Leave no trace: how a teenage hacker lost himself online(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Leave no trace: how a teenage hacker lost himself online
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/14/leave-no-trace-how-a-teenage-hacker-lost-himself-online
146 comments
"According to a review of community service orders carried out in 2007, maintenance work, gardening, cleaning and kitchen work or a combination of activities were the most common" [1]
It says the Dutch system is based on the British one, where typical jobs are things like graffiti cleaning, litter picking, cleaning other outdoor areas (e.g. derelict land), assisting in a care home or home for disabled people.
Some of these could be more social than Edwin would have wanted, and could also have been (relatively) physicially demanding.
[1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.63...
It says the Dutch system is based on the British one, where typical jobs are things like graffiti cleaning, litter picking, cleaning other outdoor areas (e.g. derelict land), assisting in a care home or home for disabled people.
Some of these could be more social than Edwin would have wanted, and could also have been (relatively) physicially demanding.
[1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.63...
> things like graffiti cleaning, litter picking, cleaning other outdoor areas (e.g. derelict land), assisting in a care home or home for disabled people.
These are all things that normal people volunteer to do, even spend hundreds of dollars of their own money to do (graffiti removal is not just time consuming but also expensive, particularly cleaning up trees/rocks in nature).
This is exactly the type of work that community service programs should target. We're not talking about for-profit chicken farms in the US or something.
> Some of these could be more social than Edwin would have wanted, and could also have been (relatively) physicially demanding.
Honestly? Good. He was clearly depressed and mentally unhealthy long before his run-in with the law. Forcing some socialization and physical exercise might've saved Edwin's life. And it's pretty clear to me that he was headed nowhere good even prior to his legal troubles.
These are all things that normal people volunteer to do, even spend hundreds of dollars of their own money to do (graffiti removal is not just time consuming but also expensive, particularly cleaning up trees/rocks in nature).
This is exactly the type of work that community service programs should target. We're not talking about for-profit chicken farms in the US or something.
> Some of these could be more social than Edwin would have wanted, and could also have been (relatively) physicially demanding.
Honestly? Good. He was clearly depressed and mentally unhealthy long before his run-in with the law. Forcing some socialization and physical exercise might've saved Edwin's life. And it's pretty clear to me that he was headed nowhere good even prior to his legal troubles.
Mental heath services should have been provided if Edwin was depressed or mentally unhealthy. Community hours are a punishment, albeit a socially useful one, but no substitute for actual health care.
> Mental heath services should have been provided if Edwin was depressed or mentally unhealthy.
Sure, agreed, but again... the narrative of a cold and uncaring family/milieu is just false. His mentors at school were deeply concerns. He went to rehab and they kicked him out as a lost cause. Etc. Other people cared about him, but he didn't care about him.
The idea that he just needed a bit more understanding and sympathy seems extremely misguided... if anything, he had too much "soft love". If I were the judge, in his case, I would've strongly insisted on community service. Would it have helped change his mindset or at least break his death spiral? Who knows. But it had a better chance than prison.
> Community hours are a punishment, albeit a socially useful one
It's also a personally useful one. Seeing other people pitching in and seeing the tangible positive effects of one's actions can help some people introspect and really come to terms with the tangible negative effects of their previous actions. Not always, but sometimes.
Sure, agreed, but again... the narrative of a cold and uncaring family/milieu is just false. His mentors at school were deeply concerns. He went to rehab and they kicked him out as a lost cause. Etc. Other people cared about him, but he didn't care about him.
The idea that he just needed a bit more understanding and sympathy seems extremely misguided... if anything, he had too much "soft love". If I were the judge, in his case, I would've strongly insisted on community service. Would it have helped change his mindset or at least break his death spiral? Who knows. But it had a better chance than prison.
> Community hours are a punishment, albeit a socially useful one
It's also a personally useful one. Seeing other people pitching in and seeing the tangible positive effects of one's actions can help some people introspect and really come to terms with the tangible negative effects of their previous actions. Not always, but sometimes.
From the article:
> There were countless visits to the doctor and to hospital. Each time there would be medical tests. “Honestly, I think it was psychological,” said José. “Edwin had a lot of anxiety, but the doctors focused on physical causes.”
Doesn't look to me like the answer was "tough love" or "go do some gardening", in particular when taking into account he eventually ends his own life. This really feels like a lack of psychological treatment that might have been needed very early, and just go way way worse as it went untreated.
> There were countless visits to the doctor and to hospital. Each time there would be medical tests. “Honestly, I think it was psychological,” said José. “Edwin had a lot of anxiety, but the doctors focused on physical causes.”
Doesn't look to me like the answer was "tough love" or "go do some gardening", in particular when taking into account he eventually ends his own life. This really feels like a lack of psychological treatment that might have been needed very early, and just go way way worse as it went untreated.
>> How could it be worse than doing time?
Ask his lawyer. It is likely not a matter of which is better or worse punishment. It is a matter of risk, risk that one punishment will spin off into others. Someone out on community service, effectively parole, can get in trouble for all sorts of minor things (ie not showing up for work). A kid like this on community service will likely break some rule, resulting in further punishments. Jail time is not only shorter but places less responsibility on the individual. His lawyer might therefor have suggested, given the high likelihood of him breaking rules on community work, that jail time was the safer option.
Ask his lawyer. It is likely not a matter of which is better or worse punishment. It is a matter of risk, risk that one punishment will spin off into others. Someone out on community service, effectively parole, can get in trouble for all sorts of minor things (ie not showing up for work). A kid like this on community service will likely break some rule, resulting in further punishments. Jail time is not only shorter but places less responsibility on the individual. His lawyer might therefor have suggested, given the high likelihood of him breaking rules on community work, that jail time was the safer option.
The people around him tried to help him and he scorned them, time and time again.
> With his parents’ consent, in the summer of 2011 Edwin transferred to a computing course at Zadkine College in Rotterdam, where students were given more freedom and could work independently on projects.
And later on in the paragraph you trimmed:
> Edwin was delusional by this point, and took exception to everything. To his parents, the situation seemed hopeless. Even professionals at the rehabilitation clinic where he was admitted, De Bouman in Rotterdam, sent him packing after a week, saying his behaviour made him impossible.
More to the point, the kid needed discipline, not "guidance" or "encouragement". His parents, the school systems, tried being supportive for years. They tried being nice and letting him use his computer; a substance he relentlessly abused and became hopelessly addicted to. Perhaps the easiest, earliest intervention for that digital addiction was to cut him off the "drug" and maybe put him through psychiatric care.
Sadly, our modern society thinks "strict" means "abusive". To discourage an individual is seen as affront to common decency, an attack on the individual's sacred rights. So the kid never got the wake-up call he sorely needed; he just fell through the cracks of a modern, individualist ideology called hackerdom. Now we're here in the aftermath, in a forum dedicated to hackerdom, trying to ignore the same cracks in our own beliefs by pinning all the blame on his parents.
> With his parents’ consent, in the summer of 2011 Edwin transferred to a computing course at Zadkine College in Rotterdam, where students were given more freedom and could work independently on projects.
And later on in the paragraph you trimmed:
> Edwin was delusional by this point, and took exception to everything. To his parents, the situation seemed hopeless. Even professionals at the rehabilitation clinic where he was admitted, De Bouman in Rotterdam, sent him packing after a week, saying his behaviour made him impossible.
More to the point, the kid needed discipline, not "guidance" or "encouragement". His parents, the school systems, tried being supportive for years. They tried being nice and letting him use his computer; a substance he relentlessly abused and became hopelessly addicted to. Perhaps the easiest, earliest intervention for that digital addiction was to cut him off the "drug" and maybe put him through psychiatric care.
Sadly, our modern society thinks "strict" means "abusive". To discourage an individual is seen as affront to common decency, an attack on the individual's sacred rights. So the kid never got the wake-up call he sorely needed; he just fell through the cracks of a modern, individualist ideology called hackerdom. Now we're here in the aftermath, in a forum dedicated to hackerdom, trying to ignore the same cracks in our own beliefs by pinning all the blame on his parents.
Perhaps some of us just don't fit into the carrot/stick/hierarchy system that seems to be preferred by most people. Discipline may just increase the alienation.
Rehabilitation centers in fact have discipline. It is likely how and why they kicked him out. They do have clear rules and enforcement. I think that your assumption that no one thought of discipline or attempted strict is out of nowhere.
But suggestion with psychiatric care is likely right.
But suggestion with psychiatric care is likely right.
Discipline comes from the parents too, not just Rehab centers. From the article:
> They told each other he needed space, that surely there were some things that gave him pleasure, and that he had a knack for computers. But on days he never left his screen, it was hard not to despair. More than once they wondered: “Should we pull the plug?”
There was a lack of rules and enforcement in his home life. If you read the rest of the piece carefully, you'll see other moments where the parents failed to set boundaries before he was sent to Rehab.
> They told each other he needed space, that surely there were some things that gave him pleasure, and that he had a knack for computers. But on days he never left his screen, it was hard not to despair. More than once they wondered: “Should we pull the plug?”
There was a lack of rules and enforcement in his home life. If you read the rest of the piece carefully, you'll see other moments where the parents failed to set boundaries before he was sent to Rehab.
Your comment was about assumed lack of discipline everywhere.
Also, this is parents wondering about where the correct lines are. That does not proves general lack of discipline everywhere. Them wondering back then about what they should do is not proof of no one tried discipline either. They did seen gaming addiction as sign as him being interested in at least something. Plus, even in this discussion you have HN members horrified over parental suggestion that computer in his room might have been mistake. It is not some kind of obscure unusual line of thought.
Also, this is parents wondering about where the correct lines are. That does not proves general lack of discipline everywhere. Them wondering back then about what they should do is not proof of no one tried discipline either. They did seen gaming addiction as sign as him being interested in at least something. Plus, even in this discussion you have HN members horrified over parental suggestion that computer in his room might have been mistake. It is not some kind of obscure unusual line of thought.
It took 22 years to send him to Rehab. The article is clear
that his parents were afraid to discipline him during that time. The rest is just splitting hairs
It's easy to say that the path they didn't take would have lead to success, and if they had taken that path, then it still would be easy to say that the path they hadn't taken would have lead to success.
It's hard to question your own identity. If this article had described a social media addiction, a gaming addiction, or any kind of digital addiction that did not involve the word "hacking", I think we would be a lot less ambivalent and much more certain about the roads not taken.
Compare the discussions on the first two topics…
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1634536577&dateRange=custom&...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1634536625&dateRange=custom&...
… to the topics on "hacking addiction" or "hackers addiction" or "hackers addict":
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1634536625&dateRange=custom&...
