Reporters give virus writers more privacy than they give to a victimized newborn

Rob Rosenberger, Vmyths co-founder
Wednesday, 22 December 2004

LET'S TALK ABOUT four children who bask in a level of privacy they don't deserve — and one child who desperately needs a level of privacy she'll never get.

Teenage hackers bask in a level of privacy they don't deserve. The media simply will not identify them...

...but they'll name a newborn child carved from the womb by a killer who performed an "impromptu Caesarian."

We'll begin with the four bad boys. VNUNET cub reporter Iain Thomson filed a story with the headline "teen virus writer dodges prison." One 16yr-old earned a suspended sentence in a British court for distributing the Randex worm. "A combined operation between New Scotland Yard, the FBI and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police led to his arrest, along with two Americans and a Canadian," Thomson noted. Nowhere in the story did Thomson identify any of these four boys. In fact, Thomson didn't even bother to explain why he protected their identities. A recent Google search reveals no names for those accused of distributing the Randex worm. None! Courtrooms and reporters alike do everything they can to shield a teenage hacker's identity. I said it before and I'll say it again. "Only in the computer security world can you keep your name out of the newspapers even after you plead guilty" to a heinous crime. No paparazzi will stalk a teenage hacker for a photograph. You won't see his name splashed on the pages of Time or Newsweek or The Enquirer. You most certainly won't learn his identity from VNUNET or The Register. "The suspect, who has a credit card and a checkbook and a part-time job and a small entrepreneurial business on the side and drives a car and watches R-rated movies by himself, cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The child stands accused of wiping out two-thirds of the world's computing power..." As bizarre as it sounds, if a teenage hacker's parents commit a crime, their names will likewise stay out of the newspapers. Why? Because it would reveal vital details about the identity of the teenage hacker! We saw a prime example of this in 2000 when one hacker's father was arrested. The unidentified teen stood accused of a $1.7 billion crime, while the unidentified father stood accused of conspiracy to commit assault. (I dared to name both the boy and his dad in a column appropriately titled "this column is banned in Canada.")
OKAY, NOW LET'S talk about a newborn baby named {name withheld}. Thomas C. Greene filed a story in The Register on how detectives used the Internet to track down her mother's killer.

Paparazzi respect the privacy of teenage hackers who commit global cyber-attacks...

...but you know they'll stalk that newborn child to the ends of the earth.

Why did Greene identify the newborn by name in his story? Well, uh, you see, the killer carved {name withheld} from her mother's womb and she somehow survived the "impromptu Caesarian." And, um, well, you know, obviously then, that's why the press needs to identify her by name! {Name withheld} desperately needs her privacy. She'll never get it, though — because she's the victim of a crime, not the perpetrator. You know the paparazzi will do everything they can to snap photos of this newborn child. Her name will splash the pages of Time and Newsweek and, of course, The Enquirer. Media ink will forever tattoo this poor little girl. We can only hope she someday overcomes her privacy stigma like Kim Phuc did. (She was the naked little Vietnamese girl burned by napalm in a Pulitzer-winning photo.) Ironically, if {name withheld} had gone over to the dark side and destroyed computers, she'd get all the privacy she so rightfully deserves. A privacy four boys clearly don't deserve. Enjoy the media's double standard, folks. As for me ... I need to take a shower. Or at least wash my hands. Know what I mean?