I was looking through some logs from a net node I don't use much here about 
three days ago...I found that some subhuman POS was hitting my other 
WRT300-N like a 25cent ho... Whoever it was evidently wasn't smart enough to 
route their IP through multiple points, much less black hole it...

I don't like that crap. I have a big problem with anyone who feels like 
messing with me in person or my tech online...especially if they aren't 
creative enough to even attempt to hide themselves...

I have had to spend the last few days trying various things...out of nothing 
more than malevolent, hate-filled revenge...but I finally nailed the 
prick...(ip withheld...'cause perfect paranoia is perfect awareness)

Apparently the "person" (used very loosely) was running Solaris...I first 
tried various easy RDP and MSMSGR exploits (before I found out OS), but to 
no avail..so I attempted some assorted 'Nix exploits, and got a hit with the 
port 23 telnet 'sploit....which is Solaris exclusive AFAIK...

Haha...I hope they like their nicely wiped system. :-D

I should have just flashed their BIOS with garbage, or upped thier proc and 
RAM voltage to absurd levels...but I'm not *that* mean...

Backhacking can be fun...but I'd rather POV....and now that thet they are 
occupied for the next few days, trying to figure out just WTF exactly 
happened, I can. ;-D

Since this incident I have become tempted to set up a 'nix box just to act 
as a firewall...maybe even positioned after a fireBox or cisco PIX firewall 
box...

One cannot be too safe...stupid teenagers and their scripts...(stupid vista 
too [HP used on the comp on that node]...gentoo time perhaps...?)

...2600

ian

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:28:18 -0400, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:

> Apparently the "person" (used very loosely) was running Solaris...I
> first tried various easy RDP and MSMSGR exploits (before I found out
> OS), but to no avail..so I attempted some assorted 'Nix exploits, and
> got a hit with the port 23 telnet 'sploit....which is Solaris exclusive
> AFAIK...

Given that it was open to this hack, gotta make you wonder if someone 
else had owned the machine and was using it as a launching off point to 
cover their tracks and you toasted someone's machine who was innocent of 
trying to hack your systems....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

True..

But then again, even if that were so, at least that person is backdoor free 
now. ;-)

Given the lack of any major brand name apps in that system, I doubt it was a 
commercial machine. It was probably just a system some plebe set up to mess 
around in. After all, who would want Solaris if not to run a major app on? 
Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it either.

ian

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:49bf3147$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:28:18 -0400, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
>> Apparently the "person" (used very loosely) was running Solaris...I
>> first tried various easy RDP and MSMSGR exploits (before I found out
>> OS), but to no avail..so I attempted some assorted 'Nix exploits, and
>> got a hit with the port 23 telnet 'sploit....which is Solaris exclusive
>> AFAIK...
>
> Given that it was open to this hack, gotta make you wonder if someone
> else had owned the machine and was using it as a launching off point to
> cover their tracks and you toasted someone's machine who was innocent of
> trying to hack your systems....
>
> Jim
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it either.

Except the enterprise stuff the owner wrote for himself to run his business. 
I don't imagine Google has many commercial apps in their servers, but I 
don't think Google would be happy having their machines wiped either.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> True..
> 
> But then again, even if that were so, at least that person is backdoor free 
> now. ;-)
> 
> Given the lack of any major brand name apps in that system, I doubt it was a 
> commercial machine. It was probably just a system some plebe set up to mess 
> around in. After all, who would want Solaris if not to run a major app on? 
> Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it either.
> 
> ian

So long as you keep in mind what you did could be considered criminal. 
Even if you did it to retaliate against someone who was trying to hack you.



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:20:38 -0400, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:

> True..
> 
> But then again, even if that were so, at least that person is backdoor
> free now. ;-)

Well, hopefully they didn't store any critical data on it either.  If 
they have an external IDS in place (or perhaps if it were a honeypot), 
then just maybe they could come after you.  Nothing like having a 
wonderful plan blow up in your face, you know.

> Given the lack of any major brand name apps in that system, I doubt it
> was a commercial machine. It was probably just a system some plebe set
> up to mess around in. After all, who would want Solaris if not to run a
> major app on? Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it
> either.

