Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TJX Hacker Claims US Authorized His Crimes

Posted by samzenpus on from the one-armed-man dept.

doperative writes "Convicted hacker Albert Gonzalez is asking a federal judge to throw out his earlier guilty pleas and lift his record-breaking 20-year prison sentence, on allegations that the government authorized his years-long crime spree. From the article: 'The government has acknowledged that Gonzalez was a key undercover Secret Service informant at the time of the breaches. Now, in a March 24 habeas corpus petition filed in the US District Court in Massachusetts, Gonzalez asserts that the Secret Service authorized him to commit the crimes. “I still believe that I was acting on behalf of the United States Secret Service and that I was authorized and directed to engage in the conduct I committed as part of my assignment to gather intelligence and seek out international cyber criminals,” he wrote. “I now know and understand that I have been used as a scapegoat to cover someone’s mistakes.”'"

159 comments

  1. It's illegal... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's illegal if the gov't does it too. They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:It's illegal... by masterwit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes but perhaps his sentence will be taken into consideration considering these new facts (if they are true). That is why these sentences have a range of penalties...

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    2. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. Possibly he has accomplices in Government who should also be behind bars but I don't see how that undermines his own conviction.

    3. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes but perhaps his sentence will be taken into consideration considering these new facts (if they are true). That is why these sentences have a range of penalties...

      Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties. Something's seriously wrong if they get lighter ones.

    4. Re:It's illegal... by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah it kind of is, It's called the Nuremburg Defense. It's still illegal but what this guy is saying is that it was is (CO? Handler? I'm not sure of the terminology in this instance) commiting the crime based on the Command Responsibility doctorine.

    5. Re:It's illegal... by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd be very doubtful unless he has good proof he was working for the government.

      the government can do a lot of things and authorize it's agents to do a lot of things which would be illegal otherwise.

      For a trivial example:The executioner is not guilty of murder for executing a person sentenced to death.

      Police can take someone against their will and lock them up overnight for very flimsy reasons without the same penalties as a kidnapper who does the same thing for the same reasons.(Just try locking up your neighbor in your basement against his will to punish him for being drunk in public and see how it turns out for you)

      If someone believes their actions are at the behest of their government it shouldn't be a total defense but intent is important.

    6. Re:It's illegal... by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Definitely not a correctional officer, Idk what a Handler is. He's saying it was a federal agent, the equivalent of a detective or higher but federal instead of state, directed him to commit these crimes. Idk.

    7. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      dude, you made a typo. I think you meant its legal if the gov't does it.

    8. Re:It's illegal... by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties to the people who ordered them.

    9. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Possibly he has accomplices in Government who should also be behind bars but I don't see how that undermines his own conviction.

      Any particular reason for the '-1' on that? Is it really that controversial to suggest that IF he was acting on the instructions of a government agent that that agent should be on trial as an accomplice / instigator?

    10. Re:It's illegal... by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 0

      How about Guantanamo Bay? The government just says 'but the commander in chief told us to do it', blames a government lawyer for giving bad advice and gets off scott-free.

    11. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless he has documented proof that he was receiving these directions (e-mails, recorded conversations (legally recorded or not), etc.) I think his status declines from "government agent" to "sucker."

    12. Re:It's illegal... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      CO in this case would be commanding officer...

    13. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they can't "authorized illegal activity" because that's not a sentence. But they can authorize activity that might otherwise be considered illegal. If you're an informant for the DEA, and they give you a suitcase full of money and tell you to go buy drugs so they can bust the dealer, they can't then turn around and arrest you for buying drugs. Informants often have to get involved in illegal activity, since it's what they inform the police about. This is exactly what Gonzalez is claiming, although he's full of shit.

    14. Re:It's illegal... by Hydian · · Score: 1

      The government does things that would be illegal for the average citizen all the time in the process of law enforcement or intelligence gathering. We entrust them with this power and even put in some checks and balances to prevent it from being abused (stop laughing.) By its very nature, having someone go undercover pretty much demands that some illegal activities are committed in order to get the information required to catch the bad actors before they do something worse. The difference here (if we believe Al and honestly it isn't like his story is really out there or anything) is that they were using an outside resource so they could walk away with clean hands.

    15. Re:It's illegal... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd be very doubtful unless he has good proof he was working for the government.

      According to the article, the government has already admitted that he (Gonzalez) worked for them.

      The strange thing about this is that Gonzalez signed a plea bargain and is now trying to break it. I'm not clear on all the details. Maybe it was one of those situations where someone in the government told him: "Plead guilty and we'll get you a suspended sentence and then you can continue to work for us" but then the judge, not wanting to appear weak on a "cyber" criminal, dropped the 20-bomb on him. That's a long bit for a young nerd to do, even someone who played with Russian mobsters.

      Again, I'm not clear on the details, but I could see the government playing with a guy's life like that, especially someone who was already breaking the law when he first got involved with the Feds.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about case officer?

    17. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well -- when he claims he was being told to go ahead, the actual instruction was to make enough money to pay off a $5000 debt without getting caught.

      I'd say that stealing $75,000 is overplaying that authorization a bit.

    18. Re:It's illegal... by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Capitalist America, government mod -1 YOU!

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    19. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been pulled over for speeding by a cop who was not also speeding?

    20. Re:It's illegal... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      It could well count as entrapment tho depending on the details of the case.

    21. Re:It's illegal... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd be very doubtful unless he has good proof he was working for the government.

      Uhm.. the government ALREADY ADMITTED that they were using him as an undercover informant.

      One of those things about the word "undercover" is that unless you are participating in what is going on, chances are the people you are trying to inform on will peg you real quick. "Hey, don't talk to that guy, everyone he talks to gets busted by the feds."

