What is Digg?97 Comments
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+48Why do they need a blood sample for a computer crime? It's not like a DNA sample can be used to determine the person responsible for a computer attack.
@ colincornaby
Lamo has invoked a passage in the Christian Bible, Genesis 9:6, which says, according to one translation: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
But even I don't know how that works, and I'm Christian. - colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29They just want one blood sample. One. I hardly think this is characterized as abuse. Not to mention the religion he's citing for disallowing taking of blood samples is Christianity. Do you know any Christians who believe their religion stops them from getting blood tests? I don't.
Sounds like he's just out to make things difficult for everyone else. - Quintios, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21
@ colincornaby
I think the Jehovah's Witnesses have some problem with blood. I know they can't receive blood transfusions. I don't know about *giving* a blood sample, however.
And some may argue that JW's aren't Christians, either. - GravyTrain6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13That made about as much sense as those Personal Opinion ads in my local classifieds: NONE
- downlo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Fifth amendment, your blood is you, so it cannot incriminate you.
Now all that's needed is a lawyer to play this angle... - duhblow7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Looks like somebody already tried. FTA:
A 2000 federal law called the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Actrequired that DNA samples be taken from anyone convicted of or on probation for certain serious crimes. This was challenged in court on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, but a federal appeals court upheld (click for PDF) the DNA collection requirement as constitutional. - mahoneyxp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I know for one that Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow blood transfers (donating or receiving), but I am not sure their stance on giving blood for a DNA sample...
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12what religion forbids this? im thinking he just made one up on the spot.
My religion says i must drive my car 200 mph everywhere and not receive tickets. it also says i can steal doritos and not have to pay - TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Not that I have anything against hacking, I'm not religious...but it's hard to believe his religion is fine with basically theft, yet against removing blood. I just hate when people use religion to their convenience but won't take the negatives that it brings.
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@TheUngod
"Not that I have anything against hacking, I'm not religious...but"
I'm not quite sure "Thou shalt not hack." made it down the mountain. - ZakColeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Everyone cites religious beliefs...
- Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7JW's have no issue with giving blood samples as long as it won't be reused. Blood tests, dna samples and the like where the samples are discarded afterward are all acceptable.
If one of them did try state "religious beliefs" for such, they'd be on their own.
Besides, if you're already breaking the law... - cheekybastard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The guy is an idiot and now he complains about "liberty, privacy and dignity". He did alot of pro bono "White/Gray Hat" crap (yay, I can save the world with unsolicited pen testing ), embarrassed powerful people with small brains and was lucky enough to get off with house arrest and probation. STFU and get on with your life crybaby.
- Ender2007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6to K4P741NxKRUNCH: fingerprints won't fulfill the DNA requirement...
Anyway, I don't see why they can't just take the cheek swab and use that. It's not like a blood sample is more reliable.
I wonder if I could say it is against my religion to be imprisoned and make it stick... - heavyal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Quintios:
Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with giving blood samples. The problem lies in blood transfusions, or the intake of blood whether it be through the mouth, intravenously or any other way. They do however accept blood expanders and some will even go so far as to allow for blood fractions to be used on them but that is a matter of conscience and is determined by the individual.
Some interesting scripture quotations which are often cited in reference to this: Deut 12:16, Deut 12:23, 1 Sam 14:31-35 .. there are several dozen more biblical references to blood but those are a good starting point if anyone is really interested in finding out why Witnesses abstain from it. - Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Who'd have thought a Victoria's Secret Angel would turn out to be a hacker.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Should, could, would... that's what the First Amendment is for... Freedom of religion...
Unless it's -directly- criminal in nature (hate crimes, claiming theft or drug-use is religious), it's a general rule of the courts to acknowledge religious taboos a person can back up with facts.