As it turns out, only one article on HN is about hacking addiction and its description predicts the behavior of the young man described in the article: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Sv8IHkBtBEXjSW7WktEY...
The claims of the ex-hacker corresponds well with this article too: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37752800
Compare the discussions on the first two topics…
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1634536577&dateRange=custom&...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1634536625&dateRange=custom&...
… to the topics on "hacking addiction" or "hackers addiction" or "hackers addict":
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1634536625&dateRange=custom&...
As it turns out, only one article on HN is about hacking addiction and its description predicts the behavior of the young man described in the article: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Sv8IHkBtBEXjSW7WktEY...
The claims of the ex-hacker corresponds well with this article too: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37752800
I would be equally skeptical of any claim about gaming or social media addiction that proposed a course of action that we'd have no way of knowing worked.
Yeah, it's hard to know anything that contradicts your identity, which Paul Graham (the founder of HN) alluded to in his piece:
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
When people call us out on it, our first instinct is denial, to profess ignorance of outcomes and to assert our largely imaginary objectivity and skepticism.
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
When people call us out on it, our first instinct is denial, to profess ignorance of outcomes and to assert our largely imaginary objectivity and skepticism.
Do you know what would have saved this kid? If not, you're as skeptical as I am.
I wish I could give this more up-votes; it really hits the nail on the head with respect to this thread.
I think you've got the wrong hammer-related analogy. "Strict disipline" in the form of cutting off the kid's access to computers sounds like a "when all you have is a hammer..." kind of solution. It's an overly simplistic way of attacking a symptom without attempting to address or even identify the underlying problems, and it comes with a self-satisfied justification for the potential harms of that approach because at least you're doing something (even if there's no reason to believe it would have accomplished anything other than change how the underlying problems manifest).
GP said:
> Perhaps the easiest, earliest intervention for that digital addiction was to cut him off the "drug" and maybe put him through psychiatric care.
And that's absolutely backwards. Definitely get him psychiatric care, and maybe cut him off from computers entirely, if professionals concur that it seems likely to help more than hurt.
GP said:
> Perhaps the easiest, earliest intervention for that digital addiction was to cut him off the "drug" and maybe put him through psychiatric care.
And that's absolutely backwards. Definitely get him psychiatric care, and maybe cut him off from computers entirely, if professionals concur that it seems likely to help more than hurt.
People have this idea that addictive substances and habits are the sole reason for an addiction, and that the problem will be fixed if you take away the obvious symptom, but there are usually other factors involved. Taking away the centre of someone's life is really bad because it leaves them in exactly the same state they were in when they developed the addiction, minus the (harmful) coping mechanism.
> What did the service entail? How could it be worse than doing time?
I'm assuming it wasn't USA prison. So doing involuntary labor might be worse than just being locked away. Netherlands has very civilized prisons.
I'm assuming it wasn't USA prison. So doing involuntary labor might be worse than just being locked away. Netherlands has very civilized prisons.
Community service usually isn’t that bad, people volunteer to do it all of the time. Just from what I read in the story, it seemed Edwin was more inclined to want to stay inside than interact with others in person. I also assume the exchange rate between community service and jail time is reasonable. I think in his eyes the extra time was a painless and quicker way to pay his debt.
I almost wonder if it would've been more humane to force him to do the community service.
Edwin was definitely clinically depressed even before his run-in with the law. When I go through bouts of depression, I also get introverted and have trouble forcing myself to interact with folks IRL. Volunteering at schools and in nature (trail work) forces social interaction and physical exercise, both of which help me break out of the depressive state. I sort of impose community service on myself when I feel my mental state slipping.
Everyone is different, of course, but forcing Edwin to do something physical and social outdoors for a few months might well have saved his life.
Edwin was definitely clinically depressed even before his run-in with the law. When I go through bouts of depression, I also get introverted and have trouble forcing myself to interact with folks IRL. Volunteering at schools and in nature (trail work) forces social interaction and physical exercise, both of which help me break out of the depressive state. I sort of impose community service on myself when I feel my mental state slipping.
Everyone is different, of course, but forcing Edwin to do something physical and social outdoors for a few months might well have saved his life.
He was offered a choice. Forcing someone to do community service, ugh. Its tough work, IMO, because you do what other people don't want to do, and you need to act socially or physical labor (I'm bad at both, and I'm clumsy). It is never intellectually challenging. People like him would've fared better with a community labor which is intellectually challenging, or just some administrative job at e.g. the tax dept. Which is boring, but at least not very socially demanding.
This guy lacked two things: love, understanding, and genuine interest from his parents, and two: a 'guide towards the light side of technology'. I did not have the latter (though I did have a moral compass), but I am blessed I got the former, I believe it helped with the moral compass. If he was born 20 years earlier, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have been caught with petty DDoS crimes. But his troubled relationship with his parents? It would've remained.
This guy lacked two things: love, understanding, and genuine interest from his parents, and two: a 'guide towards the light side of technology'. I did not have the latter (though I did have a moral compass), but I am blessed I got the former, I believe it helped with the moral compass. If he was born 20 years earlier, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have been caught with petty DDoS crimes. But his troubled relationship with his parents? It would've remained.
> Its tough work, IMO, because you do what other people don't want to do
Sometimes, I am sure, but I this is not always true. I've run volunteer clean-up events and as the organizer I signed off on court-mandated community service. Most people helping out were volunteering their time for free. And then there were a few folks who had court-mandated community service.
It is tough and boring and thankless work, but plenty of people volunteer to their own time and money to do that work. Is it pleasant? No. Is it heinously inhumane? Jesus christ, no.
> It is never intellectually challenging.
Oof. It's court-mandated work, not a board game night.
> love, understanding, and genuine interest from his parents
If you read the article, there are tons of hints that his (adoptive) parents really did care and even put in a lot of effort to shape his social milieu to make it less "socially demanding". If anything, his parents' primary mistake was being too lenient when confronted with serious red flags. He switched schools and was later dismissed from a rehabilitation center as a lost cause, for christ's sake. This wasn't "normal troubled kid" stuff.
> I am pretty sure he wouldn't have been caught with petty DDoS crimes.
In the article it sounds like those crimes were ignored until he committed much more serious crimes. And he wasn't even punished for them, it's just that the bread crumbs were used to identify him.
Sometimes, I am sure, but I this is not always true. I've run volunteer clean-up events and as the organizer I signed off on court-mandated community service. Most people helping out were volunteering their time for free. And then there were a few folks who had court-mandated community service.
It is tough and boring and thankless work, but plenty of people volunteer to their own time and money to do that work. Is it pleasant? No. Is it heinously inhumane? Jesus christ, no.
> It is never intellectually challenging.
Oof. It's court-mandated work, not a board game night.
> love, understanding, and genuine interest from his parents
If you read the article, there are tons of hints that his (adoptive) parents really did care and even put in a lot of effort to shape his social milieu to make it less "socially demanding". If anything, his parents' primary mistake was being too lenient when confronted with serious red flags. He switched schools and was later dismissed from a rehabilitation center as a lost cause, for christ's sake. This wasn't "normal troubled kid" stuff.
> I am pretty sure he wouldn't have been caught with petty DDoS crimes.
In the article it sounds like those crimes were ignored until he committed much more serious crimes. And he wasn't even punished for them, it's just that the bread crumbs were used to identify him.
> Forcing someone to do community service, ugh. Its tough work, IMO, because you do what other people don't want to do, and you need to act socially or physical labor (I'm bad at both, and I'm clumsy). It is never intellectually challenging. People like him would've fared better with a community labor which is intellectually challenging, or just some administrative job at e.g. the tax dept. Which is boring, but at least not very socially demanding.
To get useful labor from a slave, you need to either give them an incentive to do good work, or you need to be able to tell the difference between good work and bad work. A job at the tax department fails that second criterion, and the fact that the labor is conceived of as a punishment rather than a job we want somebody to do prevents an incentive from being offered.
To get useful labor from a slave, you need to either give them an incentive to do good work, or you need to be able to tell the difference between good work and bad work. A job at the tax department fails that second criterion, and the fact that the labor is conceived of as a punishment rather than a job we want somebody to do prevents an incentive from being offered.
> How could it be worse than doing time?
1. "Doing time" in the US system and in the NL system are two vastly different propositions.
2. For some people, being isolated is a reward in and of itself.
1. "Doing time" in the US system and in the NL system are two vastly different propositions.
2. For some people, being isolated is a reward in and of itself.
He was abandoned by his biological parents first, and then by the foster ones too.
> As Edwin stood on his doorstep, Ruud turned him away with a heavy heart.
> “Come on,” Edwin pleaded. But Ruud was at the end of his tether. “We can’t,” he said. “I’m sorry.”
> Edwin left with a backpack. His parents had no idea where he’d go.
> As Edwin stood on his doorstep, Ruud turned him away with a heavy heart.
> “Come on,” Edwin pleaded. But Ruud was at the end of his tether. “We can’t,” he said. “I’m sorry.”
> Edwin left with a backpack. His parents had no idea where he’d go.
I'd say the biggest neglect was not being touched by his mother as a baby. That kind of invisible neglect of babies is perhaps the worst kind of child abuse. They have no memory of what happened or why they're screwed but they're emotionally damaged for life. They can't even get understanding from others by saying they were beaten or raped or whatever. It's seen by people as not "real" abuse or not even known at all by anyone except the parent.
> I'd say the biggest neglect was not being touched by his mother as a baby.
I have heard of this multiple times, mostly in social conversations.
It's likely not great not being touched as a baby, but I wonder if there's is actual science around the topic?
For example, there's bound to be some nurture vs nature aspect to this.
I have heard of this multiple times, mostly in social conversations.
It's likely not great not being touched as a baby, but I wonder if there's is actual science around the topic?
For example, there's bound to be some nurture vs nature aspect to this.
The only experiment is Frederick's experiment.
This was a very long time ago but I can imagine nobody does want to repeat this experiment.
This was a very long time ago but I can imagine nobody does want to repeat this experiment.
> The only experiment is Frederick's experiment.
Wasn't thinking of experiments (obviously), but rather data collected in the population on unfortunate but existing cases to try and correlate lack of affection as a baby with specific behaviors as an adult.
[EDIT]: btw, thanks for the pointer, I had never heard of Frederick's experiment [1]
[1] https://signsofthetimes.org.au/2018/08/fredericks-experiment...
Wasn't thinking of experiments (obviously), but rather data collected in the population on unfortunate but existing cases to try and correlate lack of affection as a baby with specific behaviors as an adult.