      The Secret Service is no different than any other law enforcement agency. The dirtiest, most corrupt wing is always "Vice", simply because in order to find the guys they're trying to bust the cops have to get very, very, very dirty themselves. Sometimes they go native, sometimes they really go native, sometimes they get really freaking insane (more here. Sometimes it's even worse. Undercover cops on major mafia infiltration cases have had almost carte blanche to participate in anything that went on, so long as they testified later.

      Am I completely convinced he's telling the truth? No. Is it reasonably plausible that someone in the Secret Service gave him verbal instructions to do certain things in order to keep his credibility up so as to set up future busts, but then decided he wasn't worth it and used him as a scapegoat? Absolutely.

    22. Re:It's illegal... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. Of course the government can authorize illegal activity. In fact it happens all the time, and we even have an entire theory of the constitutional presidency which justifies it. Whether they did in this case, though, I don't know.

    23. Re:It's illegal... by microbox · · Score: 2

      They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.

      Unless it is illegal warrantless wiretapping, and you are a big telco.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    24. Re:It's illegal... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Definitely not a correctional officer

      The best I have for CO in this context is "Case Officer", but, like the GP ... not sure that is the term used by the parties here.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    25. Re:It's illegal... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      yes you're correct, I only skimmed it before.
      It shouldn't be too hard at all to prove if he was actually receiving the 75K pay etc.

      His story certainly is plausible though he may have been doing far more than his handlers knew: multiple online identities and all.

      Though I would have thought that once you busted someone and had them working for you things such as hardware keyloggers with some hardened hardware and reqirements like only using authorized hardware would be part of the deal to allow auditing to make sure they're only doing what they're told.

    26. Re:It's illegal... by Culture20 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      How about case officer?

      Carbon Monoxide? CO made him do it.

    27. Re:It's illegal... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      His handler told him to go ahead and clear the debt, "just don't get caught." I think that makes it clear that the Secret Service was telling him that they would not go after him for anything he did, but that they would be unable to protect him from other law enforcement organizations. Of course, the other problem with his use of this defense is that he turned out to be one of the two biggest sources of credit card numbers for the guy they were after (or at least one of the guys they were after). In other words, if not for him, the crime they were using to try and solve would have been much smaller.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    28. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Undercover cops are allowed to commit illegal, criminal activities in order to "fit in".

    29. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is called the Nuremberg defense because it was invoked there, not because it was successful. In fact the the key thing to remember about the Nuremberg defense is that those using it was found guilty anyway, and sentenced to death.

    30. Re:It's illegal... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      It's illegal if the gov't does it too. They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.

      Be that as it may, the CIA director has admitted to his department supplying drugs to the LA street gangs. When does this trial begin?
      This "cracker" is nothing more than a dupe. Therefore, plausible deniability.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    31. Re:It's illegal... by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually the break goes the other way if he was promised a suspended sentence and the Judge gave him a "couple dimes" then the state broke the agreement.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    32. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties to the people who ordered them.

      And the offender. If we make it a matter of a soldier (cyber or otherwise) going "Well if you want to take that risk, sir" rather than "Fuck you, sir" - it makes it that much easier for the government to be corrupt. I don't believe the person requisitioning or even making the attempt to requisition such services should be let off the hook at all, on the contrary, I believe they should have the penalty they would receive if they perpetrated a crime simply for requesting it be done, but you can't let the guy off or be more lenient simply because he claims ignorance, I mean he's a hacker for fuck's sake - even the secret service agent ordering him to undertake such activities would be more fitting for a claim of ignorance (not that it should have a response other than being ignored/increasing the penalty simply for the guile) - hackers are intimately familiar with the laws involved - it's why proxies exist.

    33. Re:It's illegal... by shentino · · Score: 2

      He may well have a duress defense if he was blackmailed into it with threats of a bigger sentence.

    34. Re:It's illegal... by shentino · · Score: 1

      That's called a citizen's arrest.

      The problem with not being a cop is strict liability if you fuck it up.

    35. Re:It's illegal... by comm3c · · Score: 1

      I have been close to this case for various reasons, but this dude's exploits were only detected after the card brands detected massive fraud. The Secret Service might have authorized breaches, but I am sure the Secret Service didn't authorize CC fraud or divulging cardholder data to random people for them to commit fraud.

    36. Re:It's illegal... by Jurily · · Score: 2

      If we make it a matter of a soldier (cyber or otherwise) going "Well if you want to take that risk, sir" rather than "Fuck you, sir" - it makes it that much easier for the government to be corrupt.

      Keep in mind that those people who casually order you to commit crimes, may also casually order other people to commit crimes against you. I would certainly take this into account when dealing out sentences.

    37. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal if the gov't does it too. They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.

      Unless you are AT&T, Verison, Sprint, etc. doing warrentless wiretapping when it was still illegal.

    38. Re:It's illegal... by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 2

      It's only illegal if the law says it's illegal. A lot of the "anti-hacking" laws have provisions that basically say "This law not applicable to Law Enforcement and the US Government". So "It's illegal if the gov't does it too" isn't always true.

    39. Re:It's illegal... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      "But doesn't might make right?" chorus G.W. Bush and the leader of China.

      Things may be against the law but that doesn't matter if you have somewhere like China where the rule of law takes second place to expedience. We are getting a lot like China where we pretend the rule of law is important but instead act like a medieval King John before Magna Carta. Nobody is supposed to be above the law - not even a President and those who follow him. Nobody is supposed to be below the law - not even some prisoners picked up in a war zone. The last administration really did take a 1000 year backward step and it's going to take a while to recover from that if we want to pretend to have the high moral ground above those without a history of respecting the rule of law.
      Of course telling a JUDGE that you think you should be immune to the rule of law is not going to work unless they are dishonest. It's like telling a Judge that their job is irrelevant.

    40. Re:It's illegal... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      You haven't really been following the changes in the legal landscape during the Bush era, have you ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    41. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It undermines his conviction because the jury that did the convicting was unable to consider it in weighing guilt or sentencing.

