Those basement dwelling kids in their PJs are trying to steal our bodily essence, Mandrake ...

In a speech at the National Bank, General Hayden said that there are three types of "sinners" in cyberspace : States, criminal groups and anarchists. 

States are "very good at it. Mine is. I've been director of the NSA and intelligence gathering reasons against legitimate targets, stealing information from other states. This does not put us on par with the Chinese. The Chinese steal things, and we Americans steal. But we do it to ensure the safety of our citizens, we do not do it to enrich our citizens, and that is the difference between us and the Chinese," said Hayden, at the panel on "Intelligence and Cyber Security." 

The second are "criminal groups" found in the former Soviet satellites. They consist of a lot of "talented people working for pay to steal things or to destroy networks on behalf of others." 

The third group is made up of anarchists and activists, as well Guccifer who "do not do it for profit, but simply do." 

In his opinion, the most dangerous is the third group . 

"States should be responsible for their actions. They should be careful that their actions have consequences. Groups have less control, but ultimately, they're parasites. They live on the backs of others. Parasites can not find a way to survive after destroying their "host." 

"I'm bad, but not a catastrophe," said the American general. 

He says he is more worried about the group which consists of people who are "20-something, sitting in pajamas and slippers, still living with their mother in the basement, who are mad at the world, who want to do what you and I can not understand and certainly can not perform." 

Michael Hayden claims that these young people can become very dangerous if they acquire capabilities that currently only states and criminal groups have.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: (Sustained applause.) Phil, I want to thank you for that introduction. And I want to thank Heritage for bringing us all together this morning to talk about the issue of terrorism and its place in American culture. We've got many distinguished guests. I'm not going to single them all out, but I do want to observe that we have Justice Thomas and Ginni Thomas here. (Sustained cheers, applause.) We also have some very distinguished radio commentators. Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham are here. (Cheers, applause.) This is great. If I keep identifying the prominent people in the audience, I'll just get applause throughout the entire speech! (Laughter.)

I have to remember to use that technique in the future. I also want to thank the cast members of "24" and the producers and writers who have come out here, because I think it's a testament to the seriousness with which they take this issue that they've come out to Washington to talk about it...In reflecting a little bit about the popularity of the show "24" -- and it is popular, and there are a number of senior political and military officials around the country who are fans, and I won't identify them, because they may not want me to do that (laughter) I was trying to analyze why it's caught such public attention. Obviously, it's a very well-made and very well-acted show, and very exciting. And the premise of a 24-hour period is a novel and, I think, very intriguing premise. But I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well.

Typically, in the course of the show, although in a very condensed time period, the actors and the characters are presented with very difficult choices -- choices about whether to take drastic and even violent action against a threat, and weighing that against the consequence of not taking the action and the destruction that might otherwise ensue.

In simple terms, whether it's the president in the show or Jack Bauer or the other characters, they're always trying to make the best choice with a series of bad options, where there is no clear magic bullet to solve the problem, and you have to weigh the costs and benefits of a series of unpalatable alternatives. And I think people are attracted to that because, frankly, it reflects real life. That is what we do every day. That is what we do in the government, that's what we do in private life when we evaluate risks. We recognize that there isn't necessarily a magic bullet that's going to solve the problem easily and without a cost, and that sometimes acting on very imperfect information and running the risk of making a serious mistake, we still have to make a decision because not to make a decision is the worst of all outcomes.