[EDIT]: btw, thanks for the pointer, I had never heard of Frederick's experiment [1]
[1] https://signsofthetimes.org.au/2018/08/fredericks-experiment...
This might be obvious, but despite what the article claims those children didn't "literally die for want of touch".
This is not a real thing that happens.
This is not a real thing that happens.
This is not scientific so not exactly what you are looking for, but I think I can say from personal experience that not being touched/held as an infant can and often does have horrible outcomes.
I volunteered in an orphanage in eastern europe. The staff did the best they could, but they were severely underfunded. It was the best they could do to feed, change diapers and take care of the most acute medical needs of the large number of infants in their care. Just holding them even for a brief amount of time often was not possible, though they did try the best they could.
The results were heartbreaking. Some children did not speak, others constantly cried, most seemed "OK" but had emotional problems that expressed as aggression or other developmental issues. Growing up in an orphanage is never easy, but you could usually instantly tell if a child was born in the orphanage or came there later (even as young as one year with parents made a huge difference).
It was one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever experienced in my life, and even more than a decade later thinking about that orphanage makes me want to cry.
I volunteered in an orphanage in eastern europe. The staff did the best they could, but they were severely underfunded. It was the best they could do to feed, change diapers and take care of the most acute medical needs of the large number of infants in their care. Just holding them even for a brief amount of time often was not possible, though they did try the best they could.
The results were heartbreaking. Some children did not speak, others constantly cried, most seemed "OK" but had emotional problems that expressed as aggression or other developmental issues. Growing up in an orphanage is never easy, but you could usually instantly tell if a child was born in the orphanage or came there later (even as young as one year with parents made a huge difference).
It was one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever experienced in my life, and even more than a decade later thinking about that orphanage makes me want to cry.
> Edwin’s actions, he charged, had been “malicious and deliberate” and caused “imminent danger to life”.
If the script kiddie breaking in was being charged with such serious crimes, what about the people who allowed this to happen
> Scanning the rest of the network from the KPN machine he’d accessed, Edwin saw the obsolete software being used in hundreds of places. Almost every computer server in the telecom provider’s vast network had a window open. The kid from Barendrecht strolled around unimpeded, and what he saw astonished him. He could control 514 computer servers. He could even access the core router, the backbone of KPN’s entire network. He could see the data of 2.1 million KPN customers
Their seriously negligent actions. This isn't someone exploiting a bug a couple of days after it came out, this is gross negligence of a system that, if hacked, can cause imminent danger to life.
If the script kiddie breaking in was being charged with such serious crimes, what about the people who allowed this to happen
> Scanning the rest of the network from the KPN machine he’d accessed, Edwin saw the obsolete software being used in hundreds of places. Almost every computer server in the telecom provider’s vast network had a window open. The kid from Barendrecht strolled around unimpeded, and what he saw astonished him. He could control 514 computer servers. He could even access the core router, the backbone of KPN’s entire network. He could see the data of 2.1 million KPN customers
Their seriously negligent actions. This isn't someone exploiting a bug a couple of days after it came out, this is gross negligence of a system that, if hacked, can cause imminent danger to life.
Indeed; Software Engineering and IT Admin need to be professionalized, in the sense that both individual practitioners and institutions take personal legal responsibility for the systems they implement.
But also, gross negligence doesn't justify criminal trespass. You can't walk into someone's home and touch all their stuff just because they left their front door open.
But also, gross negligence doesn't justify criminal trespass. You can't walk into someone's home and touch all their stuff just because they left their front door open.
That is going to be very hard to do given that in most companies IT Admins and even software devs are not really in control to make security and other choices, we present options to business leaders who make the choice.
My guess that if you look at the vast majority of security incidents it is not due to negligence on the part of an IT Worker but instead due the business choices to prioritize some new feature, or performance, or anything else over security.
If you put the liability on the head if the IT guy/gal who has been saying "hey that system is insecure" only to be ignored by the business well that is a real good way worsen the shortage in qualified people.
I sure as hell am not going to assume legal liability over systems I do not really have control over.
My guess that if you look at the vast majority of security incidents it is not due to negligence on the part of an IT Worker but instead due the business choices to prioritize some new feature, or performance, or anything else over security.
If you put the liability on the head if the IT guy/gal who has been saying "hey that system is insecure" only to be ignored by the business well that is a real good way worsen the shortage in qualified people.
I sure as hell am not going to assume legal liability over systems I do not really have control over.
> I sure as hell am not going to assume legal liability over systems I do not really have control over.
That’s pretty much the goal, isn’t it? If everyone refuses to do the work without sufficient control, then power should shift accordingly (and your peers who continue to accept responsibility without control will eventually be eliminated from the system…).
That is, the choice of security vs other priorities shouldn’t exist for certain classes of business/data, and sysadmins shouldn’t be doing that work without sufficient authority.
That’s pretty much the goal, isn’t it? If everyone refuses to do the work without sufficient control, then power should shift accordingly (and your peers who continue to accept responsibility without control will eventually be eliminated from the system…).
That is, the choice of security vs other priorities shouldn’t exist for certain classes of business/data, and sysadmins shouldn’t be doing that work without sufficient authority.
The world is never that simple, and to put that simplistic lens on it will be a net negative.
These types of regulatory burdens further serve to consolidate the world in the large corporations as they are the only ones that have the resources to either navigate them, or pay for loop holes to them for their particular business.
The unintended consequences from that would be far worse than the security issues you hope to address
These types of regulatory burdens further serve to consolidate the world in the large corporations as they are the only ones that have the resources to either navigate them, or pay for loop holes to them for their particular business.
The unintended consequences from that would be far worse than the security issues you hope to address
If an architect designs a building that’s unsafe, they get serious consequences.
If they design one that’s safe and the company ignores the design, doesn’t maintain it correctly, it’s the companies fault.
From the article, both the architecture and the operation of the network was wrong - to the point that a kid in his bedroom could kill people with it.
KPN and the judges asserted this network design and operation was a serious threat to human life. At the very least the health and safety authority should be shutting it down and arresting those responsible, and the CEO, CTO and CISO could then show how they weren’t responsible.
If they design one that’s safe and the company ignores the design, doesn’t maintain it correctly, it’s the companies fault.
From the article, both the architecture and the operation of the network was wrong - to the point that a kid in his bedroom could kill people with it.
KPN and the judges asserted this network design and operation was a serious threat to human life. At the very least the health and safety authority should be shutting it down and arresting those responsible, and the CEO, CTO and CISO could then show how they weren’t responsible.
Accreditation and associated liability change this power dynamic. The struggle doesn't go away, but the dynamics do change. See how civil engineering works, for example.
Its not that hard, its up to the personnel to inform the company, and the company is liable. The book should be thrown twice as hard at a company which fails to acknowledge said IT. There is already SOX audit, and several others with clearly established rules and repercussions
You are at odds with both the Parent comment, and the other people have that replied
They are not talking about holding the companies responsible, they are wanting to establish standard of government licensure similar to that of a Doctor, or Civil Engineer, there by making the INDIVIDUAL responsible not the company.
They are not talking about holding the companies responsible, they are wanting to establish standard of government licensure similar to that of a Doctor, or Civil Engineer, there by making the INDIVIDUAL responsible not the company.
Yeah, the odds being there is no point to holding an individual accountable, due to the reasons the comment I relied to.
Especially when there are already systems in place which would solve the issue much easier. All parent will do is institute more government organizations and insurance
> You can't walk into someone's home and touch all their stuff just because they left their front door open.
There's a few big differences here: (1) the "someone" is a company with $7B/yr in revenue and dedicated security resources, also (2) with millions of users relying on their doing an Ok job securing the "home", and (3) which is connected to a network immediately accessible to anyone from bored teenagers all over the world to organized criminals and nation states looking to harm their users' interests. If a random script kiddie can find this hole by accident, how many determined teams with even minor budgets were accessing their network? Spooking KPN's security team into action was a mitzvah all around, even if he did not with whole heart and mind intend it as such [1].
More generally, the story this reminded me of most is that of Aaron Schwartz -- it's a true sadness that our societies deal so poorly with analytically developed folks' efforts being even slightly mis-applied by some fiendish letter-of-the-law measure and otherwise "good" people entrusted to exhibit moral judgement seem to go into a frothing-at-the-mouth attack against those who literally did no harm to groups that are supposedly being protected (scientific publishing / ISP users). I'm not sure if there is a theory of law by which a more-global net-good can completely outweigh more-local crimes, but it seems a society that were to allow for that would be both more successful and just.
1. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/28579/do-you-get...
There's a few big differences here: (1) the "someone" is a company with $7B/yr in revenue and dedicated security resources, also (2) with millions of users relying on their doing an Ok job securing the "home", and (3) which is connected to a network immediately accessible to anyone from bored teenagers all over the world to organized criminals and nation states looking to harm their users' interests. If a random script kiddie can find this hole by accident, how many determined teams with even minor budgets were accessing their network? Spooking KPN's security team into action was a mitzvah all around, even if he did not with whole heart and mind intend it as such [1].
More generally, the story this reminded me of most is that of Aaron Schwartz -- it's a true sadness that our societies deal so poorly with analytically developed folks' efforts being even slightly mis-applied by some fiendish letter-of-the-law measure and otherwise "good" people entrusted to exhibit moral judgement seem to go into a frothing-at-the-mouth attack against those who literally did no harm to groups that are supposedly being protected (scientific publishing / ISP users). I'm not sure if there is a theory of law by which a more-global net-good can completely outweigh more-local crimes, but it seems a society that were to allow for that would be both more successful and just.
1. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/28579/do-you-get...
> "what about the people who allowed this to happen"
If you're expecting agreement, remember that you're on HN. As far as I can tell, most developers have been vocally and fervently against being held liable or even accountable for bugs, design defects, security issues, etc. <sotto voce> probably because, collectively, developers produce so many of them.
If you're expecting agreement, remember that you're on HN. As far as I can tell, most developers have been vocally and fervently against being held liable or even accountable for bugs, design defects, security issues, etc. <sotto voce> probably because, collectively, developers produce so many of them.
“HN” is probably against blaming programmers for bugs, since this would be blaming the lowest-level employees for something which can only realistically be fixed at the top level. Programmers have some blame in producing bugs, but that is mostly because they are not given the time, resources, incentives or training to do things right.
His brain clearly developed little to no social reading skills but plenty of abstract and analytical thinking. Kids with brains like that feel incredibly lonely and he clearly need some kind of social interaction with peers with similar mental skills. If he had been given an opportunity to learn and interact with computer problems in a healthy, constructive way with peers, the outcome might have been dramatically different.
