Paris Hilton Hacker Banned From The Internet

from the where-will-he-get-his-Paris-Hilton-pics-and-news-now? dept

We were just discussing whether or not banning internet access for criminals involved in internet-based crimes made any sense (or was really viable), and along comes another story about just such a ban. It turns out that the kid who famously hacked Paris Hilton’s T-Mobile Sidekick and revealed all of her contact info has now been barred from posessing or using anything that can access the internet for two years. Anything? That sounds a bit extreme. While the guy apparently was involved in a long string of hack attacks against a variety of different targets, with so much being internet enabled these days, it seems a bit silly to completely ban him from any device that can access the internet. It rules out an awful lot of mobile phones. Modern gaming consoles are pretty much out. Many DVR devices can access the internet. Increasingly, cars have some form of internet access as well. What about VoIP phones? They access the internet. What if the guy doesn’t even realize he’s using a VoIP phone? This isn’t to say the guy doesn’t deserve some punishment. But, the ban doesn’t seem to take into account the realities of the world.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Paris Hilton Hacker Banned From The Internet”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Chopper says:

Re: Re: No Subject Given

You do realize that there have been many hacks on mom and pops, kids, friends and the likes none of them have been dealt with this extremety. All of a sudden because Paris doesn’t like something you are following her like a lost pup.
Shes not going to date you, acknowledge your existence or even send an autographed used napkin to this website in commemeration of your comment. So get some lube and pull your head out of your ass.
Sorry to ruin your dreams but kids, teens and adults have been screwing around with tech for years. When you were in highschool did you ever try to sneak someone elses journal (maybe a girl even?) to see if she was writing about you? Now imagine you could do this from across the school, as a teen would you see this as cool or “uncool”??? Now imagine you could see a multi-billion dollar hot chick’s boyfriend list from down the street?
Most kids will do it. Does that mean we throw them in jail or maybe we should sue the parents!!! You could have the cops come to your door because your kid thought little Sally was cute (ewwww) and her brandnew camera/bluetooth/wifi/picture/mp3 … phone had no password on it and wanted to check it out and have a laugh with his friends. Kids like that should just be jailed WITH their parents!!! After all they raised him!!!
Well I know Paris will take a long time to recover from this, especially now that her secret number for ralph lauren has been exposed, but others have come before your courts and have been given little in terms of punishment. All it means now is more kids will do it but they wont let you know 😉

mozetti says:

Re: Re: The ban

Ban on anything that can access the internet.

Well, a computer w/o an internet service plan can’t access the internet. An Xbox w/o an xbox live account and the above-mentioned computer can’t access the internet.

There’s no real way to enforce a ban keeping him from “accessing the internet” other than saying he can’t own a device that can access the internet. As i mentioned above, most devices you mentioned can be made so they can’t access the internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: The ban

if not slightly daft that the only reason action was taken was due to the owner of the phone, the ban seems fine by me (if anyone can actually enforce it that is) the kid should have thought of the consequences of his actions before he got involved in illegal activity and now he should pay the price.

Good luck to those who are left trying to enforce this though and make sure he DOES pay for his actions because i dont see how it can be done !

Matt says:

Re: Re: No Subject Given

Disagree: Just because they has the security hole, doesn’t mean it is their fault that someone busted it. Car Tires can be shot out. Just because rubber can be shot doesn’t mean that the issue is the tire manufacturer’s fault. No one can say that any communications system is flawless. Just because it can be done does not mean it should. Let’s use some common sense here, please.

g0es says:

Wish there was a....

Better punishment. although i think banning access to the internet is the best that we can do at the moment but it would be nice to see something that will really be a deterent. I mean this guy could still profit from the press he is getting and could easly get a job after his two years. there should be a way to keep him from profiting from is experiences breaking the law

Oliver Wendell Jones (profile) says:

A Dumb Terminal?

My brother was arrested and charged with fraud and theft for ordering items over the phone using other people’s credit card information (this was back before the phrase “identity theft” was in use).

He would open a phone book at random and look up the credit history of people, looking for people with high dollar credit card limits. He would look up the information on his Commodore-64 computer connected to a 12″ color TV and a 2400 baud modem (if that gives you any idea how long ago this was).

As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to not operate a computer, unless part of his job, for the length of his parole. That didn’t stop him from buying a dumb terminal at a garage sale and using it to access various BBSs and CompuServe.

Tom (user link) says:

Impossible To Uphold

What I don’t understand is how they can expect to enforce this ban, you can’t have someone watching his every move.

What’s to stop him going around to his friends house and accessing the internet on his computer.

Sure, you can confiscate his PC and stop him accessing the internet from his own home, but it’s impossible to stop him getting on the internet in other places.

jeb says:


When someone commits mail fraud, to they ban them from using the USPS?

