A British hacker who funded his gambling addiction by stealing and reselling online gaming chips from Zynga has been jailed for two years. Ashley Mitchell, 29, from Paignton, Devon, was sent down last week after earlier pleading guilty to five charges of hacking and theft at Exeter Crown Court. Mitchell exploited shortcomings in …
Give the man credit*
But really, "People rely on the security of systems and anyone who comes before the courts who has gone through these security systems from their own ends can expect custody," - he should be offered a job, not a prison sentence! He'd be a great asset to have on board for security testing!
"he should be offered a job, not a prison sentence! He'd be a great asset to have on board for security testing!"
So you're going to hire a convict with a gambling problem and just trust that he's not going to pull something on you when he has a string of bad luck?
"The sentence has to reflect the impact on public confidence in security systems and online business when someone breaches security in this way."
So it's not important to have secure systems, but simply to deter people from hacking them and getting caught? Great.
not important to have secure systems?
> So it's not important to have secure systems, but simply to deter people from hacking them and getting caught? Great
It not that its more important, its that they can't secure the technology, so they bump up the sentences instead, in the process criminilazing techie people and serving as a deterent to everyone else.
<insert lawyer smiley>
Not, it's not important that the system IS secure,
But, that the public THINKS it is secure... But, yes, security throught obscurity would be enhance, though, by would-be attackers who give up without trying...
gate, horse, bolted
Hum, isn't the problem here that Zynga had an insecure system? Kind of closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Ok yes the guy did wrong, but punishing him like this seems extreme, no one got hurt did they?
So are they going to help him with his gambling addiction?
Where is the balance in our justice system, people committing GBH get less than this, come on can we have some prospective please!
Extreme punishment ?
I don't think so. His shenanigans led his neighbors to become suspect before he got caught himself. On top of that, he was already under a suspended sentence for hacking, so that's a relapse.
Jeanne D'Arc got burned at the stake for relapse. This guy got off lightly.
This is a good example of why it's important to secure your wifi. I know people who refuse to do so.
When confronted about loss of speed they might encounter, they say they only use the internet for browsing anyway.
When confronted about privacy issues, they say they have nothing to hide.
That may be true, but ignorance won't stand up well for you in court, after some bugger has essentially framed you by hopping on your connection.
Looks like he almost bought the farm...
"So it's not important to have secure systems, but simply to deter people from hacking them and getting caught?"
Can I smash the closed and locked window on your car, steal your ICE/satnav/laptop and then say the same? Well your honour it wasn't secure enough! It should have been covered in 10cm of Chobham armour! It was just waiting to be smashed your honour. WTF? Surely the whole point of going to jail IS to deter people. So I fail to see your point. Do crime, do time, it's the choice he made.
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Wall St's DROOLING as Twitter GULPS DOWN analytics firm Gnip