"fair game"? The Russian hacker did the same with him as he posted copies of Krebs' credit report, directions to Krebs' home and pictures of Krebs' front door.
Plus, threatening to kill Krebs' wife.
But since we're talking about ethics here: Sure, now that the hacker faces 30 years in prison, he's not short of probably sincere apologies. I could really believe that he now has changed his view and accepted his guilt. It makes me ponder the thought of if I were Krebs' to not only feel sorry for the guy but (if it were legally possible) to dismiss the charges against him.
Consider the much more likely outcome of the hackers' plan: That it worked. Would the hacker had the same sense of guilt then? Or the same sense of forgiveness as Krebs or me seems to have? Maybe. We'd never know unless he did. It's more likely, he would have enjoyed Krebs' ruined live. Maybe even continued to threaten his wife and family. Just for the fun of it.
Because doing that in the anonymity of the web makes it easy to misbehave in ways no one ever would in front of the public eye and even less in the eye of his family and friends.
"Fair game" excuses collective punishment, then? I'm not so sure.
Also, a "wife" is a person. How do you justify retaliating against someone by harming someone else? You steal my car, I beat up your wife- hey, "fair game"?
It might destroy their relationship by scaring her into leaving him, which is perfectly fair game. You dont deserve to have a relationship with your wife if you actively try to destroy someone else's.
Relatives of a victim are generally protected by the press, but relatives of a criminal are not. Right or wrong this doesn't seem outside of accepted USA norms. Other countries are another matter, where often criminals identities are protected.
Of course he's not going to get the charges dropped against this guy. Krebs should be pushing for the most harsh penalty possible against this guy so he can continually point to him as an example of what happens when you threaten him or his wife.
I think thirty years is extreme, but I think the hope is that this will serve as an effective deterrent against this kind of crap.
Fortunately in the US justice system victims do not determine sentences. That said, I agree that hackers who maliciously target an individual with disregard to collateral damage should get the maximum sentence.
The people he deals with don't have any rule book they follow. Likewise, it's up to him who he wants to go after. Clearly, he decided that turn around is fair game and went after his wife.
Unfortunately when you deal with criminals, you can't really justify any behavior on either side since they are both operating outside the bounds of the legal system. Outcomes are mooted in the context of the world they are operating in when it's devoid of rules, honor and morality among the participants.
I think this is naive and gullible. This person needs and deserves a rehabilitation attempt, which he's very unlikely to get in prison. The psychopathology of someone who doesn't merely threaten you with death, but an explicitly named loved one, is a very dangerous, damaged, malicious person. Merely being found guilty and in prison does not at all ensure this person accepts responsibility for what they did or that it's wrong.
What someone does while they're being watched isn't a good judgement of their character. What matters more is how they behave when they're not being watched.
Plus, threatening to kill Krebs' wife.
But since we're talking about ethics here: Sure, now that the hacker faces 30 years in prison, he's not short of probably sincere apologies. I could really believe that he now has changed his view and accepted his guilt. It makes me ponder the thought of if I were Krebs' to not only feel sorry for the guy but (if it were legally possible) to dismiss the charges against him.
Consider the much more likely outcome of the hackers' plan: That it worked. Would the hacker had the same sense of guilt then? Or the same sense of forgiveness as Krebs or me seems to have? Maybe. We'd never know unless he did. It's more likely, he would have enjoyed Krebs' ruined live. Maybe even continued to threaten his wife and family. Just for the fun of it.
Because doing that in the anonymity of the web makes it easy to misbehave in ways no one ever would in front of the public eye and even less in the eye of his family and friends.