Apologist For a Hacker

Brian Krebs of the Washington Post comes off as an apologist for teen hackers.

He offers a flattering portrait of the Massachusetts teenager that pleaded guilty to committing a string of hacking crimes. Anyone willing to compromise online information broker Lexis Nexis, hack Paris Hilton's T-Mobile cellular phone account, and email bomb threats to a Florida high school and a Massachusetts high school does not deserve such treatment.

This teen is not just a prankster. He's a criminal.

Krebs writes:

I had a chance to get to know this young man in a series of almost daily online chats and phone conversations over a five-month period earlier this year, and found him to be extremely bright, likable and terribly funny. Unfortunately, he fits a profile that is sadly all too common among young hackers: He had little or no trouble circumventing adult supervision, and his online activities served mainly to bolster his ego, which led to increasingly daring and destructive exploits.

Under the terms of his plea agreement, he will be serving 11 months' detention, which according to his buddies is actually home confinement at a relative's residence. The detention will be followed by two years' supervised release, and he is barred from using a computer or phone that can access the Internet during his detention and probation.

I sincerely hope that during this time he learns that he can use his considerable creativity and skills for something productive. I firmly believe that there are plenty of mischievous hackers out there who -- if they have a positive role model to look up to and can manage to make it through their teenage years without doing stupid stuff that will land them in prison -- can actually contribute a great deal to society.

Yes, Krebs acknowledges that the punk did something illegal; but he also highlights the admirable qualities of the "young man."

Hey! Krebs!

HE'S A CROOK and is responsible for $1 million in damages.

The fact that Krebs found him "extremely bright, likable and terribly funny" makes me question his ability to judge character.

Krebs blames the lack of role models and adult supervision for the crook's deeds. At seventeen, the crook certainly should have the ability to discern between right and wrong without an adult looking over his shoulder.

Moreover, I wonder how Krebs would explain the majority of truly bright and creative adolescents that do "manage to make it through their teenage years without doing stupid stuff that will land them in prison" without being constantly monitored by adults.

I find it positively ludicrous that Krebs shifts the blame for the crook's behavior on to the adults that weren't around to keep the crook from doing something stupid. In the world according to Krebs, adults let the crook down. In effect, Krebs considers the victimizer to be a victim.

If the crook hasn't developed a conscience by seventeen years of age, I'm sure I wouldn't find him bright or likable or funny.

There is no question in my mind that the "bright" crook should be held responsible for his actions.

Federal law should be changed so that teen hackers can be tried as adults and punished as adults. This crook's sentence of eleven months in a juvenile facility does not fit the gravity of his crimes.

Krebs sees it differently. He sympathizes with the poor little hacker. He even sends the crook his best wishes and hopes that the crook can use his "considerable creativity and skills for something productive."

Are we to believe that the poor little baby didn't realize he was doing something very naughty?

GIVE ME A BREAK!

It's clear to me that Krebs has never experienced having his personal information or safety compromised by a "mischievous" hacker. I doubt he would be so forgiving if he had.