No doubt as a convicted 'ex' hacker the computer security industry will be queuing up to employ the criminal little scroat very shortly.
Erstwhile LulzSec spokesman Jake Davis has been freed from detention, with strict conditions on the 20-year-old's use of the internet and computers. Davis (aka Topiary), formerly of Lerwick in Shetland, was convicted of computer hacking over his role in the infamous LulzSec hacking crew in May and banged up for 24 months in …
Once his sentance is complete, then he has served time, so should be given a chance to go straight.
Many ex-cons use their "skills" to educate others.
Unless of course you don't think ex-gang members should teach kids about the risks, or ex-burglars giving advice on home security, ex-car thieves about car security, ex-forgers on anti-conterfieting techniques, con-men, fraudsters, pick pockets, shop lifters and on and on.
Without their knowledge, we'd often been left wondering how the hell they do half the stuff.
Like it or not, sometimes we need these people to go straight and help out.
Bull. These are the people we caught so we already know what they can do and how to stop it. What the police need is help from very clever people in the relevant industries to work out the latest illegal techniques and how to stop them.
My father used to be an expert witness for counterfeit money trials because he was a printer with time served running plants for the likes of The Times, The Gruniad and Waddingtons (who printed real as well as Monopoly money). He knows more about printing than any counterfeiter and spotted things the cops would never have found.
"....Such charming naiveté....." I think what you failed to understand was that Irongut was simply demonstrating a case where being a criminal was not a pre-requisite to detecting or preventing criminal activity, therefore it does not follow that you have to have criminal experience in order to successfully work on detecting or preventing future criminal techniques.
I doubt he has any useful skills, he just had enough free time to waste munging about on the internet breaking things with little to no regard (skill?) for getting caught.
"the computer security industry will be queuing up to employ the criminal little scroat very shortly"
Why? explain which RARE skill you think he has? Not the skill of getting caught I presume.
Hey that's a good point - next time I delete an important file or bunch of emails I'll just call up the folks at GCHQ and ask if they can restore them!
Actually, why doesn't the government just promote GCHQ as a kindly SuperCloud with unlimited storage for British citizens' data? We're paying for it after all.
"I think they mean "no deleting his Internet history at GCHQ" (it's like a cloud backup service that you don't want but pay for through taxes)."
Pity that one cannot restore from said pre-paid backup. Or even get them to admit to the true extent of said backup.
You know, "Hello, GCHQ? Listen, I had a drive crash and need to restore session data from Friday, the 24th. The NSA has it? OK, can you connect me?
NSA? Listen, I had a drive crash and need to restore session data from Friday, the 24th. What do you mean I don't have a high enough clearance to access my own data?!"
"....how would they know if he securely wiped something?" I would suggest this is more a warning not to try and hide any future miscreant activity. In future, if he could just wipe his gear to hide his tracks, the coppers wouldn't be able to prove much, but by adding in this to his licence they can point to a wiped system and send him straight back to prison.
".....prohibited from contacting .... members of the wider Anonymous collective....." LOL! Can you just imagine the conversation:
JAKE, IRC to Desperate Ugly Girl: "Hi, you look like you would be grateful, are you a member of Anonymous?"
DUG: "I can't tell you, because if I was and I told you it wouldn't be Anonymous....."
JAKE: "Damn! Another night with Ms Hand and the Finger Sisters!"
(Cue background evil laughter from evesdropping GCHQ staff.)
"has been freed from detention....banged up for 24 months in May"
"However, time served wearing an electronic tag for 21 months was taken into account as part of this sentence"
So whether or not he was found innocent or guilty he would have served 21 months anyway. So what's the point of even going to court?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019