    42. Re:It's illegal... by zill · · Score: 1

      Pleas allow me to summarize your argument:

      The Government is authorized to commit illegal acts A,B,C
      Therefore the Government is also authorized to commit illegal acts C,D,F

      I'm pretty sure there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere. Unfortunately I'm not well verse enough on the subject matter to name it.

      There is a huge difference between publicly carrying out the execution of a convicted criminal and secretly attacking your own people with a computer virus.

    43. Re:It's illegal... by darth+dickinson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties. Something's seriously wrong if they get lighter ones.

      So, you're saying that narcs should get jail time for buying illegal drugs, in order to catch dealers "in the act"?

    44. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nuremberg defense is so called because it was used in the nuremberg trials post WWII... it was declared invalid then and should be declared invalid now.

    45. Re:It's illegal... by tsm_sf · · Score: 2

      From what I can tell, Nuremberg is the only instance where this defense didn't work.

      (only very slightly sarcastic here)

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    46. Re:It's illegal... by Golddess · · Score: 2

      it was declared invalid then and should be declared invalid now

      Right, because torturing and murdering thousands* of people is completely the same thing as what this guy did.

      Now I'm not saying that this guy should get off scot-free (I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other), only that you are a moron.

      *Yes, the overall deathtoll was in the millions, but I'm being generous and guessing that any one individual person was only involved with enough people to number in the thousands.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    47. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, they should. You cant break the law and then fine/jail people for breaking the very same law.

    48. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Simply put. If it's illegal for me to buy drugs no matter the fucking reason - then it's illegal for them to buy drugs no matter the fucking reason.

      One law for all people. If that makes it hard to prosecute for something, then maybe we should question whether it's worth suspending the most basic principle of our legal system, purely to catch out a few people?

    49. Re:It's illegal... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Our trial system is in shambles in large part because of people like you. Either the person is guilty or they are not. Declaring that someone is guilty BECAUSE the crime was bad is how innocent people end up in prison or executed. It is a complete failure of logic and reason.

    50. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    51. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad example, neither of those should get jail time.

    52. Re:It's illegal... by mmaniaci · · Score: 2

      A resounding YES. Undercover cops buying drugs is not quite entrapment, but IMO they're just exploiting a loophole so it may as well be. The war on drugs is a farce anyhow.

    53. Re:It's illegal... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Didn't a bunch of phone companies get away with illegal wiretapping on the grounds that the government told them to do it?

    54. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud) should be subject to harsher penalties. Something's seriously wrong if they get lighter ones.

      So, you're saying that narcs should get jail time for buying illegal drugs, in order to catch dealers "in the act"?

      No. You may need to read again a little slower "Seems like government agents breaking laws like these (theft and fraud)". I guess maybe you think that drug trafficking is like theft and fraud. If so then that's a bit weird but anyway not what I was saying. If government agents go around stealing from people then they should be liable for that. "Okay, I stole from some innocent bystanders but it's okay because I was after that guy over there who also does that stuff" shouldn't cut it.

    55. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Undercover cops buy illegal drugs in order to catch dealers "in the act" all the time. You don't see them get locked up for it do you?

    56. Re:It's illegal... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Post-Nuremburg trials, it's been a staple of basic training in just about every professional army in the world that soldiers are made aware of the fact that their obligation is to the state, not the government, and if the government (or chain of command) issues an illegal order, their legal (and moral) obligation is to refuse. It was certainly part of my training with the Canadian military.

    57. Re:It's illegal... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Erm, where exactly did I advocate punishing people who have simply been accused of a horrendous crime?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    58. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the mantras of law enforcement is "sometimes you have to break the law to enforce the law." An example is speeding to catch drivers evading arrest.

    59. Re:It's illegal... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The part where you implied that the seriousness of the crime had any bearing at all on the verdict of innocent or guilty.

    60. Re:It's illegal... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Care to provide the relevant portion of my post? I'm failing to recognize it.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    61. Re:It's illegal... by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      OK, admittedly that was a bad example. But if this guy's story is true, and he was told to break this particular law to "fit in" with this particular group of criminals...well, certainly we can see the parallels. Maybe a better example is the "speeding to catch a speeder" that another poster hit upon, since it's obvious that drugs laws are a bit of a hot button issue :)

    62. Re:It's illegal... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      "Entrapment" would be a legal defense.

      Rule 1 of doing anything for the government: get that shit in writing. Their verbal promises are expressly voided by the fine print in the contract you didn't sign.

    63. Re:It's illegal... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Right, because torturing and murdering thousands* of people is completely the same thing as what this guy did.

      This is clearly implying that the seriousness of the crime has any bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent.

    64. Re:It's illegal... by moortak · · Score: 1

      Following orders from government agents is a valid defense in a lot of criminal trials. We have volumes case law on entrapment.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    65. Re:It's illegal... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I think I can see where you're coming from now, and I didn't mean it like that at all. I wasn't trying to say that the seriousness of a crime should have bearing on if someone is guilty, only that the seriousness of a crime should perhaps, in some circumstances, have bearing on if "I was just following orders" is a valid defense or should have any impact on sentencing.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    66. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal if the gov't does it too. They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.

      Of course not. That's why they simply offer them immunity from prosecution. But you ought to get it in writing first :)

    67. Re:It's illegal... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If it is a valid defense, then the person is not guilty. You are saying that the seriousness of the crime should have a bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent. You are just using different sentences to say the exact same thing.

    68. Re:It's illegal... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      actually the break goes the other way if he was promised a suspended sentence and the Judge gave him a "couple dimes" then the state broke the agreement.

      That's a good point. Either way, it looks like he really was doing work for the Secret Service, who told him they'd look the other way and "don't get caught". But he got caught.