I grew up in a small town in the middle of nowhere with nobody to talk to about the things I found truly interesting. Instead I would built things online and looked for ways to compete with my brain to get into communities with peers who were more like me. Physics, CS, Math olympiads, chess, star craft, a competitive high school, and building for the web. I was in poor Eastern Europe, but I still had options. If you don’t have constructive resources around you the path of least resistance is not ideal.
Government officials are elected, not picked for their mental skills. They need to recognize they have a naturally occurring resource of mathematically inclined kids and have open resources for those locally. Or you get lonely malicious behaviors occurring naturally instead.
I grew up in a small town in the middle of nowhere with nobody to talk to about the things I found truly interesting. Instead I would built things online and looked for ways to compete with my brain to get into communities with peers who were more like me. Physics, CS, Math olympiads, chess, star craft, a competitive high school, and building for the web. I was in poor Eastern Europe, but I still had options. If you don’t have constructive resources around you the path of least resistance is not ideal.
Government officials are elected, not picked for their mental skills. They need to recognize they have a naturally occurring resource of mathematically inclined kids and have open resources for those locally. Or you get lonely malicious behaviors occurring naturally instead.
I got into my school's network when I was 10, people were furious for my hacking, nobody questioned why was there a security issue so obvious that even a 10-years-old could break in.
Few years later I accidentally found another way to get in. I sent an email to the school's IT department, got ignored. I sent it to the headmaster, he said "Thanks, will fix it". Except it was never fixed.
Maybe fixing the child is easier than fixing the software.
Maybe fixing the child is easier than fixing the software.
In low crime areas, people don't lock the doors. It is obvious security fault, but in fact, the people walking in and messing with their stuff are in the wrong.
Of course they were furious at your hacking. And of course you should have not done that regardless of what fault the system had. (They would be in the wrong of they tried to impose serious consequences on 10 years old, which I hope did not happened.)
Of course they were furious at your hacking. And of course you should have not done that regardless of what fault the system had. (They would be in the wrong of they tried to impose serious consequences on 10 years old, which I hope did not happened.)
Even in low-crime areas, banks still lock their vaults, military facilities still have fences and guards, etc. Not locking your own door that only has your own stuff behind it is in no way comparable to leaving a system with thousands or millions of users' (students/customers/citizens/whoever) data and property wide open.
"Hacking" isn't the same as "breaking in". Breaking into somewhere is usually destructive, dangerous, can be done b anyone and reveals no poor security (how did they forget to protect their vault door from a drill and plastic explosives??). A DDoS attack falls into this same category - a boring zero-skill brute force attack that can only be interpreted as malicious.
"Real hacking", however, isn't any of those things. If I put on an orange jumper and walk right into the back of my local bank and straight down to the vault without so much as a confused glance from a guard, they will, as they should, be more concerned with firing their guards for dangerous incompetence than prosecuting me for walking past an "employees only" sign. Especially if I, after arriving at the vault, called the bank manager and explained how bad their security is.
"Hacking" isn't the same as "breaking in". Breaking into somewhere is usually destructive, dangerous, can be done b anyone and reveals no poor security (how did they forget to protect their vault door from a drill and plastic explosives??). A DDoS attack falls into this same category - a boring zero-skill brute force attack that can only be interpreted as malicious.
"Real hacking", however, isn't any of those things. If I put on an orange jumper and walk right into the back of my local bank and straight down to the vault without so much as a confused glance from a guard, they will, as they should, be more concerned with firing their guards for dangerous incompetence than prosecuting me for walking past an "employees only" sign. Especially if I, after arriving at the vault, called the bank manager and explained how bad their security is.
The op was not prosecuted. What happened was that adults were angry at 10 years old him. And he finds it unfair that they were angry at him. If 10 years old walks into vault with pretend confused look, it is perfectly ok to be angry at the kid and act like kid done something kid was not supposed to do.
No part of the internet can be considered “low crime” least of all a school system.
If you have an isolated network that is truly airgapped from any other network then and only then is it remotely acceptable to “leave your doors unlocked”. This doesn’t absolve the criminals who deface/destroy/steal your PII/data but rather you’ve got to adapt to the times.
If you have an isolated network that is truly airgapped from any other network then and only then is it remotely acceptable to “leave your doors unlocked”. This doesn’t absolve the criminals who deface/destroy/steal your PII/data but rather you’ve got to adapt to the times.
The point is, the person who went through those front doors really don't get to blame owners for not locking the doors. Sometimes the line is fuzzy, yes.
But in situation described above, it sounds like it was not fuzzy at all.
But in situation described above, it sounds like it was not fuzzy at all.
Analogy is not about a home but a factory:
The infrastructure can be a danger to others, to employees, etc.
So yes, it's a mandatory duty for organization owners to secure their infrastructure.
There's a problem with the reaction to security issues in most of the countries.
The infrastructure can be a danger to others, to employees, etc.
So yes, it's a mandatory duty for organization owners to secure their infrastructure.
There's a problem with the reaction to security issues in most of the countries.
> the public prosecutor was scathing in his condemnation. Edwin’s actions, he charged, had been “malicious and deliberate” and caused “imminent danger to life”
The kid got into a network using a known vulnerability and all he did was send an IRC message from it and install a backdoor that probably had better security than the network itself. Deliberate yes, but not malicious and certainly not any kind of danger to anyone.
> He could control 514 computer servers. He could even access the core router, the backbone of KPN’s entire network. He could see the data of 2.1 million KPN customers. He could block hundreds of thousands of people from connecting to the national emergency telephone line. He could redirect internet traffic so that people who wanted to visit, say, a news site, would wind up somewhere completely different. Edwin could do whatever he wanted and KPN wouldn’t know a thing.
See how the word COULD keeps popping up, but not a single example of something bad he DID. I am currently sitting on a bus and there's a pocket knife in my jacket. I could stab the guy next to me. I have the capability and access. Are they going to send me to prison too? At worst what he did was equivalent to trespassing. He didn't steal or break anything. It's digital urbex - illegal only in principle, not because of any harm done.
The kid got into a network using a known vulnerability and all he did was send an IRC message from it and install a backdoor that probably had better security than the network itself. Deliberate yes, but not malicious and certainly not any kind of danger to anyone.
> He could control 514 computer servers. He could even access the core router, the backbone of KPN’s entire network. He could see the data of 2.1 million KPN customers. He could block hundreds of thousands of people from connecting to the national emergency telephone line. He could redirect internet traffic so that people who wanted to visit, say, a news site, would wind up somewhere completely different. Edwin could do whatever he wanted and KPN wouldn’t know a thing.
See how the word COULD keeps popping up, but not a single example of something bad he DID. I am currently sitting on a bus and there's a pocket knife in my jacket. I could stab the guy next to me. I have the capability and access. Are they going to send me to prison too? At worst what he did was equivalent to trespassing. He didn't steal or break anything. It's digital urbex - illegal only in principle, not because of any harm done.
Interesting use of the textual equivalent of the Kuleshov Effect (which I’m sure has a name of its own). The text presents:
- Kid was troubled hacker
- Kid played violent video games
- Kid threw game characters off rides he created
- Kid played lots of shooters
- Kid preferred Linux
You associate them all. I, on the other hand, did all these things. I did worse: I crashed cars into others for fun (Demolition Derby 1&2), laughed as I destroyed cities full of people with tornadoes (Simcity), pretended to drown my brother (Mduel), etc.
Turns out that people can distinguish play and reality. I love my brother, but in game the point is to kill him.
And now I’m a productive member of society. How did that come to pass?
- Kid was troubled hacker
- Kid played violent video games
- Kid threw game characters off rides he created
- Kid played lots of shooters
- Kid preferred Linux
You associate them all. I, on the other hand, did all these things. I did worse: I crashed cars into others for fun (Demolition Derby 1&2), laughed as I destroyed cities full of people with tornadoes (Simcity), pretended to drown my brother (Mduel), etc.
Turns out that people can distinguish play and reality. I love my brother, but in game the point is to kill him.
And now I’m a productive member of society. How did that come to pass?
> His parents let him buy a PC that he put together himself. It had a big memory card and a lot of processing power. He set it up in his bedroom. Looking back, José thinks “that may have been our biggest mistake”.
I don’t think I like these people.
> Occasionally, his parents caught glimpses of what he was doing. Mostly, he played games, especially the kind in which people are violently killed – such as by building amusement parks and then throwing people off the rides. There were also lots of shoot ’em ups.
Ah, yes.
> Edwin’s contacts abroad gave him a confidence boost. He spent hours chatting with people from all over the world about ways to hack websites. Edwin often mocked “normal” life and western society. He denounced materialism and superficial concerns.
As if that’s a bad sign.
I don’t think I like these people.
> Occasionally, his parents caught glimpses of what he was doing. Mostly, he played games, especially the kind in which people are violently killed – such as by building amusement parks and then throwing people off the rides. There were also lots of shoot ’em ups.
Ah, yes.
> Edwin’s contacts abroad gave him a confidence boost. He spent hours chatting with people from all over the world about ways to hack websites. Edwin often mocked “normal” life and western society. He denounced materialism and superficial concerns.
As if that’s a bad sign.
> Occasionally, his parents caught glimpses of what he was doing. Mostly, he played games, especially the kind in which people are violently killed – such as by building amusement parks and then throwing people off the rides. There were also lots of shoot ’em ups.
It's quite clear to me that he should have spent his gaming time watching violence and gore on television instead, like regular people.
It's quite clear to me that he should have spent his gaming time watching violence and gore on television instead, like regular people.
Are they seriously claiming that Roller-coaster Tycoon is a gore game?
No bathrooms. Sink traps (block in the exit side of a ride), roller coasters that fling entire cars of people into oblivion...
Surely I'm not the only one who explored the macabre side of this game?
Surely I'm not the only one who explored the macabre side of this game?
Jack Thompson is back, baby.
This story reads like something straight out of the 90s
This story reads like something straight out of the 90s
I recall him playing Garry's mod, that could definitely fit the bill.
This, so much
I think this is a highly uncharitable read of his step-parents:
1. Adopting children and raising them as your own is already an act of extraordinary personal sacrifice and blind love.
2. His parents were supportive of his hobby and interest in computers, but were also concerned about his social and behavioral development. They weren't the only ones -- folks at his school were similarly concerned. He had trouble sleeping and had no friends. Neither of those is normal and both indicate Edwin was in serious pain.
3. His parents likely weren't wrong that he was using video games and hacking as crutches instead of addressing the root causes of his depression and anxiety. They likely weren't wrong that these crutches were beginning to form a vicious cycle. There's nothing inherently bad about video games, but IMO his parents were probably correct to be concerned in his case.
