Slashdot Mirror


Stratfor Hacker Could Be Sentenced to Life, Says Judge

dgharmon writes with this excerpt from rt.com: "A pretrial hearing in the case against accused LulzSec hacker Jeremy Hammond this week ended with the 27-year-old Chicago man being told he could be sentenced to life in prison for compromising the computers of Stratfor. Judge Loretta Preska told Hammond in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday that he could be sentenced to serve anywhere from 360 months-to-life if convicted on all charges relating to last year's hack of Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor, a global intelligence company whose servers were infiltrated by an offshoot of the hacktivist collective Anonymous. Hammond is not likely to take the stand until next year, but so far has been imprisoned for eight months without trial. Legal proceedings in the case might soon be called into question, however, after it's been revealed that Judge Preska's husband was a victim of the Stratfor hack."

388 comments

  1. Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

    1. Re:Nullified by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he's been arrested, it can take as long as is reasonably necessary before trial begins - and he's already been charged. If the lawyers spar a bit (discovery, pre-trial motions, change of venue, etc), then it only adds to the time spent in lock-up while waiting.

      The whole Casey Anthony thing had her locked up for about as long, and she was found not guilty of the murder charge** - there was nothing mentioned or made of the time served while waiting for trial, IIRC. /P

      ***(IMHO the bitch did it, but legally she was found not guilty. Such is the system...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

      Is anyone here on slashdot aware of anyone's case actually being vacated?
      Right to a speedy trial notwithstanding, I hear of a lot of cases (usually terrorism related) where people have been held with no trial

      In theory, such practice is illegal. In practice, has anyone managed to get more than finally force the trial to go forward? (Otherwise there is no incentive for state/government to worry - if the prisoner "wins" they may finally go to trial but gain nothing).

      Is the "speedy trial" definition suffering from the same issue as the unconstitutionality of "cruel and unusual punishment"? As long as the judge agrees it was "speedy enough" or "not cruel", then all is well?

    3. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US has proven time and again, that justice is served only to those who own the system.

      Authority is no longer derived from the consent of the governed. No one consented to this.

      There is no legal basis for the existence of US government. Resistance is inevitable and necessary. You are already in violation of law, without any special effort on that account. It may as well mean something.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If he had been held for 8 months without being charged with a crime, then yes, you could say that his constitutional rights have been violated. But I don't think that's the case here ....

    5. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. He may have been offered bail he cannot afford or he may have waived his right to a speedy trial so hi lawyer would have more time t prepare a defense. It is highly unlikely his rights have been violated.

    6. Re:Nullified by DaMattster · · Score: 2

      8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

      Under ordinary circumstances, you would be correct. However, in issues of National Security, I don't think the speedy trial legal clauses apply but I'm not a lawyer.

    7. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

      There's a bunch of people in Guantanamo who would like to suggest that your understanding of security law is weak.

    8. Re:Nullified by iccaros · · Score: 4, Interesting
      title>

      "8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him."

      ???

      He was indited in March, where he went to court, There was no bail request from his lawyers, so he waits for the courts schedule to open for the case, which was July 23rd, where he did request bail but was denied. In that inditement the prosecution request time to gather evidence, which comes to now, when the scheduled opens and time is up for the prosecution. In the constitution he is given right to a speedy trial, but what does that mean? Well normally when ever the courts have the ability, or laws set by the state, but in this case this is his third time in court so he has not been waiting, so no his constitutional rights have not be violated.

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

      but how were the actions of Hammond a good thing for people to hold up, The attitude of I do not agree with you so I will destroy your property is a childish way to act, and the conspiracy theories surrounding this case make it hard to tell truth from fiction.

    9. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "To no man shall be sold or denied, right or Justice."

      So says Magna Carta. Upon which YOUR CONSTITUTION IS BASED.

      Eight months imprisonment without trial is plain on the face of it, unlawful. Period. He has a Constitutional case right there.

      Two things:

      a) I don't actually see the part of the Magna Carta that says you have to be tried sooner than 8 months, and

      b) Court cases in every modern democracy often take much longer than 8 months to come to trial. All the time. In the UK, in 2002, the average time from charge trial was 196 days for cases heard in Crown Court. AVERAGE. Lots of cases take much longer. And lots of people spend that time in jail. Welcome to the complex world of modern law. So, Mr. Magna Carta, perhaps you should actually spend a little time learning about the law you're spouting.

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030603/text/30603w77.htm#30603w77.html_wqn7

    10. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For obvious reasons, I'll post as an AC, but be well aware that speedy trials are not always the rule. I was accused of a serious crime. I spent 14 months in jail awaiting my trial. Fourteen months in jail because I was denied bail. I was acquitted of all charges. But of course, there are still those who believe that because I was arrested, I had to be guilty. The Police only arrest guilty people. So I just had a good lawyer. Not true!

    11. Re:Nullified by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imprisoned until proven innocent, unless the defendant is rich enough to afford bail, is the law. Servers him right for embarrassing wealthy people.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    12. Re:Nullified by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was with you until you went Full Retard:

      > There is no legal basis for the existence of US government.

      Governments exist to make and enforce laws, not because of laws. Regardless of your feelings about the legitimacy of a government, in absence of a government there are no laws to speak of, so it doesn't make any sense to say that a government requires a legal basis to exist.