They occasionally even do it with direct criminal behavior. Certain varieties of doubly-sharpened knives are illegal in Massachusetts, but I personally know at least two people who got off when arrested with them by claiming they're a primary holy symbol of their religion (Wicca). Doubt it'd work in a more conservative state, but then, most of those states don't have that law. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ canti32
I understand what it means, I just meant that I don't understand how it equates to drawing blood for a DNA sample. - Ender2007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"A 2000 federal law called the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Actrequired that DNA samples be taken from anyone convicted of or on probation for certain serious crimes."
At the time that they started asking for this, he was still on probation for his crime... - Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Since when has anybody given a ***** about a persons religious views here in Digg?
- r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think this is just a publicity stunt, and it's working.
- IMADV8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"I think the Jehovah's Witnesses have some problem with blood. I know they can't receive blood transfusions. I don't know about *giving* a blood sample, however.
And some may argue that JW's aren't Christians, either."
We won't take transfusions, and we won't donate blood, but we don't have a problem with giving it for tests or anything. Also, considering the definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ, we're definitely Christian. - jamend, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What do they need the blood/DNA for anyways? It's a computer hacking case...
- SwornPacifist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4FTA: "What isn't over is Lamo's refusal to give federal authorities a sample of his blood, which he says violates his religious convictions. HE HAS OFFERED TO GIVE A CHEEK SWAB as an alternative, a practice used by a number of states including California--but not the federal system." (caps emphasis mine)
To quote Cartman from the South Park movie, "What's the big ***** deal, bitch?"
They can't do a cheek swab? It's too complicated for the Feds, but not Cali? - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3He could be. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have died through refusing blood transfusions.
- Pseudorious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He's a simple criminal pitching a lousy defense. I'm sure it's been tried before and failed.
- flipjargendy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's great, they had monitoring software and filtering software on his computer, i'm sure he didn't find a way around that.
The best part is ther "Religious convictions" part. Great article, thanks for sharing! - AdrianLamo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey folks.
I'd like to clear a couple things up, for posterity.
First of all, you can read a very complete elucidation of our (the defense's) position @ http://terrorists.ir/~adrian/reply/
Secondly. My objection is very simple. I don't believe that anyone should have their blood spilled against their will. It's the essence of life, given by God, and when there are less burdensome alternatives that work just as well, it seems pretty clear to me that it's uncalled for.
I offered the government my DNA in any other form, and they explicitly declined it, despite accepting other forms into their database in alternate scenarios.
Third: To the people that commented on my past crimes in contrast to eternal law. I make mistakes, sometimes huge ones. I can be crass and hubristic, but every failure to do right drives me to do better. I've also saved lives, and changed worlds. Only God knows if it balances out in the end. I'm comfortable with everything I am today, but know that there is still work left to be done.
To reply to one post about my comment in KDM's book about security work: In a press release that will be out in the nearish future, I make clear that I don't want to do security work for the Fortune 500 list. I'm offering my services to the companies and entities that couldn't otherwise afford competent work. I want to do something egalitarian, because of all of the positive experiences I've had doing work for nonprofits.
To reply to a 2nd post about meeting me in high school: I was a jerk at 16. I'm sorry for anyone that offended then. I think we're all different people than we were 10 years ago. Time is funny like that.
I still have an AOL account :)
Thank you for reading - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Somehow I think "I gave my blood to some random guy and it saved his life" is a pretty worthwhile accounting for shedding blood. I don't see God objecting to it.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ farrellj Are you new to digg? Of course people here know the difference between right and wrong regarding hacking, sure you can discover new things by hacking but the point, again, is breaking into a server you don't have permission to be on and claiming that *your* rights are being violated because of how your treated by the law is idiotic.
- krispyrob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The term "shedding of blood" is used throughout the old and new testament in the Bible in a way which means to kill something. The shedding of the blood of an animal was required to cover the sins of the Jews, Jesus blood had to be shed to allow for forgiveness etc.. In short, this verse does not apply to him in this situation. This verse is the biblical basis for capitol punishment.
- kd36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can't get an accurate DNA sample from feces. There is too much foreign genetic material in there. Most likely you would just end up with some nice E. coli DNA.