4. Forming all of your closest relationships around involvement in destructive and unproductive activity that's criminal and driven by ego is a bad sign! Hacking websites is a crime; almost never violent, but also not victimless! Would you say the same thing about a child whose only friends are folks who he breaks into buildings with?
5. Turning away even a grown child is beyond sad, but at that point he was 22 and cooking up drugs in their house. And they had younger children.
1. Adopting children and raising them as your own is already an act of extraordinary personal sacrifice and blind love.
2. His parents were supportive of his hobby and interest in computers, but were also concerned about his social and behavioral development. They weren't the only ones -- folks at his school were similarly concerned. He had trouble sleeping and had no friends. Neither of those is normal and both indicate Edwin was in serious pain.
3. His parents likely weren't wrong that he was using video games and hacking as crutches instead of addressing the root causes of his depression and anxiety. They likely weren't wrong that these crutches were beginning to form a vicious cycle. There's nothing inherently bad about video games, but IMO his parents were probably correct to be concerned in his case.
4. Forming all of your closest relationships around involvement in destructive and unproductive activity that's criminal and driven by ego is a bad sign! Hacking websites is a crime; almost never violent, but also not victimless! Would you say the same thing about a child whose only friends are folks who he breaks into buildings with?
5. Turning away even a grown child is beyond sad, but at that point he was 22 and cooking up drugs in their house. And they had younger children.
> > His parents let him buy a PC that he put together himself. It had a big memory card and a lot of processing power. He set it up in his bedroom. Looking back, José thinks “that may have been our biggest mistake”.
> I don’t think I like these people.
Since I read your comment before I RTFA, it wasn't immediately clear to me what was so awful about this. Just to be explicit, José is the mother of the teenage hacker in question, saying it was a mistake to get her son a computer.
(I would think the remark considerably less reprehensible if it came from the hacker himself.)
> I don’t think I like these people.
Since I read your comment before I RTFA, it wasn't immediately clear to me what was so awful about this. Just to be explicit, José is the mother of the teenage hacker in question, saying it was a mistake to get her son a computer.
(I would think the remark considerably less reprehensible if it came from the hacker himself.)
Given the audience here I would image the majority of the people on this site had computers supplied by our parents at a young age, and we often played violent video games, or spent hours talking to people online yet we did not become criminals
Scape goating video games, or "the internet" for these types of things is a long disproven trope.
There are more factors in criminality that just playing a violent game or having computer supplied to you by your parents. Putting the blame on these things however is easier that looking at other more human causes.
Scape goating video games, or "the internet" for these types of things is a long disproven trope.
There are more factors in criminality that just playing a violent game or having computer supplied to you by your parents. Putting the blame on these things however is easier that looking at other more human causes.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that having a computer plays any role in criminality—except possibly that it gives mischievous and easily bored youngsters a healthy outlet for their curiosity and restlessness, which presumably militates against criminality.
I was agreeing with teddyh (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28898239) and I agree with you. I just meant to clarify (for the benefit of those who, like me, read the comments before the article) that José is the hacker's mother, not the hacker, which puts a different, and much darker, spin on the statement that José thinks that the hacker's getting a computer young was a bad thing.
I was agreeing with teddyh (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28898239) and I agree with you. I just meant to clarify (for the benefit of those who, like me, read the comments before the article) that José is the hacker's mother, not the hacker, which puts a different, and much darker, spin on the statement that José thinks that the hacker's getting a computer young was a bad thing.
You can fault the mother for thinking maybe if she never gave her son a computer a different outcome may have occurred? I see nothing of the generalization you accuse the mother of making, only a mother asking what wouldn't have allowed the eventual outcome she observed and we've now read about. Consider that the mother might simply be saying, "I wish reality had gone differently" but adding outcome specific details to say so. Of all the events in the casual chain, the alteration of many of them could have led to a better or worse outcome but the gift of the computer seems salient. I imagine most parents with children that die in car accidents question the gifting of a car. Doesn't mean they think cars are to blame, just fruitless, useless wishing that things had gone better.
The parents think giving the kid a computer may have been their biggest mistake. That's not just a matter of them imagining things might have gone differently; they're saying the computer itself was one of the most significant causes of harm. It's like they're deliberately avoiding thinking about the real causes—the factors that led to their son experiencing a different and much worse outcome than the vast majority of people who spend "too much" time on computers as they're growing up.
> It's like they're deliberately avoiding thinking about the real causes
I can see how you might get to that supposition. I guess I'm feeling a little more charitable. I expect they're likely muddling along in life like most of humanity trying to do it's best with only the most vague ideas of what it means to do that well.
I can see how you might get to that supposition. I guess I'm feeling a little more charitable. I expect they're likely muddling along in life like most of humanity trying to do it's best with only the most vague ideas of what it means to do that well.
I don't understand what is so reprehensible about it. Consequently he isolated himself and went into spiral and then everything went to hell. It is quite possible that had he not he'd his drug of choice in room, things were different. It is exactly the same thing if parents support soccer club and then the kid ends up spiraling with troublemakers. In retrospect the soccer was a mistake for this kid.
Just because we like computers and they did good to us does not mean having 100% access to one for him was right decision. In fact, it did caused massive issues.
The kid who leaves his room for socialization only is an issue. The kid who spends too much of his time playing video games is an issue. Some amount of playing is fine. Some amount of being alone is perfectly fine. The "out of room only for food and never going outside" is not fine.
If there is anything that harms young men, it that the above is normalized instead of being seen as sign the kid is loosing ability to cope with both real life and computer. And then, when they are alone, depressed or bursting angry, everything and everyone is blamed. Parents should be even more understanding, the girls should have go out of their way to meet guys in their rooms, the teachers are horrible for not tolerating them mistreating other kids and so on and so forth.
Except that saying that having kids socialization primary online, purely in gaming and hacking communities is a bad idea, because those can be quite atrocious.
Just because we like computers and they did good to us does not mean having 100% access to one for him was right decision. In fact, it did caused massive issues.
The kid who leaves his room for socialization only is an issue. The kid who spends too much of his time playing video games is an issue. Some amount of playing is fine. Some amount of being alone is perfectly fine. The "out of room only for food and never going outside" is not fine.
If there is anything that harms young men, it that the above is normalized instead of being seen as sign the kid is loosing ability to cope with both real life and computer. And then, when they are alone, depressed or bursting angry, everything and everyone is blamed. Parents should be even more understanding, the girls should have go out of their way to meet guys in their rooms, the teachers are horrible for not tolerating them mistreating other kids and so on and so forth.
Except that saying that having kids socialization primary online, purely in gaming and hacking communities is a bad idea, because those can be quite atrocious.
> In retrospect the soccer was a mistake for this kid.
Do you not see how the absurdity of this sentence exposes the fallacy in the preceding paragraph? Neither soccer nor computers are at all plausible causes of these serious mental health problems. That's just a simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. At most, they could merely be the context in which other issues developed into a serious problem.
Do you not see how the absurdity of this sentence exposes the fallacy in the preceding paragraph? Neither soccer nor computers are at all plausible causes of these serious mental health problems. That's just a simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. At most, they could merely be the context in which other issues developed into a serious problem.
> Neither soccer nor computers are at all plausible causes of these serious mental health problems.
In some soccer clubs and in some computer subcultures, large issue is peer influence. The values and behavior you learn are causing problems. And yes, removing the child from the peers influence oftentimes in fact makes the child improve a lot.
In this case also, the excessive gaming is contributing to mental health problems. It feels good temporarily or while playing, but does not cure the problem. Instead, it makes it worst due to isolation.
In some soccer clubs and in some computer subcultures, large issue is peer influence. The values and behavior you learn are causing problems. And yes, removing the child from the peers influence oftentimes in fact makes the child improve a lot.
In this case also, the excessive gaming is contributing to mental health problems. It feels good temporarily or while playing, but does not cure the problem. Instead, it makes it worst due to isolation.
Maybe comments like these are upvoted because it's fun to be contrarian, or maybe because a significant subset of HN audience consists of outliers like Robbe himself and empathize with folks like him easily.
But this does not even begin to make his behavior defensible or something to gloss over. He was a threat to society, and yet in your comment it's only his mother you reserve words of dislike for; a grieving mother no less, by her own admission technically inept, who probably tried her best.
The ugly nihilism to which YUI and others adhered to is something we should look at to prevent future YUI's. Was it the violent video games that turned him this way? I don't know, but it's worth thinking about probably. Why did he refuse to participate in a social society? Maybe if he took the time to work out in a gym and keep on top of his game this all wouldn't have happened.
But this does not even begin to make his behavior defensible or something to gloss over. He was a threat to society, and yet in your comment it's only his mother you reserve words of dislike for; a grieving mother no less, by her own admission technically inept, who probably tried her best.
The ugly nihilism to which YUI and others adhered to is something we should look at to prevent future YUI's. Was it the violent video games that turned him this way? I don't know, but it's worth thinking about probably. Why did he refuse to participate in a social society? Maybe if he took the time to work out in a gym and keep on top of his game this all wouldn't have happened.
> I don't know, but it's worth thinking about probably.
No, it's not—at least not for more than a few moments. This is really obviously not a useful red flag to worry about. Violent video games are very widely popular, and have been for many years now. It's still quite rare for their users to turn into criminals.
Highlighting things like playing violent video games is merely shining a spotlight on something we already know won't help anyone identify future criminals. That spotlight should instead be focused on traits and behaviors that aren't very common in the general population.
A lot of the critics of the general category of violent video games are people who wish to censor them, without any real evidence that a social good would result. These parents—or at least the journalist reporting on them—have lumped themselves in with the would-be censors by presuming that the son's video game preferences were a warning sign they should have been paying attention to.
No, it's not—at least not for more than a few moments. This is really obviously not a useful red flag to worry about. Violent video games are very widely popular, and have been for many years now. It's still quite rare for their users to turn into criminals.
Highlighting things like playing violent video games is merely shining a spotlight on something we already know won't help anyone identify future criminals. That spotlight should instead be focused on traits and behaviors that aren't very common in the general population.
A lot of the critics of the general category of violent video games are people who wish to censor them, without any real evidence that a social good would result. These parents—or at least the journalist reporting on them—have lumped themselves in with the would-be censors by presuming that the son's video game preferences were a warning sign they should have been paying attention to.
I don't think it's necessarily predictive of anything, but I think it's clear that certain types of violent video games, especially first person shooter games , do serve to desensitize people to committing violence.
