[roel_v]

By your 'logic', logging into a SCADA system and opening a dam is less serious than graffiti? Or, changing the header of Amazon.com to say 'FUCK YOU', causing customers to go elsewhere and cause real monetary losses is less serious than graffiti? Because one is 'virtual'? How can you claim that some act has more severe consequences, just because it's in the physical world? Is stealing a wallet with 10$ worse than wiring 10$ from someone else's account?

[b0ttler0cket]

Good points, roel. I want to say something about my "logic." I compared two similar scenarios. You're comparing industrial sabotage to tagging a wall. It's not fair to say that because this comparison fails, my logic is wrong is it? You set it up purposefully to fail. It's kind of straw-man-ish.

Is stealing a wallet with $10.00 worse than wiring $10.00 from someone else's account? I could easily argue yes in some circumstances. If you have your wallet stolen by someone, there's a much greater chance that you will come to physical harm. Getting $10.00 stolen from your PayPal account does not afford you this same risk. I believe that's pretty fair to say. Now, seeing as one has the potential to cause financial and physical harm and the other only has the potential to cause financial distress, should both crimes be treated the same? Should both perpetrators be punished with the same sentence if convicted?

That being said, industrial espionage is a serious thing, and at that point the distinction between a "cyber-crime" and a "real-world crime" begins to diminish.

My logic still holds up, doesn't it? Am I still missing something here?