There are plenty of people who use Solaris for a number of tasks.  Your 
opinion of the OS really isn't relevant to their choice, and the fact 
that you "backhacked" the site really says more about you than it does 
about them, doesn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17-3-2009 19:55, Mike Raiford wrote:
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> True..
>>
>> But then again, even if that were so, at least that person is backdoor 
>> free now. ;-)
>>
>> Given the lack of any major brand name apps in that system, I doubt it 
>> was a commercial machine. It was probably just a system some plebe set 
>> up to mess around in. After all, who would want Solaris if not to run 
>> a major app on? Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it 
>> either.
>>
>> ian
> 
> So long as you keep in mind what you did could be considered criminal. 

I think 'could' may depend on the country Ians is in and the server was 
in. I.e. I don't rule out there are countries where this is not a crime, 
but in most countries it is a criminal act. Checking: hmm, Raleigh NC, 
USA. AFAIK it is a criminal act in the USA.

Perhaps Ian should have consulted someone before acting so rash.

> Even if you did it to retaliate against someone who was trying to hack you.

No it was retaliation against an owner of a system that was used in a 
hacking attempt. There is no proof at all that the owner had anything to 
do with it. I'd guess 85% percent that the owned was innocent but is now 
missing some months or years of work, let's hope there is a backup.
Some indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running 
again, if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.

I don't have much commercial software on my machine, but that does not 
mean that I only use it to mess around. Also note that when we have old 
machines running in the lab it often means that some old software runs 
on it that was not updated for newer OSes or that it interfaces to old 
but vital hardware. Yet they would easily pass Ian's "plebs test".

In short: I am not happy with this.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Perhaps Ian should have consulted someone before acting so rash.

Or at least before broadcasting his confession all over the world. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> 
> No it was retaliation against an owner of a system that was used in a 
> hacking attempt. There is no proof at all that the owner had anything to 
> do with it. I'd guess 85% percent that the owned was innocent but is now 
> missing some months or years of work, let's hope there is a backup.
> Some indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running 
> again, if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.
> 

Misdirected, but his justification is still retaliation. The likely 
innocent system was collateral damage. And yep. not legal here in the U.S.



> In short: I am not happy with this.

I agree.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Perhaps Ian should have consulted someone before acting so rash.
> 
> Or at least before broadcasting his confession all over the world. ;-)
> 

FWIW, I'd frequently get mounds and mounds of attempts against my system 
when I was self-hosted... All I could really do was look at the logs and 
smile. All of the attempts were directed toward IIS... :-D Fun...

I really couldn't be bothered to do much else. Way too many attempts to 
compromise the system to ever get anything done if I reported all of 
them, which were probably using other compromised systems anyway.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> FWIW, I'd frequently get mounds and mounds of attempts against my system 
> when I was self-hosted... All I could really do was look at the logs and 
> smile. All of the attempts were directed toward IIS... :-D Fun...

The ones I got while running a Linux cluster all seemed to be attacking 
Apache and PHP, looking for things like phpadmin and such. Only about once 
or twice a week or so, always the same pattern but not the same IP blocks.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 17-3-2009 21:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Perhaps Ian should have consulted someone before acting so rash.
> 
> Or at least before broadcasting his confession all over the world. ;-)

Yes that is sort of what I mean. At least start next time with 'If I was 
bothered by ... and I know the IP, would you think it is a good idea...' 
even if you have already done it. In the end this is a somewhat 
different audience than the usual newsgroup.

Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst 
us (at least that is how I feel about this) should we take action? My 
feeling is that this is not severe enough to justify an action that 
would result in invading the privacy of Ian. Nor can we tell anybody 
that there is this guy (probably) that has erased a server somewhere on 
this world or so he(?) says, probably sometime last week. Not really 
specific if you ask me. Still, I would have preferred not to know.

Non-legal problem: how to react to ian within this newsgroup. Nothing 
changed as far as I am concerned. Apart from noting the fact that he can 
apparently behave like a hothead sometimes. And he has the knowledge and 
tools to do nasty things with computers. At least he did not use a gun. 
That reminds me: where is Ken?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:17:29 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Some
> indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running again,
> if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.