In fact, the military found long ago that changes as small as using a human silhouette rather than a round target helped soldiers to hesitate less when they were confronted with having to shoot someone on the battlefield.
Now, the military uses first person shooters for this same reason and I can't imagine that it isn't quite a bit more effective than a silhouette on a paper target.
In fact, the military found long ago that changes as small as using a human silhouette rather than a round target helped soldiers to hesitate less when they were confronted with having to shoot someone on the battlefield.
Now, the military uses first person shooters for this same reason and I can't imagine that it isn't quite a bit more effective than a silhouette on a paper target.
The military uses human silhouette targets so that you learn to estimate ballistic compensation from the sight picture geometry. It is part of basic training. A target that is round does not provide useful visual cues for estimating ballistic compensation as might be seen on a battlefield. You only have a second or two to estimate range and make appropriate ballistic compensations based on what you see in the sight picture.
The US military stopped having people punch holes in paper targets a very long time ago. In the 1990s, you trained on a field of varying silhouettes that randomly pop up for only a few seconds at ranges anywhere from 50 meters to 300-400 meters. You were expected to detect the target pop up in a busy field of view, estimate range from silhouette geometry, compensate for ballistics based on the range estimate, smoothly pull the trigger, and still hit the target most of the time before the target disappeared again. It becomes muscle memory but it is all based on silhouette geometry in the sight picture.
The US military stopped having people punch holes in paper targets a very long time ago. In the 1990s, you trained on a field of varying silhouettes that randomly pop up for only a few seconds at ranges anywhere from 50 meters to 300-400 meters. You were expected to detect the target pop up in a busy field of view, estimate range from silhouette geometry, compensate for ballistics based on the range estimate, smoothly pull the trigger, and still hit the target most of the time before the target disappeared again. It becomes muscle memory but it is all based on silhouette geometry in the sight picture.
That may be one reason, but it has been widely reported that the military has long been working to decrease hesitation to kill another human using more lifelike targets, video games, etc
"The Pentagon improved firing rates. Research suggests that 55 percent of U.S. soldiers fired on the enemy in the Korean War. By Vietnam that rate had climbed to more than 90 percent. Police studies document similar changes in recent decades.
One of the key changes was to get rid of the old firing ranges, where shooters took target practice in an open field aiming at a bull's-eye. This failed miserably at preparing shooters for real-world confrontations."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/science/amp/THE-...
"The Pentagon improved firing rates. Research suggests that 55 percent of U.S. soldiers fired on the enemy in the Korean War. By Vietnam that rate had climbed to more than 90 percent. Police studies document similar changes in recent decades.
One of the key changes was to get rid of the old firing ranges, where shooters took target practice in an open field aiming at a bull's-eye. This failed miserably at preparing shooters for real-world confrontations."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/science/amp/THE-...
The problem with this kind of excuse is that "desensitize people to committing violence" has absolutely nothing to do with a kid becoming a criminal but non-violent hacker. If there is a good reason to be concerned about the prevalence of violent video games, it doesn't apply here. So I won't bother to debate whether there's any evidence to support your implicit suggestion that violent video games contribute to actual criminal violence.
I've read very little actual evidence for any link between playing video games and violence. You can say that you think it desensitises players, but surely that should be measurable, right?
The Pentagon disagrees and has spent tens of millions on video games as well as other methods to desensitize soldiers to violence.
https://www.sfgate.com/science/amp/THE-SCIENCE-OF-CREATING-K...
https://www.sfgate.com/science/amp/THE-SCIENCE-OF-CREATING-K...
That's a random article written by a journalist, not a scientific paper published by a researcher.
DARPA has, among other things, spent a lot of money on a glove to help blind people drive. That's not evidence that blind people are good drivers, or that wearing gloves will make you a good driver.
DARPA has, among other things, spent a lot of money on a glove to help blind people drive. That's not evidence that blind people are good drivers, or that wearing gloves will make you a good driver.
[deleted]
> Was it the violent video games that turned him this way?
No, it's usually the same reason that causes such people to do nothing but play video games in the first place.
> Maybe if he took the time to work out in a gym and keep on top of his game this all wouldn't have happened
I've been in a situation where playing games and neglecting everything else was kind of my thing. From that perspective this sentence sounds a bit like "just stop being sad". At some point going to the gym is simply not possible, as easy as it may sound. Games are a highly effective distraction from life and everything that comes with it. At least until the day that stops working, at which point it is a good idea to be near people that care and aren't blind to a red flag parade.
No, it's usually the same reason that causes such people to do nothing but play video games in the first place.
> Maybe if he took the time to work out in a gym and keep on top of his game this all wouldn't have happened
I've been in a situation where playing games and neglecting everything else was kind of my thing. From that perspective this sentence sounds a bit like "just stop being sad". At some point going to the gym is simply not possible, as easy as it may sound. Games are a highly effective distraction from life and everything that comes with it. At least until the day that stops working, at which point it is a good idea to be near people that care and aren't blind to a red flag parade.
>"He was a threat to society"
No. Society was a threat to this non-violent minor. Whatever "ugly nihilism" a teenager entertains is trivial next to the adult nihilism -- our nihilism -- that destroys empathy, that destroys human lives, discards them in cages.
(By the way, the incomplete capacity to comprehend the negative consequences of actions isn't "nihilism" -- it is "innocence").
No. Society was a threat to this non-violent minor. Whatever "ugly nihilism" a teenager entertains is trivial next to the adult nihilism -- our nihilism -- that destroys empathy, that destroys human lives, discards them in cages.
(By the way, the incomplete capacity to comprehend the negative consequences of actions isn't "nihilism" -- it is "innocence").
> No. Society was a threat to this non-violent minor.
You can't go around breaking into other people's computers and causing them massive headaches. He had investigators flying all over the world and utility providers planning around the possibility of a state-sanctioned attack on the country's emergency response system.
Many countries are horrendously punitive in general, and of course also over-criminalize and over-incarcerate computer-related mischief. Totally granted. But I just can't get my head around why folks think that's the case here.
A bit of community service as punishment/recompense for breaking into ISPs and university computer systems seems... downright reasonable?
> (By the way, the incomplete capacity to comprehend the negative consequences of actions isn't "nihilism" -- it is "innocence").
I think the word you're looking for is "ignorance". I'm disinclined to accept that being ignorant is a form of innocence. Ignorance doesn't lessen the load of one's criminal mischief on the rest of society.
You can't go around breaking into other people's computers and causing them massive headaches. He had investigators flying all over the world and utility providers planning around the possibility of a state-sanctioned attack on the country's emergency response system.
Many countries are horrendously punitive in general, and of course also over-criminalize and over-incarcerate computer-related mischief. Totally granted. But I just can't get my head around why folks think that's the case here.
A bit of community service as punishment/recompense for breaking into ISPs and university computer systems seems... downright reasonable?
> (By the way, the incomplete capacity to comprehend the negative consequences of actions isn't "nihilism" -- it is "innocence").
I think the word you're looking for is "ignorance". I'm disinclined to accept that being ignorant is a form of innocence. Ignorance doesn't lessen the load of one's criminal mischief on the rest of society.
>"But a bit of community service as"
The OP said 240 days in prison. (Easy to misread, as it was a "suspended" sentence... that ended up being served anyway).
The OP said 240 days in prison. (Easy to misread, as it was a "suspended" sentence... that ended up being served anyway).
He was given the option to do community service and chose prison instead.
He should've chosen the community service, and his choice of prison over community service should've triggered some sort of mental health review. But in any case the option was "contribute to society or go to jail" and he chose jail. I doubt that was the intention or expectation of the judge.
He should've chosen the community service, and his choice of prison over community service should've triggered some sort of mental health review. But in any case the option was "contribute to society or go to jail" and he chose jail. I doubt that was the intention or expectation of the judge.
Would you pick "contributing to society" (where, mind you, the value of that contribution is often questionable anyway) right when getting what you believe to be an unreasonable sentence?
I'm pretty sure my only thought in that kind of moment would've been "No, fuck you".
I'm pretty sure my only thought in that kind of moment would've been "No, fuck you".
> where, mind you, the value of that contribution is often questionable anyway
Examples given in another post included: graffiti cleaning, litter picking, cleaning other outdoor areas (e.g. derelict land), assisting in a care home or home for disabled people.
Which of those is remotely controversial? Even graffiti removal isn't controversial per se, even if prosecutions and lack of venues for legal graffiti are controversial.
> Would you pick [things from the above list] right when getting what you believe to be an unreasonable sentence?
Absolutely, in a heart beat. I spent $700 of my own money and five weekends on graffiti removal along last year (in a local state owned forest with a heavily tagged cliff face... this wasn't art on the side of a drab building, it was ugly unimaginative tags on trees and rocks). I also volunteer at park litter cleanups very regularly and volunteer with several different organizations that focus on improving the quality of life for disabled folks.
I do those things by choice, because I care about my community and its people.
> I'm pretty sure my only thought in that kind of moment would've been "No, fuck you".
It's pretty sad that you'd rather sit in a cell than improve your community, but whatever.
BTW, most of those activities can be as social or isolated as you want... scrubbing graffiti can be done in an entirely solitary fashion, and if you're using a sand blaster talking to others isn't even an option! Anti-social community service kid with a bug up his butt doesn't want to talk to anyone? No worries at all; here's the sandblaster, go at it -- I hate wearing the PPE on a hot summer day anyways :)
Examples given in another post included: graffiti cleaning, litter picking, cleaning other outdoor areas (e.g. derelict land), assisting in a care home or home for disabled people.
Which of those is remotely controversial? Even graffiti removal isn't controversial per se, even if prosecutions and lack of venues for legal graffiti are controversial.
> Would you pick [things from the above list] right when getting what you believe to be an unreasonable sentence?
Absolutely, in a heart beat. I spent $700 of my own money and five weekends on graffiti removal along last year (in a local state owned forest with a heavily tagged cliff face... this wasn't art on the side of a drab building, it was ugly unimaginative tags on trees and rocks). I also volunteer at park litter cleanups very regularly and volunteer with several different organizations that focus on improving the quality of life for disabled folks.
I do those things by choice, because I care about my community and its people.
> I'm pretty sure my only thought in that kind of moment would've been "No, fuck you".
It's pretty sad that you'd rather sit in a cell than improve your community, but whatever.
BTW, most of those activities can be as social or isolated as you want... scrubbing graffiti can be done in an entirely solitary fashion, and if you're using a sand blaster talking to others isn't even an option! Anti-social community service kid with a bug up his butt doesn't want to talk to anyone? No worries at all; here's the sandblaster, go at it -- I hate wearing the PPE on a hot summer day anyways :)
> maybe because a significant subset of HN audience consists of outliers like Robbe himself and empathize with folks like him easily.
