor control. There was no intent to harm another.
Conspiracy to commit a crime, however, is a deliberate act with multiple opportunities for one to exercise proper moral discretion.
Half of all drunk drivers drive drunk more then twice per month. It is lucrative to police officers working overtime from federal grants, defense attorneys, insurance surcharges, court fees, DMV suspension and work license fees, charges for jail and community service time, etc to take a "crime & punishment" approach but obviously not sufficiently effective.
We'd be far better off requiring first time offenders for DWI to maintain ignition interlocks for five years ($60/month per car) which would eliminate most repeat offenders. It would redirect the money into a technical control that prevents the problem, not a punitive control you don't care about once drunk...because your drunk.
And of course couple that with continued social pressure not to get sh!t faced to begin with.
is by definition choosing self-interest over the responsibility to not kill or maim third parties. Quite apart from the fact alcohol doesn't impair judgement to the point of being able to believably claim, say, temporary insanity, the intent begins while sober anyway, not least because it is so high profile an offence and has been for so long that in effect all who will drink and drive have made a conscious decision to fuck the rest of us. To base it on what we all know to be true as opposed to what the dysfunctional Law will admit.
When you drive to the poub you're not drunk though.
I realise the culture is different in the US, but if you drive to a pub which is further than walking distance from your home without first arranging a cab home then, let's face it, you're pretty much planning on drink-driving unless you're a very strong willed person.
There is also the fact that, while alcohol lowers inhibitions, most people generally do not do when drunk something they would not be prepared to when sober -- in other words those who would not even contemplate drink-driving when sober are a lot less likely to do it while drunk, in the same way as those who would not fight or even rape when sober are a lot less likely to do so when drunk.
In short, unless your defence against drink-driving is that you had a couple of drinks at home and some emergency came up so you weren't thinking, or similar, then drink-driving is a premeditated act -- especially getting-so-shitfaced-you-drive-like-a-maniac drink driving.
By the way, I speak from experience as someone who has driven while slightly over the limit as well as knowing people who have driven drunk. Stronger sentences for drink driving would prevent all but the morons who should probably be jailed for a long time anyway from doing it.
and of course...
...the ignition interlocks would have to be installed on all potential cars this guy could drive.
They are such a great idea
Of course we're better off using these people to find such exploits in controlled conditions to the benefit of everyone's security rather than just locking them up. And they could also be paid well for their legitimate services.
If he was able to do this and get away with it for 2 years then it proves one thing - the networks could easily handle the bandwidth.
So why can't the telecos drop prices across the board - their network can handle it and they might even get more customers...or am I missing something?
Because they'd rather do nothing and get paid through the nose for it.
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?