      If the Secret Service hadn't gotten their mitts on him in the first place, he'd still be boosting credit card numbers. It's not like I don't think he should be in jail, just that he ought to have some company.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    69. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dealer

    70. Re:It's illegal... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Quit being a prick. He said something. You misunderstood. He corrected you. You are now being purposefully obtuse to assert he meant something other that what he asserted he meant.

      At best, he's asserting that the circumstances of the crime have an effect on whether the person is guilty of the crime he is charged with (something the law explicitly recognizes) and that the circumstances of the crime have an effect on the sentencing once found guilty (something the law explicitly recognizes). So, what's the problem? The law agrees with him and not you, and his statements were reasonable and not what you asserted he said.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    71. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say is true, but we can't jail him alone. Everyone in that particular chain of command should also go to jail or he should be set free. That is justice.

    72. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking the law is breaking the law. Especially when those entrusted to uphold the law start breaking it. A police car can drive at speed without breaking the law. Any more useless analogies there?

    73. Re:It's illegal... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that he wasn't "authorized" to commit any crime, but that he was encouraged to commit crimes if they helped get him in deeper into "the scene" so that the feds could get bigger fish. They didn't order him to do what he did, but they encouraged him to break the law with the promise of protection.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    74. Re:It's illegal... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      The point is: given the other examples, ABC it's not absurd for someone to believe that the government can give them permission to do C,D and F as well.
      Agents under cover in criminal organizations appear to have some protection when it comes to things they have to do while under cover.

    75. Re:It's illegal... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      You are saying that the seriousness of the crime should have a bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent.

      Obvious troll is obvious. I have stated plenty of times that that is not what I am saying, but what the hell, I'll try once more.

      I am saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if certain defenses can vindicate a person who is already guilty of performing whatever act they have been accused of, not if they should be found guilty in the first place. To bring out the current bogeyman, someone accused of child pornography-related crimes should not automatically be found guilty, they should get a fair trial just like anyone else.

      Also, I am not saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if you can raise certain defenses. Although "I was just following orders" or anything else where you admit guilt is a little tricky, since some acts (such as those performed by certain Nazis) have been deemed so heinous that, if you did them (and claiming that you were just following orders generally means you are admitting to doing it. At least, I'm having a hard time imagining why you would claim "I was just following orders" if you didn't do the thing you're accused of), it's your fault and yours alone.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    76. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they can. It's called a "license." Look it up, genius.

    77. Re:It's illegal... by vandon · · Score: 1

      True, you're not supposed to follow illegal orders....but you better be damn right about it. Because either way, you're going to a court martial or summary court martial for insubordination.

    78. Re:It's illegal... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Boy, you must be new here. Here in the US of A, we allow our wealthiest citizens and corporations to break the law almost at will. If they're stupid enough to get caught, we make sure that the penalties are anything but "harsh". That's the way our system works and if you don't like it, you're a god-danged socialist.

    79. Re:It's illegal... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      I know that in my army training there was a difference between a "regular" illegal order and a superior order (which is what is meant when we talk about the Nuremburg defense).
      A "regular" illegal order is something which, while illegal, does not cause irreversible harm to others. A superior order is meant in context of an order that can cause such harm; it carries a "moral red flag" (as we called it) with it.
      A soldier who is given a "regular" illegal order (e.g. steal a song) should inform his commander that it is illegal, but if his commander informs him that he should still do it, since it is imperative for the good of the mission (e.g. gather important counterintelligence), than the soldier is covered, and the full responsibility is on the commander. If the issue comes to court, the commander has to justify why the breaking of the law was imperative in order to complete the mission. A superior order, OTOH, is something that is clearly illegal from a moral standpoint, and a soldier has no choice but to refuse the order.

      Now, I don't know what Albert Gonzalez's mission was, but I think his defense should stand up in court, given his story is true*.

      * Assuming all I said regarding the army is relevant to the Secret Service.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    80. Re:It's illegal... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      You're right, but that doesn't mean it isn't a mitigating factor that can be used during sentencing. If he can get a 20 year sentence reduced to a 10 year sentence, that would be a huge win for him.

    81. Re:It's illegal... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Yes... but are we sure he was working for the Secret Service? Seems a bit far-fetched that the agency tasked with protecting the life of the president would involve itself in something as pedantic as computer hacking in order to catch a few embezzlers....[

      And yes, you're right about the distinction between a regular order and a "superior order", but the nomenclature is different in different parts of the world. In Canada, if my superior asks me to do something that's illegal, and I explain that it's illegal, I have a right to not perform the order.

      Of course, within certain arms of the military, most of the job description would be illegal for a civilian. I cannot tell you the number of things I learned during my time in radio-telecommunications that would seriously piss off the CRTC in Canada, or the FCC in the US....

    82. Re:It's illegal... by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      No, the prosecutor and judge are from separate branches of the government. Separation of powers means the "government" wasn't making a deal, the administrative branch was. By custom, judges seldom impose a sentence longer than the prosecutors recommends. Any deal would be to have the prosecutor recommend a particular sentence. The judge can accept or reject that recommendation.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    83. Re:It's illegal... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      Secret Service also investigates counterfeit currency as well as certain computer crimes as authorized in United States Code, Title 18, Section 1029.

      --
      New Economic Perspectives
    84. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about. All government is, is a gang or liars, thieves, and murdurers.

      Just to go to the statutes

      "A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, such person knowingly:

      1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive him of such property..." Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1802

      "A person commits first degree murder if, without lawful authority, such person knowingly:

      1: Intending or knowing that a persons conduct will cause death..."Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1105

      You can find the same language for sexual molestation of a child, armed robbery, riot, and indecent exposure.

    85. Re:It's illegal... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      One of the mantras of law enforcement is "sometimes you have to break the law to enforce the law." An example is speeding to catch drivers evading arrest.