I don't know why they don;t just take a swab. It's easy to do and, assuming they can maintain chain of custody, just as accurate as blood. - ELCid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He's offered them a skin scrape, as well as a mouth swab (the most commonly used method of obtaining a DNA sample). Both of those have been used for convictions, and both should fulfill the requirement for a DNA sample. If those are insufficient, then their use shouldn't be allowed in court, and hundreds, if not thousands, of people should have their convictions overturned.
They're not just after his DNA, they're after his blood.
Why? - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's hard to frame a suspect with just a cheek swab. With blood, you just splatter some of it on the crime scene, like a datacenter or the hacker's own computer, and the jury just knows they did it. :)
- staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3correction
"it also says i can partake of glorious doritos and not have to pay"
Much better. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Meant to add this:
Lamo has invoked a passage in the Christian Bible, Genesis 9:6, which says, according to one translation: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
The Book of Genesis is not believed just by the Christians. The Jewish, from what I understand, believe in the book of Genesis also. They don't believe in the New Testament however, and believe that the Son of God has not yet been born. - MannaPC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't see how this can relate to a DNA sample. If you look at the passage of scripture, this verse relates to the one before it which pretty much reads if someone kills someone else, kill the killer.
If you were going to take that passage as "no shedding blood" what if someone threw something at you and it made a small scrape?
Plus, I bet if he was laying on a bed somewhere and only a blood test could save his life, he'd take it. the whole thing is a messed up, in my opinion, but it's his views.
P. S. I'm a saved Christian. I have also attached the verse he is talking about.
" 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man. " - Duelus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know Jehovah's Witnesses do not take blood or give blood, but will except most blood substitutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood
I know Witnesses give blood for reasons such as blood tests and DNA sampling but only if the blood is disposed of properly as said in the bible. But due to this JW's have provided the willingness in helping and (testing) bloodless surgery techniques. - Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"In an e-mailed statement late Thursday, Lamo said he was glad that he was off probation and government supervision, which he said cost him "the loss of liberty, privacy and dignity." He also said he planned to open a computer security consulting business."
He should go in with Kevin Mitnick at his security firm. That would be a awesome duo!
http://www.kevinmitnick.com/ - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why the ***** would they need a DNA sample from a hacker?
- mahoneyxp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish this were the case, but sadly it is not in the case of my girlfriend's mother who is a Jehovah's witness. In their "religion/cult" any blood transfer (either giving or receiving) is not allowed. So, in the case where you need a blood transfusion to live, they have to use synthetic blood or none at all. She has such strong convictions towards this that she actually chose a member of her church to be her health care proxy to make the decisions for her if she becomes incapacitated instead of a family member. (Her family members are not JW and refused to comply with her wishes concerning blood.)
- farrellj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All hail those who can whistle up free long distance! :-)
ttyl - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haohmaru: You can't really say that about JW's in a blanket manner, because there are many cases of JW's refusing to give blood for both tests and DNA analysis. Google will find you a dozen cases in seconds.
- mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@maddux
The difference though is that he is not breaking the law by refusing. Your religion on the other hand would be. But that does not make driving at 200 mph any less awesome. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah hackers are geniuses but that still doesnt give them the right to break the law
what i dont get is why hackers dont just use there personality to make good money
as most security issues are found by these guys and they could get payed finding them - FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kinda sucks though... that now that I've perfected that, they take away all the old phones. :-(
- psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, thats what's sprayed on his computer.. blood!
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=213 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think I am getting dyslexic. I swear this said K Fed hacked for blood.
- psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now see this is what I don't get: Why do they need blood? I'm sure I could get you to give up some of your DNA. ::pounce:: >D
- Culled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About that anyone else remember Lamo saying (in Mitnick's book no less) that he didn't want to get a job doing computer security and that wants to be a journalist. He said something along the lines of "Lots of people like sex but most don't want to do it for a living"
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is