This is just silly. Same with DUIs and cars – you want the behaviour to change. Lots of folks with DUIs who’ve lost their license still end up driving drunk.

If you take away people’s means of earning a living (cars or computers) in cases of criminal behaviour, you make it more likely that they will behave criminally, because it is harder to earn an honest living.

sam (user link) says:

A Feel Good Ruling

It seems that today some think that if a law is passed or a ruling like this comes down from a judge that folks will simply follow it; that is baloney! As others have said, there is no way to enforce this, other then locking the kid up, which the kid needs. It seems a feel good ruling similar to many laws that are on the books today: They feel good but are impossible to enforce!

Bogie says:


Maybe the judge is giving this guy a chance to do something positive with his life. They cannot watch the guy 24/7, but if he violates the judge ruling within two years and is caught doing something else illegal using a computer. The next judge would have no choice but to lock him up. It’s about a pattern of behavoir. That’s why we give people probation or the police issue warning tickets. “Stop the negative stuff or else” Think about it.

Tim says:

Stuid logic!

Uh… ok so they are going to make it “against the law” for this person from using the internet? Wasn’t it already “against the law” to hack other peoples devices? Do they really think that this has taken away the threat?…. Or do they really believe that this CAN stop him from breaking the law… this law… again? Unless you tie his hands around his back or throw him in a locked room for the next 2 years, is the only way to ensure that he can’t/won’t do this again. Like I said…. stupid reasoning.

Kevin Trumbull says:


From the article:
As an adult, he will undergo two years of supervised release in which he will be barred from possessing or using any computer, cell phone or other electronic equipment capable of accessing the Internet.

To deconstruct this:
Barred from using any computer…
The following things are now computers (in most cases): ATM machines, Onstar, Tivo, Self Checkout systems at the grocery store, Digital Camera Kiosks in Walmart, Cash Registers, Library card catalogs, Diagnostic systems in auto shops, college registration systems, nicer calculators, and the list goes on and on.
So while he will be allowed to bag groceries, he won’t be allowed to ring people up.

Electronic equipment capable of accessing the Internet…
Cars, ATMs, Onstar, Tivo, Cell phones, Satellite Dish control systems, some ‘non-computer’ cash registers, PDAs, Security Cameras, and recently several models of Refrigerator and Microwave.
Recently there’s been a rash of adding TCP/IP communication ability to many embedded appliances (TVs, VCRs, DVD Players, etc).

It’s like banning someone who went on a spree of knocking over convenience stores, from going to a gas station… It’s stupid. Computers, whether you realize it or not, are pervasive in everyday life. In one way or another, he will have to break the letter of his sentencing. Whether he’s prosecuted on it is another story. This is why many of these sentences are overturned these days. It’s BS to ban someone from using any ATM machine. It’s BS to ban him from getting a cashier job in retail. It’s BS to ban him from using a Kiosk at Kinkos to print some pictures.

However poetic or just a punishment it seems, it’s just not practical in this day and age. Unfortunately many Judges are too old to realize this.

Mark says:

Internet ban

The ban doesn’t need to be enforceable. No police department is going to assign someone to follow this guy around and make sure he’s not accessing a WiFi network at his local coffeeshop. The judge knows this. What the ban does is give authorities a device to prosecute him if he starts getting out of line again. If he’s implicated in another hack, they won’t need to prove his involvement — they’ll just be able to point at his use of the Net, in violation of his sentence. With that hanging over his head, the guy might be forced to walk the straight and narrow.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Internet ban

Thank you Mark. I was going to say this.

From the article:

“…he will undergo two years of supervised release…”

Isn’t this usually called “parole”?

I suppose the part that goes “barred from poessesing or using any” would be
the conditions of his parole. Violate that and
he gets to serve the two years in prison…

Anonymous Coward says:

Think about the consequences

So this guy could not use the phone to dial 911 if he found out that terrorists were going to nuke Washington, D.C. or New York city.

Makes a lot of sense…

O.K., maybe that’s not probable. But he also couldn’t call the police to stop some woman from being gang raped either. That’s not quite as improbable, now is it?

Anonymous Coward says:

No Subject Given

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the guy can’t post a critism of the government, including the judge, on a discussion board online, then his first amendment rights are being violated. PERIOD.

The courts are not allowed to make laws or break them. If congress can’t restrict a person’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances or to express those grievances to the public, then neither can the courts. He has a constitutional right to email his senator or publish a political website. He should sue the judge and the court for violating his civil rights.

This would be true even if he committed a crime that actually caused harm. Quite frankly, reading some slut’s email isn’t like knowingly starting a war on the false premise of weapons of mass destructions or covering up atrocities and war crimes commited against prisioners of war. There are bigger criminals to worry about.

America, get your priorities straight.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...