I am one of those people. I knew YUI as a kid, I logged into those KPN computers too. I'd always thought he'd moved on, I never found out about his death until now, or perhaps someone told me and I assumed they were kidding. Now, I can't help but wonder how many other friends who I thought to be retired are actually dead?
Despite - or perhaps because of - my experiences I couldn't help but agree with you more. I found it deeply disturbing to see all the comments here berating his grieving family for wondering if they'd made a mistake letting him on the computer.
I know my parents must have thought the same every time the cops came to our home, they would've been entirely justified in that.
I turned out okay, but as far as I can tell most of us didn't.
I am one of those people. I knew YUI as a kid, I logged into those KPN computers too. I'd always thought he'd moved on, I never found out about his death until now, or perhaps someone told me and I assumed they were kidding. Now, I can't help but wonder how many other friends who I thought to be retired are actually dead?
Despite - or perhaps because of - my experiences I couldn't help but agree with you more. I found it deeply disturbing to see all the comments here berating his grieving family for wondering if they'd made a mistake letting him on the computer.
I know my parents must have thought the same every time the cops came to our home, they would've been entirely justified in that.
I turned out okay, but as far as I can tell most of us didn't.
[deleted]
f480045a12b8(6)
This is very sad, such a bright young man. The state took away his entire world, his community, friends, all in one swoop. Hopefully the authorities in western countries are not locking (fairly innocent) hackers in solitary confinement for 5 years without trial anymore....
He was sentenced to either community service or 240 days in prison. Presumably the intention and expectation was for him to do the community service. For some reason he chose jail.
Community service seems like a pretty reasonable punishment for attacking computer systems at a university and an ISP...
> The state took away his entire world, his community, friends, all in one swoop.
I mean... it sounds like his entire world/community/friends were mostly bonding over criminal mischief. Oh, and one of those "friends" reported him to the police. Even by criminal gang standards those aren't real friends!
I'm not really convinced that he wouldn't have headed down the same path even without his run-in with the law.
Honestly, at least from the US perspective, the entire thing sounds like it was handled extremely well by the criminal justice system in the Netherlands. A bunch of community service seems pretty reasonable for such serious criminal trespass... and it sounds like they didn't charge him at all for various other criminal acts (e.g., launching DDoS attacks against sites whose owners he didn't like).
Community service seems like a pretty reasonable punishment for attacking computer systems at a university and an ISP...
> The state took away his entire world, his community, friends, all in one swoop.
I mean... it sounds like his entire world/community/friends were mostly bonding over criminal mischief. Oh, and one of those "friends" reported him to the police. Even by criminal gang standards those aren't real friends!
I'm not really convinced that he wouldn't have headed down the same path even without his run-in with the law.
Honestly, at least from the US perspective, the entire thing sounds like it was handled extremely well by the criminal justice system in the Netherlands. A bunch of community service seems pretty reasonable for such serious criminal trespass... and it sounds like they didn't charge him at all for various other criminal acts (e.g., launching DDoS attacks against sites whose owners he didn't like).
What a mess.. He didn't even do anything malicious to the provider by the looks of it.
> Finally, the hacker made a mistake. He skipped the VPN and entered a hacked KPN computer server directly from his home connection. With that, he exposed his home address.
Also this part seems like a lie.
> Finally, the hacker made a mistake. He skipped the VPN and entered a hacked KPN computer server directly from his home connection. With that, he exposed his home address.
Also this part seems like a lie.
I don't trust a lot of this reporting, it's quite clearly written from an anti-computer anti-nerd slant, with no empathy for the kid involved
I agree. I found this painful to read.
> They let him do whatever he wanted. If he felt like gaming, he’d boot up Windows. But more often he chose Linux, his go-to operating system.
Why is this important? This is exactly what I do. I also frequently use a VPN, yet it's treated in the article as if the use of such technologies automatically labels you as some sort of nefarious hacker.
> They let him do whatever he wanted. If he felt like gaming, he’d boot up Windows. But more often he chose Linux, his go-to operating system.
Why is this important? This is exactly what I do. I also frequently use a VPN, yet it's treated in the article as if the use of such technologies automatically labels you as some sort of nefarious hacker.
It seems that they didn't need that mistake if they were checking connections to the VPN from KPN users.
They could do a cross reference by checking his connections to the outside and then times when the hacker was "attacking". They could also drop his internet connection for a bit to see if the hacker gets disconnected.
And looking at how it was portrayed, it's doubtful his PC was "clean", especially if they catch him in the act.
They could do a cross reference by checking his connections to the outside and then times when the hacker was "attacking". They could also drop his internet connection for a bit to see if the hacker gets disconnected.
And looking at how it was portrayed, it's doubtful his PC was "clean", especially if they catch him in the act.
>Edwin was less than a year old when he was taken from his biological mother. She was on her own and unable to care for an infant. For months, she didn’t even touch him.
I didn't need to read any further. A long, long time ago, in another hell, I worked as a male nurse in trauma surgery and intensive care in a hospital near a "socially challenged neighborhood". From time to time we had a little one there with a broken arm or leg. Two, three, four years old. No, they were not mistreated or abused, perse. They were just neglected. Shit happens when Kevin is home alone with just his two older siblings. Its not always like in the middle and upper class families in the movies.
Fortunately, we didn't specialize in burns.
A mother once complained to the doctor that her four-year-old son had gotten much fatter after he was discharged from the hospital and that she now had to buy new clothes. Probably his first healthy diet since its inception.
So, how much, do you think, the risk of developing antisocial behavior later in life increases when you rob a child of their most important emotional need in their first year in hell?
I didn't need to read any further. A long, long time ago, in another hell, I worked as a male nurse in trauma surgery and intensive care in a hospital near a "socially challenged neighborhood". From time to time we had a little one there with a broken arm or leg. Two, three, four years old. No, they were not mistreated or abused, perse. They were just neglected. Shit happens when Kevin is home alone with just his two older siblings. Its not always like in the middle and upper class families in the movies.
Fortunately, we didn't specialize in burns.
A mother once complained to the doctor that her four-year-old son had gotten much fatter after he was discharged from the hospital and that she now had to buy new clothes. Probably his first healthy diet since its inception.
So, how much, do you think, the risk of developing antisocial behavior later in life increases when you rob a child of their most important emotional need in their first year in hell?
From reading this article, I get the suspicion that not only the parents have no idea about computers, but neither does the author.
If I have only a single quote to proof my point, I would choose: "His parents let him buy a PC that he put together himself. It had a big memory card and a lot of processing power." Never have I ever heard someone who knows anything about computers describe his systems to have a "big memory card". If I type memory card into google, it shows the things you smash in a digital camera. In the 90s and 2000s you would put it in your Nintendo or Playstation.
My other favorite is his use of "Rollercoaster Tycoon" as an example for an excessive violent game (I assume he refers to that game. Its the only game I know that fits the description). Yes, it is possible in that game, that people die, yes it can happend by being ejected from a ride. It is how ever neither the focus of the game nor endorsed by the game mechanics.
Describing Anonymous as a "looser collective" seems somewhat unnecessary. What brings him to the conclusion? With the feeling of the article, I assume the reason is, that they are "hackers".
All in all this article reminds me on the old articles on how computer games lead to violence. Or old US articles on communism. Or my grandmothers take on the Beatles. Or roughly any topic that a group of people perceives to be dangerous while not understanding it even remotely.
All in all, I wonder what anyone should take away of this article. Should parents not buy their children computers with "big memory cards"? Should parents be afraid if their children are using computers for gaming? Should they be afraid if they use it not for gaming? Should I be concerned to be confronted with a hacker if someone plays Rollercoaster Tycoon?
The guy seemed to have a tough live and his parents even more so. But this article will help no one to prevent anything.
If I have only a single quote to proof my point, I would choose: "His parents let him buy a PC that he put together himself. It had a big memory card and a lot of processing power." Never have I ever heard someone who knows anything about computers describe his systems to have a "big memory card". If I type memory card into google, it shows the things you smash in a digital camera. In the 90s and 2000s you would put it in your Nintendo or Playstation.
My other favorite is his use of "Rollercoaster Tycoon" as an example for an excessive violent game (I assume he refers to that game. Its the only game I know that fits the description). Yes, it is possible in that game, that people die, yes it can happend by being ejected from a ride. It is how ever neither the focus of the game nor endorsed by the game mechanics.
Describing Anonymous as a "looser collective" seems somewhat unnecessary. What brings him to the conclusion? With the feeling of the article, I assume the reason is, that they are "hackers".
All in all this article reminds me on the old articles on how computer games lead to violence. Or old US articles on communism. Or my grandmothers take on the Beatles. Or roughly any topic that a group of people perceives to be dangerous while not understanding it even remotely.
All in all, I wonder what anyone should take away of this article. Should parents not buy their children computers with "big memory cards"? Should parents be afraid if their children are using computers for gaming? Should they be afraid if they use it not for gaming? Should I be concerned to be confronted with a hacker if someone plays Rollercoaster Tycoon?
The guy seemed to have a tough live and his parents even more so. But this article will help no one to prevent anything.
>Never have I ever heard someone who knows anything about computers describe his systems to have a "big memory card". If I type memory card into google, it shows the things you smash in a digital camera. In the 90s and 2000s you would put it in your Nintendo or Playstation.
It's probably a translation issue. Here in my country it's common to refer to RAM as "memory card".
It's probably a translation issue. Here in my country it's common to refer to RAM as "memory card".
Fair and good point. Since I'm obviously not able to distinguish between loser and looser, I really shouldn't complain on others peoples English...
Maybe the translation is the reason that I don't get the feeling he is quite at home with a computer.
Maybe the translation is the reason that I don't get the feeling he is quite at home with a computer.
> Describing Anonymous as a "looser collective" seems somewhat unnecessary.
Did you misread that as "loser", as in someone who loses? "Loose" is the opposite of tight. They just meant it's not as organized or formal as lulzsec, I think.
Did you misread that as "loser", as in someone who loses? "Loose" is the opposite of tight. They just meant it's not as organized or formal as lulzsec, I think.
Yes, I did :D Also, I wasn't aware of the spelling difference between loser and looser... Well, now I have learned something from this article
> From reading this article, I get the suspicion that not only the parents have no idea about computers, but neither does the author.
