Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jonathanlydall 12 days ago
Remembering back, I certainly lacked a lot of critical reasoning which could have led me to do possibly equally stupid stuff like this had I the skill in my early teens. As I remember it, life felt more like a "game" in that you do whatever it lets you, without much consideration of whether people will be (potentially very) upset with what you've done. In person activities stood high risk of getting caught, but online it seems more like a computer game and the people on the other side of your actions feel more abstract.

Many years back when I used to do CS for WoW, a colleague of mine liked to say that the only reason some kids shit-talk the way they do is because it's online and if they tried it in person they'd get punched in the face.

These kids discovered that their actions have consequences to them in person and not just someone being upset with them remotely.

As a parent now (but oldest is only 5), it's stories like this which make me determined remain aware of the kind of stuff my kids get up to and continually explain that actions have consequences, even if those consequences are seemingly as trivial as making someone else feel shit about themselves.

I wonder if maybe 10 or so years from now, after these kids have actually reached decent emotional maturity, that they'll look back at their actions and think about how stupidly reckless and needlessly destructive they were, to both others and their own lives.

12 comments

I have found that keeping dialog open from early age on helps a lot. If kids get into trouble when they do something they're not allowed to, they're going to learn to stop telling you stuff real quick. And hide their activities. If they learn that you'll stay calm and continually prove that you trust them to handle their stuff, they might end up telling you things you wouldn't expect. But then... you don't get to blow your lid. Ever.
You can absolutely blow your lid, you just have to apologize afterwards and admit that you were wrong. This is very hard for some adults to do to a 5 year old.
I understand that some people have trouble apologizing to children, but could someone help me understand why? I’ve been a parent for almost a decade now, and I can’t count the number of important teaching and bonding moments that have started with me making a parenting mistake and apologizing for it. I rely on it pretty heavily to teach my kid about emotional regulation. It’s such an important opportunity to just throw away. Is it an ego thing? Do people struggle to see children as people? I promise those are good-faith questions. I know some people struggle more with that sort of thing, and that’s fine. We all have our strengths.
A huge number of people come from families or even entire cultures where Father Is Never Wrong.
I’ve never seen Mother having an easier time. People don’t like admitting when they’re wrong.
It really depends on what blowing your lid looks like. Regardless of whether you make up for it later, if you make yourself a reputation of it, others will learn to avoid the initial blow-up in the first place
From the arrival:

> Jubair has 22 previous convictions related to hacking, fraud and harassment.

There’s more to what was going on here and none of us is really qualified to diagnose the psychology behind it from the details. I hope they can find some peace later in life because they are obviously not lacking ambition or ability

Lacking ability to cover their tracks.
It’s extremely easy for a kid to commit tens, or even hundreds of crimes in a matter of hours on the internet.
wayyy to much ambition, not enough ability (to STFU and follow OpSec)

getting in is often the easy part. getting out, undetected, with stuff that matters, is the hard part.

Or hire them into gchq on a short leash.
10 years and they'll be mid way into their conference talk career. You know, that sweet spot where you can keep telling the same story over and over and still get attention for it. That makes me wonder what Frank Abagnale has been up to recently.
Say what you want about Frank abagnale.. but damn can he tell a compelling story.
Not sure if you're aware already and omitted it for brevity but maybe for others who might not already know: Abignale made up everything (or nearly everything) he claimed to have done in his book and in the movie. He was still taking advantage of people during this time, but the acts were far more mundane (and slimy) than his claims. He was a con man for sure, but not the "brilliant but misguided criminal gets redemption" that he portrays.
Nope, I never heard that. It doesn't surprise me one bit though. I found his talks sort of robotic, and having caught a handful, very rote. I always thought he didn't have the demeanor of the person he claimed to be.
It isn't surprising though, him lying about his past. A con man is a con man, after all.
"Frank, if you go out that door the french are gonna kill you!"
I don't know, I was reading the article and went "well, good for them, if they could get into the system, fair play". Then I saw the part where they stole tons of data and inconvenienced people, and I can't support that.

If you hack into a system and leave a note "I got into your system, I win", more power to you. If you do damage, go to prison.

Behavior being different online than in real life is not limited to kids either. Nobody on Facebook is meaner than a 60-something year old lady with a wall full of cat pictures and minion memes. I genuinely doubt that half of them would hold the same discourse face to face.
With the number of 'crazy karen' and 'crazy kyle' videos online, maybe over half of them would.
>Many years back when I used to do CS for WoW, a colleague of mine liked to say that the only reason some kids shit-talk the way they do is because it's online and if they tried it in person they'd get punched in the face.

I've seen people have this opinion many times before and I don't get it. People talk shit in real life all the time and it's a much worse situation in real life because they might punch you in the face.

This is why I don't mind online shit-talking, because it isn't going to escalate into a fight. In real life it might and imo the teens are more likely to escalate it especially if they are in a group.

Yeah, that too. Like, being old enough to get my start largely in internet cafes means I actually _had_ in-person interactions with the type of person we're talking about - and they were _not_ nicer.

