[tptacek]

Why do people keep oversimplifying this to "defacing a website"? If you were running ops for a tech company and your website was defaced, would your costs stop at the point where you restore the original content to the website? Of course they wouldn't.

[logfromblammo]

If a tagger defaces a wall of your building, there are several things you can do about it.

  - ignore it
  - paint over the graffito
  - paint the entire wall
  - sandblast the graffito off
  - repaint the entire building
  - demolish the building and construct a new one, then paint it
  - abandon the building and move your business to a new city

Additionally, there are some things you can do to discourage future miscreants.

  - nothing
  - hire an artist, to make the original tagger feel inept and outclassed
  - point cameras at your walls
  - hire a guard to chase off taggers
  - coat your walls with a substance that prevents paint from adhering
  - build a wall around your walls, with razor wire
  - buy sentry guns with an AI tagging-detection system

And there are several ways to calculate damages.

  - declare that no damage occurred
  - cost of one bucket of paint
  - devaluation of the market value of the property
  - loss of business from customers that might have been scared off
  - loss of reputation among existing customers
  - research costs for a device that will erase the memory of the graffito
    from anyone that ever saw it
  - lobbying costs for new federal laws and regulations regarding tagging
  - cost of consultants capable of determining Banksy or not-Banksy

At some point, you step across the line where you can reasonably say that the expenditures were all due to one kid with a fat marker or spray-paint can.

Your costs might not stop at that line, but the amount you can claim as damages would.

[tptacek]

You've lost me. Nothing a tagger does to your wall is going to cost you $20,000, and the tagger doesn't set out with the objective of totally destroying your wall, failing only because their accomplices refuse to do that.

[ConfuciusSay]

You're 100% right. There are some costs to the company to clean up after what happened.

However, I think people are correctly wondering why we live in a society where a more or less victimless crime will result in years in prison, while bankers loot and destroy the entire economy, ruining countless peoples lives, and not even one exective spends a minute in jail.

There exists a two-tiered system, and this is yet another illustration of what happens when you're in the lower tier. If bankers aren't going to jail, this guy definitely shouldn't be.

[tptacek]

Exactly how is this a victimless crime? The crime seems to have a clear victim: the Tribune Corporation and its shareholders.

[ConfuciusSay]

When one compares it to other crimes that not only go unpunished, but rewarded, this particular crime is comparatively insignificant - thus the "more or less".

I trust in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, you were speaking out equally vigourosly in favor of jailing bank executives.

[ConfuciusSay]

For what? LOL

Even Ben Bernanke says we should have jailed banking executives after 2008.

In case you're not being purposefully obtuse, you can watch about how the reams of evidence of criminal behavior (you know, of actual written-down crimes) was ignored by the justice department (you know, the same agency that is pursuing this case), via PBS Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/

Frontline, was able to find direct evidence of executive criminality with just a cursory investigation (with no power of subpoena). The excuses coming out of the justice department's mouthpiece were so laughable, that he resigned the day after the piece went to air.

There's a two-tier system in place here, and crimes like defacing a website causing a paltry amount of damage, although real, should be the crimes the justice department ignores if they're not able to apply justice to all crimes fairly and evenly.

[tptacek]

Jailing bank executives for what? I am not vigorously in favor of jailing people for things that are not actual written-down crimes.

Are you asking me if I think there should be more criminal statutes in banking? That's a pretty boring question. Of course I do.

[tedunangst]

I vigorously support the notion that bank executives who have broken the law should go to prison.

[jfager]

Keys posted active credentials to a forum, and those credentials were used by others to deface a website. Do you regard that as a fair statement of what happened? Still completely insane to send someone to prison for that.

[tptacek]

He posted active credentials to the (his words) secret chat room of a "group of renegade criminal" hackers, and pleaded with them to trash Tribune properties --- he was distraught when the people on that channel merely poked around and tried to maintain their access. Ultimately, Keys was disappointed --- again, his words --- with the minimal damage done to his former employer.

It does not seem at all insane to send someone for prison for that.

[jfager]

The actual damages that resulted from his actions were pretty small and purely financial.

Even if you prosecute on the basis of what could have happened (maybe we start charging everyone who runs a red light with manslaughter?), we're still not reaching the level of physical harm to anyone or (barring complete negligence on the part of the Tribune) a catastrophic material loss.

You really think society's need to avenge that wrong is worth spending $30k a year to hold him in federal prison, exposing him to possible violent harm, and depriving him of his future? Sorry, but that's insane. He should pay the actual damages, a punitive fine, and perform community service, tops.