Huib Modderkolk is a journalist for a known Dutch newspaper and he is author of the book Het is oorlog maar niemand die het ziet. Its about several cyberwar events related to The Netherlands, and it uncovered how the Dutch secret service was involved in Stuxnet. I went to a presentation of his book, and heard he actually met agents to investigate the story angles (with different success and outcome). Apparently it got translated to English, There's a War Going On But No One Can See It [1]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0922WZF9W
Huib Modderkolk is a journalist for a known Dutch newspaper and he is author of the book Het is oorlog maar niemand die het ziet. Its about several cyberwar events related to The Netherlands, and it uncovered how the Dutch secret service was involved in Stuxnet. I went to a presentation of his book, and heard he actually met agents to investigate the story angles (with different success and outcome). Apparently it got translated to English, There's a War Going On But No One Can See It [1]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0922WZF9W
Where does the article or the book mention "Rollercoaster Tycoon"? That seems to be something you came up with yourself.
> My other favorite is his use of "Rollercoaster Tycoon" as an example for an excessive violent game (I assume he refers to that game. Its the only game I know that fits the description).
Rollercoaster Tycoon is not the only theme park simulator, nor the only one where people can die from being thrown from rides.
Rollercoaster Tycoon is not the only theme park simulator, nor the only one where people can die from being thrown from rides.
Okay, but are these better examples for violent video games?
I’m not deeply familiar with other entries in the genre, but ISTR at least one more recent one with more focus on both environmental damage and riders being flung off, though even in that I think the nominal objective was to avoid those outcomes while maximizing ride intensity.
The description would probably be better phrased as an obsession with video game violence than violent video games, though since the article doesn't seem to be blaming the game design for anything, the difference between obsession with a violent mode of play encouraged by the game reward structure and that with a violent mode of play that defies the game reward structure doesn't seem particularly material.
The description would probably be better phrased as an obsession with video game violence than violent video games, though since the article doesn't seem to be blaming the game design for anything, the difference between obsession with a violent mode of play encouraged by the game reward structure and that with a violent mode of play that defies the game reward structure doesn't seem particularly material.
Garry's mod is, for example.
That was painful to read. Mental illness combined with a talent for computers do not make good bedfellows. In-fact mental illness combined with anything invariably leads to a bad ending. I just learned of a word: parasocial[0]. It happens when socially withdrawn people seek friendship online and build credibility over time with their peers or 'hacker buddies'. This is not so good because it lacks the nuance and real-time feedback of proper social interaction (i.e face-to-face talking). Then you could ask: what about video chats? Well they still pale in comparison with being actually with a person IMHO. Now we have this new word: 'metaverse' endorsed by Zuckerberg and others. It makes me wonder where we're heading with all this?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction
Edit: I'm aware how this may sound ironic since I'm conversing with people here on HN, but it's not to extremes as discussed in the article.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction
Edit: I'm aware how this may sound ironic since I'm conversing with people here on HN, but it's not to extremes as discussed in the article.
IIRC, Parasocial interaction is not so much about being real time or not, but being one sided or not. Parasocial relationships are those you have with TV, youtube, or twitch stars, and might leave you with feelings like they're you're friend, even though that's illusory. Similar to if you feel closeness to a nice server at a restaurant or a bartender, when they're simply doing their job.
Interesting; the wikipedia article describes "parasocial interaction" as a relationship that is inherently one-way, as with an entertainer or celebrity, which the other party perceives as building rapport.
You seem to want to extend the word to mean any relationship that does not involve physically meeting the other person, but I don't see any basis for this in the article you linked.
Do you have any references for this usage, or is it something you've coined yourself?
You seem to want to extend the word to mean any relationship that does not involve physically meeting the other person, but I don't see any basis for this in the article you linked.
Do you have any references for this usage, or is it something you've coined yourself?
Mental illness by itself - without treatment - leads to a bad ending.
There's no need to conflate mental illness with all of these other things (computer skill, online interactions, the metaverse); they are healthy hobbies and behaviors.
There's no need to conflate mental illness with all of these other things (computer skill, online interactions, the metaverse); they are healthy hobbies and behaviors.
There’s no need in general but that’s exactly the case here. And it’s not far from common, it’s an avenue that needs further discussion imo
That's not what a parasocial interaction is. A parasocial interaction is something that only goes one way. For example, young girls that are fan of a band or a specific artist, and talk about them as if they knew them.
It's becoming increasingly hard to find someone with a talent for computers who doesn't have some sort of mental illness. Computing seems to attract intelligent but mentally screwed up people, and we even live under rules that say you're not supposed to acknowledge their screwed-up-ness. Like, you can't say someone has dissociative identity disorder. They are a Multiple System, and you have to acknowledge the personalities in the system, or face disciplinary action from HR.
The Metaverse was coined by Neal Stephenson for Snow Crash. The version in the novel was pretty rad. Like everything cyberpunk, its real-world counterpart seems to have all the sucky features of the fictional version with few to none of the cool bits.
The Metaverse was coined by Neal Stephenson for Snow Crash. The version in the novel was pretty rad. Like everything cyberpunk, its real-world counterpart seems to have all the sucky features of the fictional version with few to none of the cool bits.
There is a big different because DSM5 official mental illness, and what seems to me what you are talking about when referring to "mental illness" where by a person is not conforming to a life style you believe is "normal" or "proper"
I do agree that as a society in the US anyway we are losing the idea of pluralism, more and more people are being forced to conform to a given sociopolitical ideology largely split on "left" and "right", if you do not conform with the orthodoxy of one or the other you are cast as any number of things other than a free thinking nuanced individual.
I do agree that as a society in the US anyway we are losing the idea of pluralism, more and more people are being forced to conform to a given sociopolitical ideology largely split on "left" and "right", if you do not conform with the orthodoxy of one or the other you are cast as any number of things other than a free thinking nuanced individual.
I'm not sure what American political orientation has to do with this.
DID is a DSM V recognized disorder. Anyone who thinks this is because of a tyrannical society that oppresses them by refusing to recognize that they are sometimes themselves and sometimes an anime character who has taken over their body, probably needs help -- and chances are there's a lot of shit in their lives they don't have together. I'm not the one confusing a mental disorder with a lifestyle choice. And HR departments are starting to adopt rules to force companies to treat employees' significant mental issues as lifestyle choices, to the detriment of the employees and the companies.
DID is a DSM V recognized disorder. Anyone who thinks this is because of a tyrannical society that oppresses them by refusing to recognize that they are sometimes themselves and sometimes an anime character who has taken over their body, probably needs help -- and chances are there's a lot of shit in their lives they don't have together. I'm not the one confusing a mental disorder with a lifestyle choice. And HR departments are starting to adopt rules to force companies to treat employees' significant mental issues as lifestyle choices, to the detriment of the employees and the companies.
I was always a bookworm when I was a kid. I hadn't had many friends and even at home had a lack of consistent human contact. Back then, we were going through a rough patch. When I started using computers and the Internet at work in the late '90s, it seemed that the whole world was opening up for me. When I came home after work, my folks and I would catch up with each other, engage in lively and thoughtful conversations over a meal. Once I had a personal computer, I began to spend more time surfing the Net than interacting with my family; they were having a hard time connecting with me, since I seemed out of touch with the real world. They were feeling neglected. Then came the smartphones and things went downhill fast. Now all of us spend our days glued to screens of different sizes, although we realize that social isolation or deprivation is risky for health.
> I’d wanted to hear the story from Edwin himself. The one time we Skyped, he’d been in a hotel room in South Korea. Eight minutes into our call, he signed off with a smile and a peace sign. After that we chatted sporadically over WhatsApp. His final messages were laced with despair. “I don’t like it here,” he wrote, and “They’ve got guns”, and “I want to get out of here ASAP.” He stopped responding to my questions about KPN. A few days later I was contacted by a source. “Did you hear about Edwin?” He’d been found dead in a hotel bathtub, not far from Seoul’s international airport. The door of his room had been barricaded from the inside with furniture and pillows.
Wow, that's intense.
Wow, that's intense.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Edwin's actions were illegal and wrong, and his punishment was justified.
Having said that, it seems to me that once he had served his time in prison, it would have been in KPN's interests to hire him and pay him a large salary to lead what was a clearly necessary internal effort to fix the security flaws that left them so vulnerable in the first place.
Directed in the right way, Edwin's skills could have brought substantial benefit to KPN and any other companies he might have consulted with in the future. But instead he's dead now, and KPN has lost an opportunity to hire someone that was likely more capable than anyone on their security team.
Having said that, it seems to me that once he had served his time in prison, it would have been in KPN's interests to hire him and pay him a large salary to lead what was a clearly necessary internal effort to fix the security flaws that left them so vulnerable in the first place.
Directed in the right way, Edwin's skills could have brought substantial benefit to KPN and any other companies he might have consulted with in the future. But instead he's dead now, and KPN has lost an opportunity to hire someone that was likely more capable than anyone on their security team.
Obligatory link to the Hacker Manifesto: http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html
“… we’re all alike.” Rest in peace, Edwin.
“… we’re all alike.” Rest in peace, Edwin.
Whoever wrote that and is not 14, it's a clear sign of stunted emotional growth.
Well, speaking for myself personally, I was around 11-13 when I first joined the scene. Right before the fall of the classical hacker collectives and old school zines.
It sounds to me like you were not, so I will give your unsubstantiated opinion the benefit of the doubt of not understanding the context or implications of Phrack and aforementioned Hacker Manifesto.
It sounds to me like you were not, so I will give your unsubstantiated opinion the benefit of the doubt of not understanding the context or implications of Phrack and aforementioned Hacker Manifesto.
“I’m more anxious about computers now,” Ruud admitted. When he fills in his tax returns and can’t get the site to work, he gets stressed out. “Sometimes I’m afraid someone might be using my identity. I’m forced to depend on technologies I can’t understand, and that worries me.”
Now try “Web 3.0”
Now try “Web 3.0”
So much potential in this young man. It's a shame he had these difficulties to deal with. It sounds like he had absolutely no guidance, no encouragement toward a positive way to use his skills. I see it as the equivalent of the school prankster falling in with the wrong crowd, and ending up doing something seriously harmful to try to gain respect.
> found guilty of hacking and given a suspended prison sentence of 240 days plus community service. He didn’t want to do community service, however, so did the time instead.
I wish they had dug into that a little bit more. What did the service entail? How could it be worse than doing time? I don't imagine it would have been a highly social or physically demanding job.
>Edwin asked Ruud if he could move back home, but his dad didn’t feel up to the task of taking in his now 22-year-old son.
That's heartbreaking. Having to turn away your son who is desperate need of care because you can't provide it, and then having him commit suicide a while later.
This story is depressing. I wish there was more about how people were trying to help him, because as it stands, it seems to me he was mostly abandoned.