Being kinda big I might even stand a chance against one - unless they had a knife, which they probably IME did - but there was always at least 5 of the "lonely lost boys," at least one carrying a baseball bat everywhere.

Now I have the opposite feeling. I know that if I ever do something useful that people like, I'll go to jail for it. I don't know how startup founders do it, I guess they need legal backing from an incubator.
I don't understand what you mean, can you explain?
Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash). Let's say I made a secure messenger, I'd go to jail for that (Telegram, EncroChat, SkyECC) or narrowly avoid jail (Session) or be forced to add a backdoor (Anom). Let's say I made an operating system that didn't spy on you, I'd be threatened with jail for that (GrapheneOS). And of course there are more things, for which there will be more consequences (mostly jail) but for things that haven't been done yet there are obviously no examples offhand.

Basically everything that fits outside of existing patterns is illegal one way or another. Only people who are naïve to these consequences will ever be motivated to make these things.

Telegram and Session are never secure by any means. Honestly I'd consider both of them to be intelligence and law enforcement honeypots given how aggressively they marketed themselves as the "secure" option and how little they actually deliver.

I would trust WhatsApp before I trust telegram.

"Here's a list of things that have got some people in trouble, and therefore everything is illegal."

Where's your list of things that nobody got in trouble for? Presumably you didn't include that because a trillion things happen every day without anyone getting arrested for them. Amazing. It turns out that not everything is illegal.

> Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash)

This is just a disingenuous take.

Tornado Cash founder didn't get criminally convicted for "a genius way go use cryptography to send anonymous payments." He got convicted for operating a money-laundering service.

The fact that his service utilized "a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments" is entirely orthogonal to the actual crime he got in trouble for. He would have gotten convicted just the same regardless of the cryptography usage, because the actual crime here was operating a money-laundering service.

Yeah, like I said, a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments. The cops call that money laundering. That isn't an orthogonal crime, it's a different name for the exact same thing.
Sure, and "manufacturing novel types of explosive devices, with evidence of them having been used in destructive acts of terror" is just a different name used by cops for "innovative applied chemistry". The criminal law must be truly just hating on the innovators in sciences.
Please don't frame these as technological crimes, nobody has yet been prosecuted for that specifically.
What do you think the Tornado Cash people were prosecuted for if not offering technology?
they were money laundering for the N Koreans not just "offering technology"
> As a parent now (but oldest is only 5), it's stories like this which make me determined remain aware of the kind of stuff my kids get up to and continually explain that actions have consequences, even if those consequences are seemingly as trivial as making someone else feel shit about themselves.

Weird, somehow without significant parental surveillance or explicit explanation I somehow managed to _not_ do much of the awful stuff my acquaintances with much more engaged parents did.

Must have been my autism, I guess.

>Many years back when I used to do CS for WoW, a colleague of mine liked to say that the only reason some kids shit-talk the way they do is because it's online and if they tried it in person they'd get punched in the face.

This is the #1 reason bots exist. We can't just punch them down anymore, we're flagged as bad people.

I wish they would have turned to Russia or Belarus to do this, it would have been a lot safer for them.
With their skills and nowhere to go, they will be doing this for the government.
I think this was true in the 90s and 2000s. When not everyone was a script kiddie. But why hire someone that literally didn't write their own exploit? Sounds like the most advanced thing they did was just social engineering and dumping a DB.
You remember a way different 90's than I do.

It was just simpler back then. There was no aslr, no hardware level protection from execution, traffic was all plaintext, switches didn't exist, or maybe they did but just nobody used them and everything on every network was just one giant collision domain, developers by and large didn't even think about securing software outside of DRM, and absolutely nobody understood the basic premise that someone on the phone may be lying to your business to get access to things they want.

The skillset that made you a 1337 h4x0r in the 90's makes you a mediocre sysadmin these days.

disagree. back then you were an autodydact.

i can get on YT or some AI and find how to do virtually all of the stuff you mentioned, but back then you had to roll your own and figure it out yourself

but i am generally in alignment with the idea that they're not getting gub'mnt jobs now. 1) how could you trust them? and 2) there is a global glut of talent, including laid-off FAANG / big-org talent that you could scoop up.

why take a risk with an idiot who can't keep his ego in check long enough to maintain OpSec when you can hire a senior security engineer just laid off from Oracle with an MIT pedigree? 30 years ago the 133t haxor types were rare, but now they're churning out cybersecurity grads to the point of oversaturation.

I had books that I scoured from the visiting nurses book sale every year and phrack. That's not much different than yt or ai. I guess there was less direct context with the books, but grasping the basics got you further.

It's ok that we disagree though.

I doubt it, these kids are never getting clearance.

I expect to find them at an MSP with a firm equal opportunities policy.

You used to do computer science for world of warcraft?! Sounds cool!
no they did Content Sharing for Weekend on Wednesdays
He admin'd their Counter Strike server.
Customer support