      That's just silly. Speed laws frequently have exceptions built in for law enforcement and emergency services. Ambulances, for example, may be allowed to exceed the speed limit by 10 mph when circumstances warrant provided they have lights and sirens on and follow certain other requirements. There's no law-breaking involved because the law specifically allows for that.

      I imagine similar exceptions have long been carved out for police attempting to enforce laws, catch speeders, etc.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    86. Re:It's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the son of a cop and my entire family with the exception of myself are or were cops. I happen to agree with mmaniaci on this one. When you arrange for the purchase of drugs you are in turn enabling a larger purchase of drugs by the dealer's supplier. This in-turn enables the smuggler (Dealer's suppliers source) to import TONS (and I mean that literally) of new product into the country in which it is sold. So yes arguably it is one event to try and end future events like that in the future but it still assists and perpetuates the cycle after the fact because the dealer which you caught has already paid his supplier who has already paid the smuggler.The smuggler will then bring more product into the country because he has made his money and even if the dealer gives up the supplier the smuggler will always be able to off-load his/her product to someone else before getting caught.

      With regards to this article. Anyone who thinks that the US government doesn't employ hackers to carryout covert ops is simply dreaming. If the HB Gary Federal/ Bank of America incident isn't an indication of the moral compass of the current government then I don't know what is. So long as this gentleman can prove that his en-devours were in fact government sanctioned then I see no reason why he should not be shown lean ency in his sentence. I also think that his superiors within the government should face jail-time as well. Could you imagine if as a nation america showed a solider this sort of treatment after carrying out a controversial mission and his supervisors made an error, There would be a public outrage.

    87. Re:It's illegal... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Yes... but are we sure he was working for the Secret Service?

      I have it on good authority that he was working for SDA6 and has a much better chance of a legal defense under US sexual discrimination guidelines.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    88. Re:It's illegal... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Fucking global warming

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  2. Doing "bad" things for "good" causes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd have to be stupid to think that the cause justifies any and all means. So now that the milk has turned sour don't complain it does not taste so good.

    Killing in the name of.

  3. Jury member: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, like we've never heard that one before.

  4. Sounds like a novel turned into real life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, Dan Brown (or another author who entertains me but has yet to earn my respect) could've written a ridiculous story like this one!

    1. Re:Sounds like a novel turned into real life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and in case you're wondering why I don't respect Brown I think he's mastered the art of entertaining his readers but NOT the art of writing a "good on its own" novel. Take away the scandal from the Robert Langdon trilogy and you've got three bland stories (especially the lost symbol!). His past work (deception point and digital fortress) was a little better, but far from excellent.

  5. almighty; rebates, bailouts coming, giving back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somehow overlooked in all the hoopla, was/is the unproven uncounted trillions upon trillions of mammons collected through the almighty's chosen ones holycost tithing programs. as this treasure trove of earthly resources could never have all been spent on the highly profitable crusades, or the simple lives lead by god's chosen, & we all know that the big himself doesn't need any ducats, as he has the whole world in his hands.

    so, it's tithing (X centuries) back at at ya? administered by... guess who? the only one who is the only one we have,,, here, with us.

    it's all in the genuine native american elders rising bird of prey leadership initiative (teepeeleaks etchings).

    1. Re:almighty; rebates, bailouts coming, giving back by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you're wrong.

      It's the Illuminati bringing back The Old Ones to immanentize the eschaton.

      The sarcrifices will begin after midnight, right after the American Medical Association band does its third encore.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:almighty; rebates, bailouts coming, giving back by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      You joke ... but Call of Cthulhu had earthquakes and what-not happening from March 22 to April 2 that were the result of Cthulhu rising.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    3. Re:almighty; rebates, bailouts coming, giving back by bmo · · Score: 1

      I've got my reserved ticket to be eaten first.

      Neener neener.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:almighty; rebates, bailouts coming, giving back by imric · · Score: 2

      Kick out the JAMS!

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  6. Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, if you read the article this gets weirder and weirder.

    "Gonzalez’s former attorney, Rene Palomino, disputes assertions that the Secret Service approved Gonzalez’s crimes."

    Does being his 'former' attorney mean that client-attorney confidentiality no longer applies? And how the hell does Rene Palomino know the details of whether or what the Secret Service approved of - was he in on it too?

    1. Re:Lawyers by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Lawyers and judges are often cozier than we'd like to imagine. Judges were lawyers. It sounds like if Palomino was Gonzalez's attourey, he must have recused(sic?) himself from the case. My guess is that Palomino didn't want to present what he saw as a ridiculous defence that would probably do Gonzalez more harm than good (by pissing off the judge). Just a guess though.

    2. Re:Lawyers by alen · · Score: 1

      as a rule lawyers cannot introduce false evidence into court. since this is probably a lie the former lawyer can talk about it all he wants.

      you can defend your client, but have to do so within the bounds of factual evidence or dispute the government's evidence

    3. Re:Lawyers by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Does being his 'former' attorney mean that client-attorney confidentiality no longer applies?

      For one, obviously, the former (or present) attorney has no obligation to keep confidential the narrative of the plea bargain.

  7. Thought he was full of it, until I saw his handler by unassimilatible · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After seeing the agent in charge of Gonzalez, now I'm thinking there might be some truth...out there.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  8. limited time; 2 eyes for an eye, 2 teeth for 1 etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this offer cannot last for eternity, so get your spare parts while they can be gotten, or it goes back to even trade.

  9. Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, but this sounds really implausible to me. I'd need to see some solid proof before Id' accept this. For one, I can't see what the Secret Service would hope to gain. I mean if they need records for credit card transactions at stores they've got a far easier way to get them: Just subpoena the CC processors. They can have whoever the stores use (companies like Paymentech or the like) hand over all the records. Not only is that legal, but it is also much more covert since the companies themselves are not compromised.

