This is depressing, but I'll hope it's just a knee-jerk reaction, and that people will reconsider after they have a chance to think about it. Presumably the audience does not support informing because it believes that cracking and leaking are not a crime on the same level as , for example, child abuse or murder. Of course, people who participate in illegal activities often have no trouble rationalizing or excusing their actions. And for those who will wave the flag for "civil disobedience", I'll say right now that I have no problem supporting the idea of civil disobedience, as long as you realize the consequences of civil disobedience have typically been conviction and punishment. It's the conviction and punishment that drives public opinion to change the law, not whining.
I was at HOPE and saw this talk. The irony of "Stop Snitching" shirts appearing on crowds of people who have almost undoubtedly spent zero minutes being interrogated by even local police was not lost on me.<p>It's a well-worn topic, but I was disheartened to see so many people launch into tangential rants that really skirted (avoided, even) the reality of the situation.
Apparently, for many of the hackers present, it was an issue of snitching. That's pretty stupid. I don't think there's any "no snitching" ethic that would obligate a gun enthusiast to keep his mouth shut when he sees somebody killed with a gun. I don't see why hacking should be any different. I question Lamo's motives, and I disagree with what he did (because I think the U.S. government dishonestly sweeps its mistakes under the rug of "classified for reasons of national security,") but he <i>could</i> have done what he did from a pure motive to protect civilians, soldiers, and U.S. interests.
Let's assume for a moment that his choice was neither right or wrong: A crowd of people attacking an informant without being placed in his shoes. This group mentality leads to ignorance leads to violence.<p>Suppose for a moment, some korean spy was bragging about all the US documents they were funneling back to their government. These documents consisted of building names, employee's names, and a few other misc trails. Do we worry that the spy might obtain even more sensitive information and release it or ignore the spy completely and continue on with our daily lives?<p>What if there was a man working at your mom's bakery leaking all of your mom's baking secrets/employee information and boasting about it on his facebook page. Would you let your mom know that this employee is letting everyone in the world know her address and she makes an excellent strawberry muffin?<p>Hacker, civilian, crackhead, secretary, garbage man; whatever title, if you believe a person might be endangering your government, people, or rights(or baking secrets)... is it so wrong to alert an authority of the situation before it gets out of hand? Could he have stumbled upon some new nuclear weapon schematics that wiped out an entire continent and went "OH LOOK WHAT THE US IS DOING, MUST SHARE THIS?!"<p>(BTW: I don't really understand why we push democracy on other countries. The best way to spread democracy is by example and let other countries adapt on their own, in their own way... rebellion, civil war, or civil disobedience or whatever new method springs up. Democracies don't just spring up over night, the US just got extremely lucky in forming its republic. Many lives were lost, rights were nonexistent, and somehow we still ended up at this point.)<p>(Also, that soldier knew the risk of leaking documents in a time of 'war,' so, I feel no pity for his capture.)<p>(I should also note that I know nothing of Lamo or bradass other than what I saw on the daily show. This video is just group stupidity.)
Federal offense. I'd have turned his ass in too. Hackers know they are breaking the law, and shouldn't be squawking too loudly when they get prosecuted for it.