That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy.  Suppose 
the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of 
work lost.  Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17-3-2009 23:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:17:29 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> Some
>> indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running again,
>> if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.
> 
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. 

Indeed, that is what I was thinking, so if they take a long time they 
are most probably amateurs who unknowingly left open a door to intruders 
(they did, we know that) and let other use their system.
If they reinstall fast they have either good support or are knowing 
themselves. I would not take a bet on that, so my guess was that only a 
long time before the IP can be pinged would mean something.
Other theories welcome.

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> 
> Haha...I hope they like their nicely wiped system. :-D
> 
> I should have just flashed their BIOS with garbage, or upped thier proc and 
> RAM voltage to absurd levels...but I'm not *that* mean...
> 


So, that's why Google was down recently!

:-o

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy.  Suppose 
> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of 
> work lost.  Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.

Heh. I had one contract job I turned down after a day or two of looking at 
it. Wistar institute, a famous cancer research place here, had all their 
stuff in a DBaseII database on a CP/M machine - Osborne, IIRC. They had a 
30meg drive, 29.75 meg full or so, and wanted me to add all kinds of 
features. There was years of data in it, and most of the people were dead, 
so it would be impossible to replicate.

I asked them when they'd made the last backup, and they said "We've never 
managed to make a backup. The system is too unstable to make a whole backup."

OK. I'll just exit out this way, avoiding the rooms with people in full-body 
leather coats using tongs to drop test-tubes into lead-lined containers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Yes that is sort of what I mean. At least start next time with 'If I was
> bothered by ... and I know the IP, would you think it is a good idea...'
> even if you have already done it. In the end this is a somewhat
> different audience than the usual newsgroup.
> 
> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
> us (at least that is how I feel about this) should we take action?

Reminded me of:

http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif

Post a reply to this message

I did act rashly; which probably wasn't a good idea. The presence of 
malicious tools on the system and lack of much else was to me, a pretty good 
indication that I had the right person.

I normally would never retaliate in such a way, and in fact I typically help 
people lock their systems down, remove viruses, spyware, etc.. and educate 
them as to the proper ways to protect themselves. I'm not exactly "black 
hat", more white hat than anything.

I have learned certian things so that I might understand the ways in which I 
or my clients may be attacked, so that I may more adequately protect against 
such threats.

So such retaliation was pretty out of character for me. I'm not a "bad 
person" nor do I engage in unwarranted malevolent behavior.

Looking back, I was wrong.
I will not retaliate in such a way again...apologies to all...

I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.

ian

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:49C### [at] hotmailcom...

> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst 
> us


  Just one?




  ;)



  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2009 4:22 PM, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I will not retaliate in such a way again...

God knows we've all wanted to...

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
> us

Pick your battles.  Do you know how many people come through our 
drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead 
of a driver's license?

It's not worth going further with it.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:25 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal
>> amongst us
> 
> Pick your battles.  Do you know how many people come through our
> drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
> of a driver's license?
> 
> It's not worth going further with it.

Especially considering the general difficulty with tying a specific 
individual to Ian's posts here on the server.  Could well have been 
someone who hijacked his system and made the claim. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:15:03 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 3/17/2009 4:22 PM, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> I will not retaliate in such a way again...
> 
> God knows we've all wanted to...

Yep, I know I've been tempted, but it was easier just to restrict ssh 
access to my machine based on RSA public key authentication rather than 
passwords. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy.  Suppose 
> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of 
> work lost.  Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.

  It would be very foolish to do something important and not make regular
backups. A simple hard drive failure can destroy all of your work at any
moment. Or a power surge (it's not even rare that lightning has fried a
computer so completely that all data has been irreversibly lost). Especially
in the latter case (and tons of others, such as a fire) you can't even rely
on RAID for safekeeping.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it either.