    This would be how investigations work. They just get a court order for the people who have the info to hand it over, they don't hire some random guy to try and hack your shit. They get a subpoena or a warrant (depending on what they need, in some cases they might want to monitor traffic live for that they'd have a wiretap warrant) and they go to the people with the info. It's legal, maintains the chain of evidence, and gets much more guaranteed results than hacking.

    Also I find it hard to believe that if he really was working under orders from the SS that he wouldn't have told his lawyers and they wouldn't have done something. In my experience federal public defenders aren't morons. It is a good job, they can get good people. I can't imagine if he had opened up with "Guys I didn't think I was doing anything wrong! The Secret Service told me to do this!" they wouldn't have investigated that.

    To me, sounds like something he invented in a way to try and get out of jail. I'm not saying it is impossible, but I find it rather beyond credibility.

    1. Re:Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't see what the Secret Service would hope to gain. I mean if they need records for credit card transactions at stores they've got a far easier way to get them: Just subpoena the CC processors.

      The TJX hack was carried out by a group of people. This guy appears to be claiming that he was planted in the group by the government, presumably to collect information on the other members of the group, not CC records.

    2. Re:Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two scenarios are equally very possible. And brings you down to the question, whether you believe this guy or dont - and why.
      Gonzales is guilty. It leaves the question, where Gonzales' guilt lies. In having an unbelievable excuse which is a last stupid cry or not just with him alone.

      you believe in a very ordered government.

      while it is always humans leading it.

      which does not mean you don't have a point. since he is also just a human claiming things. we will never know, but what would you do, if a federal agent tells you to do stuff and make you sound important. maybe your belief in an ordered state (as in nation) comes to your rescue, since you don't trust things. but maybe your belief in a chance for adventure will get abused to kick you in the butt as things crumble down. Some people might want to use you, and work for the same government you think so ordered and tactical about.

      Tactically this makes you a risky candidat for our program. ^^

    3. Re:Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It explains in the story that he was trying to maintain his "cover" and thought that the SS would get him out of the mess. Once he realized he was screwed he started talking.

    4. Re:Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you have it backwards. The agents want to understand how the criminals trade the CC data, how they bargain, and what is valuable as "currency", To do this, they authorize one criminal to do what they do normally and then keep tabs on that person. The processors would only be one end of an evidence chain.

    5. Re:Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a 10-page NYT article that pretty much described what happened. It seemed as though the SS was using him to gather information about other hackers in order to take them down. They succeeded in one raid and were trying to continue gathering evidence. I can definitely see where he would get confused or think that he was supposed to carry out these actions in order to help take down other hackers. However, he was making butt-loads of money at the time doing these hacks as well so I could see this also being a way to lessen his sentence.

      Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

    6. Re:Ummmm, not buying the bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one, I can't see what the Secret Service would hope to gain. I mean if they need records for credit card transactions at stores they've got a far easier way to get them: Just subpoena the CC processors. They can have whoever the stores use (companies like Paymentech or the like) hand over all the records. Not only is that legal, but it is also much more covert since the companies themselves are not compromised.

      Emphasis mine. Sending out subpoenas implies the opposite of secrecy. Duh?

  10. He's arguing ineffective assistance of counsel by unassimilatible · · Score: 2

    Essentially saying his attorney F'd up. The attorney has a right to defend himself against false charges of malpractice. Otherwise, every single criminal defense attorney who lost a case could be sued with no defense. I think the theory here is, lawyers have a duty of confidentiality about what they are told, but no such duty about what they weren't told, and no duty to further propagate lies clients tell them. On the contrary, there is a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

    IAALBNYLSDROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice).

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:He's arguing ineffective assistance of counsel by mangu · · Score: 1

      I think the theory here is, lawyers have a duty of confidentiality about what they are told, but no such duty about what they weren't told, and no duty to further propagate lies clients tell them

      -"Counselor, did your client ever tell you he was innocent?"

      -"Nope"

      Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, period. They cannot reveal, directly or indirectly, what their clients told them. And, except for sworn statements, they can tell lies, if that's in the client's best interests. Obviously, law enforcement people also tell lies, if they think it will help convict the suspect.

      It's only on the witness stand that they have the duty to answer every question truthfully, although even there they don't have (are not allowed to) answer what wasn't asked. It's not perjury if you don't volunteer information.

  11. Doesn't add up by Rashdot · · Score: 1

    He made $75.000,00 a year but couldn't pay off a debt of $5000,00?

    He's convicted for millions of dollars worth of fraud, but can't afford a ticket to Turkey for his lawyer?

    Can someone explain, please.

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
    1. Re:Doesn't add up by mangu · · Score: 1

      He made $75.000,00 a year but couldn't pay off a debt of $5000,00?

      He's convicted for millions of dollars worth of fraud, but can't afford a ticket to Turkey for his lawyer?

      Can someone explain, please.

      Google for "frozen assets" or "impounded assets"

    2. Re:Doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they seized his assets.


      What century do you live in?

    3. Re:Doesn't add up by lsamaha · · Score: 1

      My reading of the story is that his debt was incurred prior to the Secret Service salary of 75k, and it's easy to imagine Gonzalez short on ready cash and concerned about his credibility (or safety) in the criminal community. It doesn't sound like the Secret Service was concerned enough to pay this relatively meager debt. The Lithuanian "carder" allegedly tortured in Turkey (Yastremskiy) is not the same man as the Secret Service employee (Gonzalez) convicted of credit card theft, and Turkish prison wards may be less sympathetic to requests for legal counsel than their American counterparts. This thread demonstrates how, to some, the blame for an individual misdeed is easily diverted as conspiratorial, and how doing so requires a willingness to blur important details of a case. Gonzalez' new line of argument (that he took people's money because the government made him do so) was likely dismissed by his original lawyer because it was unlikely, unprovable, or had little chance of success given what we are quite certain he did - debit innocent people's bank accounts for his personal use.

