The 'untouchable hacker god' behind Finland's biggest crime

Hacker identity, OPSEC, and narrative disputes

• Some commenters mock the described operational mistakes (e.g. accidentally tarring a home directory, trivial passwords) as evidence that “only the laziest hackers get caught.”
• Others caution that many details come from prosecution narratives and tabloids, and may not be reliable.
• A commenter claiming to be the convicted hacker appears in the thread, denies committing the crime, and describes the investigation as sloppy (e.g. alleging no home search or device seizure), saying they’re awaiting appeal.
• Several people dig into the person’s past HN comments and external coverage, debating whether this is really the same individual and whether posting publicly is wise.

Media coverage and sources

• The Darknet Diaries episode and other popular accounts are referenced, but some say they rely too heavily on one journalist or poorly translated tabloid material.
• A YouTube “drunken mistake destroyed hacker” video is criticized for being based on low‑quality sources.
• One commenter notes the irony of condemning leaked therapy details while the article itself uses very intimate biographical detail, possibly with consent but still feeling uncomfortable to some readers.

Security failures and legal/accountability issues

• The clinic’s setup (internet-exposed database, no firewall, blank/static password) is widely condemned as gross negligence.
• Strong arguments that executives — especially in healthcare handling sensitive data — should bear personal responsibility if basic security practices (encryption, access control, audits) are missing.
• Others counter that making CEOs criminally liable for every technical failure is “crazy,” and stress that liability should track clearly defined duties and delegation.
• Finnish legal outcomes are discussed: the company’s GDPR fine was much smaller than some believed; the CEO’s criminal conviction was overturned because encryption, firewalls, etc. were not clearly mandated in law at the time.
• Broader debate over whether open-door-style insecurity reduces the moral/ legal gravity of hacking, with analogies to burglary, unlocked houses, and car theft; many insist it remains a serious crime, but that custodians of data must share blame.

Punishment, rehabilitation, and risk

• Some call for draconian sentences and express anger at perceived lack of remorse, predicting reoffense.
• Others defend Nordic-style rehabilitative justice and argue harsh penalties don’t meaningfully reduce crime, though some speculate this case may involve psychopathy.

Ethical hacking and chilling effects (Germany example)

• German law is cited as criminalizing even the use of publicly known or trivial passwords, with a concrete case where decompiling a client and connecting with its built‑in password led to conviction.
• Commenters worry this makes responsible disclosure too legally risky, leading skilled hackers to stay silent instead of reporting severe vulnerabilities.

Therapy, electronic records, and privacy

• Several people say this incident reinforces their refusal to use therapists who keep electronic notes or provide online/video therapy; some suggest fake identities, others see that as unrealistic.
• Broader pessimism that many sensitive digital records (therapy, insurance, biometrics, chat logs) will inevitably be breached over the next decade.
• Counterpoint: the solution should be strong regulation and mandatory encryption, not abandoning electronic records entirely.