I'm sure he'll just whine and complain that he has Asperger's Syndrome, and then if he does get sentenced, he'll be released early on "compassionate" grounds without the government receiving anything in return.

"We know the bloke what did it"

They should because they hired him. There is a leetle-bit more to this tale of woe then is covered here.Somebody could be making out with the Blarney Stone.

WTF...with so many sleezy corps out there that would deserve being hacked and extorted and this scumbag attacks AvSim? Is it gaming or aviation that he hates most? Hacking is not bad in and of itself IMO but a-holes like this who attack "good" businesses deserve a thorough beating [unless he can prove that they screwed him in some unscrupulous way]. Although, I suppose that's why he doesn't attack sleezy businesses because they would likely give him that beating.

Furthermore, I agree with the others that any online business should be responsible enough to maintain a proper backup system.

Jeez, even I, a deranged American with absolutely no knowledge of English, know that the correct version is:

"We know the bloke what done it."

Get your Cockney right, mate!

I agree that not having offsite backup is dumb, but to punish them for it would simply be redundant as well as wrong. After all, they were attacked in May, and here they are in September, and they're still not back up to full capacity. Few businesses could survive that.

Here is the best non-computer scenario I can come up with that covers this situation: A kid throws a brick through a window to get inside your house and tag up everything while destroying your home entertainment system and computers. You find out who the kid is (by asking other kids whose tag it is) and turn that information over to the police.

Your suggestion is similar to saying: "The victim should also be punished for not having a second copy of their expensive stuff in an offsite storage facility!" Not exact, but similar.

My thought: The hacker didn't care that they didn't have offsite backup. If he assumed that they did, then he was an idiot. You take your victims as they are, not as you hope they will be, and should be punished as if you knew their status when you committed the crime.

Not having proper backup off site is as bad as having been hacked.

So half of the sentence would have to go to them.

"We know the bloke what did it"

I think you'll find it was a deliberate kind of coloquialism.

"We know the bloke what did it "

What??? I think the what should be "that"
Is it that hard to do a grammar check? It's like reading an article written by a child.

The sad thing is, if they do actually do anything against the sod which did this, the courts in this country will no doubt just say "naughty boy" and give them a £50 fine or something utterly silly.

I hope this so-called-hacker gets his/her arse kicked hard and has to pay back every penny spent on fixing the shit he/she caused these people (who did nothing to him/her); even if it takes 'it' the rest of 'its' life to do it!

Shame they're not going to do a McKinnon on 'it' too...

Love,

Dave xxx