  12. Culturally Illiterate? by swrider · · Score: 1

    Didn't he ever watch "Patriot Games"? He should have known he needed his piece of paper.

    1. Re:Culturally Illiterate? by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that clear and present danger?

  13. Plausible deniability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Politicians and bureaucrats hide behind plausible deniability. That is, they deny knowing about that which they created. The secret is not to actually order something done. The subordinate has to figure it out for himself. Then, when the subordinate gets caught, the politician can plausibly deny giving the order or, in fact, knowing anything about the foul deed.

    Our hacker may indeed have been encouraged in his actions but you sure won't find any proof unless he was wearing a wire when he was talking to his handlers.

    The hacker has no credibility. He's a criminal. No one will believe him even if he is telling the truth. The system works so well (to protect the guilty).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

  14. jesus; my dad is not a murderer, get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a matter of fact, there's no evidence that he, or i even exist, so how we're pulling off this double your parts rebate thing, is even a little mystical.

    to unprove once again, if i did exist, & of such perfect breeding, why, in god's name would we want to hurt anyone, or coerce our flock into hurting anyone? chariots? honestly...

  15. does that explain the missing monkey hymens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes. thank you

  16. Either not a collaborator or lucky as all hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_letters

    Ivins' collaboration in helping justify Iraq got him a really painful "suicide."

  17. not the same thing as cops / firetrucks to not fal by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    not the same thing as cops / firetrucks / others to not fall under speeding laws when responding and they have training on how to be safe and most speeding is from speed traps / cash cows on roads where a high speed is safe.

  18. Simple solution by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    Keep him in prison, and throw the people from the Secret Service who "authorized" him in with him.

    --

    Technoli
  19. what are the laws for informants / uncover? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    what are the laws for informants / uncover?

    uncovers cops break the laws all the time (just on a basic level of having a fake ID what happens in a traffic stop?) to much more as part of being uncover.

    and informants are in some of same place what happens if a beat cops gets them with drugs on them at are part of being a informant? or they get fingered by the people they are informing one as part of deal to get off easy and not all cops know they are a informant / it's for a different crime?

    1. Re:what are the laws for informants / uncover? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer, and don't know much about it, but I'd imagine that anyone in a situation like that is royally screwed.

  20. The secretary by Phurge · · Score: 1

    Has the secretary disavowed all knowledge of his actions?

    If not, then I don't believe it

    --
    I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
  21. Details look confirmable (and OLD) by somethingwicked · · Score: 1

    RTFP =Petition? :)

    Most of the things he attests to actually seem plausible. My guess would be he did participate, with their knowledge and consent on SOME operations. (He probably did very little, but is exagerating to make it seem that he was lead to believe he was now an ACTUAL agent himself)

    But, where he fails is that it all look quite a while before the crime for which he was convicted. Like three years later...

    Summary- I think he did turn informant on some earlier crimes, but did this well after.

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

  22. So you're a lawyer now? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    -"Counselor, did your client ever tell you he was innocent?"

    -"Nope"

    Cute, but of course, not analogous to claiming, after you've admitted guilt in court, "I told my lawyer about a defense and he didn't use it."

    Lawyers do have a right to defend themselves from claims of malpractice, unless you have some new case law I haven't seen that was passed in the last week; I've been pretty busy lately.

    Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, period.

    No, it isn't "period." There is a well-settled crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, in this case, arguably committing a fraud against the court.

    Please stop impersonating a lawyer.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  23. Letter of Immunity by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    IANALOC ( I am not a lawyer or criminal) , but in most countries except the shadiest ones, if you are directed by tge government to commit illegal activities, with it you also get a letter of immunity from prosecution which you carry with you on all times.

    Does such a letter or written authorization exist in this case?

    --
    New Economic Perspectives
    1. Re:Letter of Immunity by edalytical · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Jack Bauer was too busy making his TV show and couldn't hand deliver the letter. Ask again in 24 hours.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    2. Re:Letter of Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No letter? No operation. You all know what happened to CIA agent Timothy McVeigh.

  24. Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat by MrSenile · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having had... friends... involved in similar situations, I can attest to the case that if this guy worked for the Government, and was a scapegoat, they basically set him up for failure.

    If he succeeded and was able to hide his tracks of hacking, the Government got their information and won.

    If he failed and was unable to hide his tracks of hacking, the Government got partial information and won.

    If the guy failed gloriously, the Government got what information they could, and have an instant scapegoat. Just add press. And won.

    Win win for the government, and they can say at any time plausible deniability.

    The friend in question I had was an excellent hacker. He hacked into banks for shits and giggles, went into government systems like a person would skip in the park. One day, he screwed up, the government found out, the guy disappeared. No jail time, no newspaper/press of him hacking. And all his college entrance and time spent at college disappeared as well. For all intents and purposes the guy never went to college, and I'll be surprised if there was anything other than a clean-record of the guy other than being born, his SS#, and place of residence. White-washed history for government signed-on hacker. And because of the dirt the government now had on this guy, he became Uncle Sam's bitch.

    How the good ol' government gets these people to accept said positions of scapegoatness is fairly simple.

    They find dirt on someone exceptionally good at computer espionage, or if they can't find legit dirt, they create some and seed it throughout the gold ol' internet and stack false records against them, at least in such a way to make it... difficult... for the target individual to live a decent life without cow-towing to the government officials.

    Said person signs documentation that makes them 'legally' work for said government that is their 'get out of jail free' card. Except, the documentation doesn't really exist unless it is in the best interests of the government. Ergo, they have the hacker by the balls. The hacker continues to do a good job, and can cover their tracks enough to not point a finger at the government in -any way- or can hide their existance in such a way to be not backtraced, any and all possible ability to nail the guy goes up in smoke. All logs, all reports, disappear. If they can point their finger in anyway at either the hacker or the government, the 'get out of jail free' card becomes toilet paper and the guy's head goes to the block as the scapegoat.