  Yeah. Sun has developed this OS for like 3 decades, and there aren't many
apps for it. Just the OS. They have been doing it just for the fun of it.
Sure.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Reminded me of:

> http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif

  While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
16 is a very common age of consent in many countries (including many
western ones, including many states of the US, Canada, and many European
countries, eg. Finland).
  Such an age difference may be frowned upon, but not necessarily illegal.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:01:21 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy.  Suppose
>> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years
>> of work lost.  Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running
>> backups, too.
> 
>   It would be very foolish to do something important and not make
>   regular
> backups. A simple hard drive failure can destroy all of your work at any
> moment. Or a power surge (it's not even rare that lightning has fried a
> computer so completely that all data has been irreversibly lost).
> Especially in the latter case (and tons of others, such as a fire) you
> can't even rely on RAID for safekeeping.

Of course it would, but just because someone's being foolish doesn't make 
it OK to hack their system and destroy it because you think they're the 
source of problems on your system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.

Unless the country of Georgia has a sports team named "The Tigers", I'm 
pretty sure they're in the state of Georgia in the USA. :-)

But I'll grant you it's not obvious without looking really close. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.

> Unless the country of Georgia has a sports team named "The Tigers", I'm 
> pretty sure they're in the state of Georgia in the USA. :-)

  At least this: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists 16 as the
age of consent for the state of Georgia, USA.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   At least this: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists 16 as the
> age of consent for the state of Georgia, USA.

Heh. I'm not surprised.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 18-3-2009 2:19, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
>> us
> 
> Pick your battles.  Do you know how many people come through our 
> drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead 
> of a driver's license?
> 
> It's not worth going further with it.
> 
I agree, I don't see any reason to act for any of us ATM. It was just a 
way to express that there may be other side effects as well if you tell 
a group of people something like this. Things may e.g. change when in a 
couple of years time someone meets him in person.
Shall we just forget this incident and then in a couple of weeks time 
when p.o-t expires we can just pretend this never happened?

Post a reply to this message

On 18-3-2009 0:22, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I did act rashly; which probably wasn't a good idea. The presence of 
> malicious tools on the system and lack of much else was to me, a pretty good 
> indication that I had the right person.

I think the most you can do legally is inform the domain owner or ISP 
that one of the machines in their network is acting malicious.
Anybody else know something better?

> I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.

This being POV news, a well executed picture might make us forget easier.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:19:53 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I think the most you can do legally is inform the domain owner or ISP
> that one of the machines in their network is acting malicious. Anybody
> else know something better?

Agreed.  Let the network owner deal with the problem child internally - 
generally the best route to go.  If they don't, then report them to the 
proper authorities.

>> I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.
> 
> This being POV news, a well executed picture might make us forget
> easier.

LOL - Too true. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/18/2009 1:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez<nic### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Reminded me of:
>
>> http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif
>
>    While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
> 16 is a very common age of consent in many countries (including many
> western ones, including many states of the US, Canada, and many European
> countries, eg. Finland).
>    Such an age difference may be frowned upon, but not necessarily illegal.

At least in the US, even when the age of consent is under  18 there is 
still that pesky little "statutory rape," which states that you have to 
be within a certain age range until older.

For instance, even if two 16 year olds can have sex without it being 
statutory, that doesn't mean a 16 year old and a 45 year old can.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> For instance, even if two 16 year olds can have sex without it being 
> statutory, that doesn't mean a 16 year old and a 45 year old can.

  Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?

  (Also, the way you worded the above paragraph makes it sound like two
15 year olds having sex would be committing statutory rape. Which one
exactly? Or maybe both? ;) )

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?

Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?

> Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.

  Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:58:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
> 
>> Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
> 
>   Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?

Nope.  I live in Utah.  I suppose they're online.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?

> Nope.  I live in Utah.  I suppose they're online.

  I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
know either. They just assume.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:55:36 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
> 
>> Nope.  I live in Utah.  I suppose they're online.
> 
>   I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
> know either. They just assume.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far 
better to err on the side of caution with something like this, lest you 
end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY don't 
like rapists.  From what I hear, people convicted of that - especially 
when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the general prison 
population.

jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:55:36 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> >   Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
> > 
> >> Nope.  I live in Utah.  I suppose they're online.
> > 
> >   I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
> > know either. They just assume.

> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far 
> better to err on the side of caution with something like this

  Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the legality
of someone's action in a certain country/state?

  Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get sued for
malpractice or something.

>, lest you 
> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY don't 
> like rapists.  From what I hear, people convicted of that - especially 
> when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the general prison 
> population.

  And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:42:21 -0400, Warp wrote:

>> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
>> better to err on the side of caution with something like this
> 
>   Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the
>   legality
> of someone's action in a certain country/state?

It's not illegal to make the assumption.  But if you make the assumption 
it's "safe" and it's illegal, you aren't going to catch a break - because 
ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

>   Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get sued
>   for
> malpractice or something.

We're talking about two different things, I think.

>>, lest you
>> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY
>> don't like rapists.  From what I hear, people convicted of that -
>> especially when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the
>> general prison population.
> 
>   And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.

Welcome to the justice system in the USA....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>>   And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....

Isn't think kind of true everywhere? :-) Aren't you pretty screwed if you're 
wrongly convicted regardless of where you live?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:41:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>   And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
>> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
> 
> Isn't think kind of true everywhere? :-) Aren't you pretty screwed if
> you're wrongly convicted regardless of where you live?

Well, yeah, I suppose so.  I only have direct experience in dealing with 
the justice system in the US, though.  I don't know what kind of appeals 
process there is in Finland, or Australia, or even in the UK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah, I suppose so.  I only have direct experience in dealing with 
> the justice system in the US, though.  I don't know what kind of appeals 
> process there is in Finland, or Australia, or even in the UK.

I'll grant you that in the US, sex with kids is high on the list of "easy to 
get screwed by the justice system."  Much easier than, say, car theft. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:29:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yeah, I suppose so.  I only have direct experience in dealing
>> with the justice system in the US, though.  I don't know what kind of
>> appeals process there is in Finland, or Australia, or even in the UK.
> 
> I'll grant you that in the US, sex with kids is high on the list of
> "easy to get screwed by the justice system."  Much easier than, say, car
> theft. :-)

Yep, that certainly is true.  And then when the perps end up in prison, 
their trouble REALLY starts.  As I mentioned before, sex offenders 
generally do not fare well in prison.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:42:21 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
> >> better to err on the side of caution with something like this
> > 
> >   Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the
> >   legality
> > of someone's action in a certain country/state?

> It's not illegal to make the assumption.  But if you make the assumption 
> it's "safe" and it's illegal, you aren't going to catch a break - because 
> ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

  It was a rethorical question. I just wanted to point out that I said
nothing about whether it's a good idea to do it or not. My original point
was that people seem to always assume it's illegal without actually knowing
the actual laws of the place.

> >   Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get sued
> >   for
> > malpractice or something.

> We're talking about two different things, I think.

  I was just being sarcastic. I apologize.

> >>, lest you
> >> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY
> >> don't like rapists.  From what I hear, people convicted of that -
> >> especially when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the
> >> general prison population.
> > 
> >   And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.

> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....

  I don't believe being beaten up in prison is part of the justice system.
Not the legal one, at least.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>   And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
> > Welcome to the justice system in the USA....

> Isn't think kind of true everywhere? :-) Aren't you pretty screwed if you're 
> wrongly convicted regardless of where you live?

  I was not referring to being wrongly convicted, but to being beaten in
prison because you made the "wrong" crime.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Since these things vary by state, I just looked up the RCW (state of 
Washington):

Apparently, they go by who's older.

If the younger person is less than twelve, and the elder is more than 3 
years older, then it's Child Molestation (1st Degree).
If the younger is 12-14, and the elder is more than 3 years older, then 
it's Child Molestation (2nd Degree).
If the younger is 15-16, and the elder is more than 3 years older, then 
it's Child Molestation (3rd Degree).

If the younger person is 16-17, and the elder is more than 5 years 
older, then it's Statutory Rape.

I might have missed some.

So, in the state of Washington, if you're within 3 years then there's no 
penalty for it.  Once the younger person hits 16, then you've got a 5 
year window.  At 18, there are no limits.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> ..damned plebes...

What do you have against plebeians? As I see it, besting a guy at 
hacking makes you no more a patriarch than besting you at hammering 
would make me John Henry.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message