    May sound like bullshit, but as I've seen this shit first hand, it's not a pleasant experience.

    It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

    Just food for thought.

    1. Re:Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's never a good idea to sign documents that don't exist.

    2. Re:Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If he worked for the government he'd have a paper trail. Check deposits, orders, emails, etc.

      He'd keep the evidence.

      If he has no evidence, it never happened, or might as well have never happened.

      If he just let someone else convince him he was working for the Secret Service, then it's a hilarious example of social engineering.

      Bravo to whoever crocked a l33t h4xx0r like that.

    3. Re:Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move to a different country.

      No passport? immigrate to mexico.

    4. Re:Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Yes, it does sound like bullshit. It sounds like you've been listening to stories at hacker conventions, and adopting them as first-hand knowledge.

      I don't believe for a minute somebody's college info would be wiped out like that -- and why would it need to be? And the claim about being framed, well which is it, was this guy caught in a crime as you said, or was he framed? Since you claim the former, this latter bit is just making stuff up that fits your worldview.

      Sorry, but your story isn't credible. I might believe there's a grain of truth to it, but most of it sounds like fantastical musings.

    5. Re:Goverment + Hackers = Scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just thinkin' - ya know, folks, if you're a person who has these kind of talents, it might help to stop for a moment, consider the big picture, and assume that at some point the government is gonna come for you. Because you don't know exactly who will be coming first, or what they'll have in mind (recruitment, arrest, or just mayhem), it might be an idea to set up a whole boatload of backup plans to help with anything from identity erasure to character assassination to a full-out SWAT raid.

      And don't assume that anything connected to your current identity, anything you ever did through your regular computers, anything suspicious from your nearby town area, or anything connected to any of your friends, family, or colleagues, would escape detection.

      Really, unless you have a foolproof method of escaping a kick-your-door-down-at-3am team and then somehow manage to disappear so thoroughly and instantly that you're unable to be tracked, spotted, or IDed ever again in your lifetime - even by your regular online patterns of behavior - you may want to spend some time carefully considering your current and future actions.

      So do you really want to be doing anything to corporate or government systems which might be able to be traced in any way back to the identity you're currently using?

      (Also, I really mean it about the originating-from-your-computers stuff. Nothing sadder than spending 20 years on the run as a master hacker for hire, and then retire to a Canadian identity you set up back in your youth, only to find the CIA's had a passive tripwire on that name, bank account, or driver's license # for over two decades on the offchance you'd activate it one day.

  25. Or this agent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.inpapasbasement.com/bad-lieutenant/

  26. retroactive immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the government needs to grant him retroactive immunity just like the telecom companies.

  27. By your logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your logic, the gov't couldn't use the help that this guy provided them. In court there is inadmissible evidence, when it is obtained illegally. But you're saying feds getcan away with using information that was obtained illegally.

  28. Re:Thought he was full of it, until I saw his hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modded interesting??? Come on guys this is funny. It's Mulder's cancer man.

  29. If you can't do the time by Nyder · · Score: 2

    don't do the crime.

    You got busted, you stoled people identities and ruined credit. ain't no one going to believe you, or be on your side. If you were smart, you would of kept records of your involvement with the government, so when the shit did hit the fan, like it was going to, then you got your ass covered. You didn't.

    Sleep with your back to the wall.

    Don't drop the soap.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:If you can't do the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't do the crime.

      ... even if the govt has you by your balls. You should give-up and die rather than working as an informant for the govt.

    2. Re:If you can't do the time by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      Read the previous comment. The law enforcement community is more evil than any criminal could ever hope to be. Maybe it hasn't always been that way, and, sure their are isolated pockets of, eh, more or less honorable people still in law enforcement, but in general, its the most disgusting cesspool imaginable.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  30. Re:Thought he was full of it, until I saw his hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modded interesting??? Come on guys this is funny. It's Mulder's cancer man.

    Pretty sure that's just slashdot modding meta-humor.

  31. Indeed... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnAKd6PRjDs

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  32. A bit off topic here... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    But what does this story have to do with Microsoft, and why is there are Bill the Borg icon attached to it?

    I mean... I know it's a samzenpus post but still... Wouldn't a script do his job cheaper and more effectively?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  33. max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ! !WN - "", F1 ! http://webnailer.ru

      Joomla, Drupal, DLE 9.2- F1 !

  34. A bit late now... by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

    So, tell me, why didn't he bring this up at his original trial? Blaming one of his attorneys for failing to prepare a “Public Authority” defense [from the article] is lame and a little dubious to say the least.

  35. Re:Thought he was full of it, until I saw his hand by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Should have linked to this instead:

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0004871/

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  36. Oh so the Americans do it too? by compucomp2 · · Score: 1

    I thought only the enemies of America, like the nefarious Chinese communists and the Iranian ayatollahs, did evil things like hire hackers to do their bidding.

  37. Why no pardon? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    I would think serving as George Bush's attorney general would earn the man a presidential pardon for something like this.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  38. ghd hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The heating time for the hair straightener should help you decide on buying the rightGHD Hair Straighteners. Choose one where you can adjust the temperature, or at least have more than three temperature levels in it.

          It is always better to buy lighterGHD Hair Straighteners having ergonomic designs which make it easy for you to use everyday. Some of the best straightening irons weigh about a pound.

          Make sure that your hair is dry when you use ghd hair as water and electricity don't go well together. There is a chance of your hair burning here too.

        The price is an important point to consider when buying GHD Hair Straighteners. There is no point in buying a very expensive hair straightener.

  39. Hal Turner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds a lot like the Hal Turner case. Look it up.