      Perhaps you meant that there's no ethical or philosophical basis for the existence of the US government, but even then, republics are set up so that you can replace the people in the government without armed revolution. If you can't build enough support for an electoral majority, then you're just a bunch of annoying anarchists trying to impose your will on a large group of people who don't want it. Call the government tyranny of the majority if you want, but overthrowing a democratically elected government is tyranny of the minority, which is even worse.

    13. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The purpose of the American Revolution was to establish, by law, Government for, by, and of, the people. The precedent necessary and in assumption were those of English Common Law and Magna Carta, etc.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    14. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      The alternative to this proposition? "If the government does it, it's not illegal."

      How 21st century. :-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    15. Re:Nullified by Garybaldy · · Score: 2

      At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.

    16. Re:Nullified by Garybaldy · · Score: 2

      If you do not know the law. Please don't post like you do. As you just come off like an idiot.

      He could have waived time.

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Waiving+Time

    17. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes. 12-year-olds, like f*cking Jean Jacques Rosseau.

      "The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled."

      "Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void -- is, in fact, not a law."

      "The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    18. Re:Nullified by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      > The alternative to this proposition? "If the government does it, it's not illegal." How 21st century. :-)

      That's reading an awful lot into what I said. It's completely possible for a government to make laws and then break them itself -- the fact that they're breaking their own laws doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes the government dysfunctional.

      While it's possible to have a government without Rule of Law, it's not possible to have Rule of Law without a government. Laws are just a concept. Without some sort of enforcement, they're meaningless.

    19. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The purpose of the American Revolution was to establish an oligarchy of white, landholding, slave owning, males. Because the rich white males didn't like the old one.

    20. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIS lawyers are the ones who are holding up the trial, you idiot. They're the ones making motions asking the charges to be dismissed without a trial.

    21. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      OK I dig where you're coming from.

      But when a government consistently violates its own foundational law - and abridges the basic social contract on which it is established - actually prosecuting citizens for the assertion of the terms of that contract?

      That government is de-legitimised.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    22. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      That was the function... certainly!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    23. Re:Nullified by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ooh, National Security. Convenient excuse, that. Stratford should have paid attention to securing it's own shit instead of crying to the FBI. Oh well. At least their reputation is in the gutter where it belongs.

    24. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He probably voluntary waived his right to a speedy trial. It is quite common.

    25. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If Preska wanted to see this guy jailed, she should have immediately recused herself. Since she did not, she gave the defense significant legal ammunition to get her verdict tossed out.

    26. Re:Nullified by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Because what he did, although obviously illegal and a bad thing, should never grant him a life sentence in any remotely sane law system.

    27. Re:Nullified by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.

      Is the choice between a speedy trial and indefinite detention? Or can the defendent waive it for a period of time of his specification after which he can choose to extend it or start the trial?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    28. Re:Nullified by Zapotek · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows you don't go full retard...

    29. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sorry, but what you imagine the purpose of the American Revolution to be does not enter into what the United States Constitution actually says.

    30. Re:Nullified by jbolden · · Score: 0

      The right to a speedy trial rests with the defendant. He was denied bail, but not a speedy trial. To the best of my knowledge it is the defense that is asking for the delay. And of course the state can still charge him, they just can't hold him while awaiting trial if they it were the prosecution that wasn't ready to move forward.

    31. Re:Nullified by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      That would be beyond my knowledge. Can only attest to what i have experienced.

    32. Re:Nullified by iccaros · · Score: 1

      he has not received life, only told he could receive life, if he stole 700 credit card numbers and used them then its the combined time for each one of those crimes, plus the continued harassment for coming out as a victim, where the group continue to use blackmail to get their way, so I am sorry If I do not feel sorry for the high and mighty who believe they can commit crimes to prove their point because they know what is right, all to prove a point in a case for the traitor Manning who betrayed his fellow soldiers not because he believed in anything but because he was not getting promoted, he had no ideal what was in that data, did not have time to look at it before release, and now this Hammond commits crimes in protest and he is a hero.. Sorry I am not following it.

    33. Re:Nullified by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are fixed time limits. And yes people get released all the time when the prosecution isn't ready to move forward. Generally it is the defense that wants more time. Just to pick a famous example Donny Rogers who was arrested and held on a murder charge had to be released because he went for the speedy trial and the state couldn't process the evidence in time.

    34. Re:Nullified by devleopard · · Score: 1

      Does an illegitimate government have to keep writing checks?

      There's several million welfare recipients who consider that government very legitimate. About 2 million inmates are also locked up by the states that rely on federal funds. Start taking away the poor's carrots and start releasing murderers and rapists, and I'm pretty sure that the rights of a computer cracker will be the least of your worries.

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    35. Re:Nullified by marcosdumay · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US revolution was a funny thing. While the french started to question who should govern, and what are the limits on his power, the US went a step ahead, and decided that no government has the right to exist, unless the Constituion grants it that right.

      You should study it if you are interested on the subject. Their revolution is quite interesting.

    36. Re:Nullified by devleopard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See you've been modded up to 5 while remaining an Anonymous COWARD. Hey mods, "Insightful" doesn't mean the same as, "I agree with you! Right on!" (which there is no mod status for)

      The arrested who can't bond out (either too expensive or no bond available) commonly site in jail for several months - 8 months isn't unheard of. Add to the fact that most attorneys will advise a waiver of speedy trial in order to prepare their client's case. (Who is in better shape in a speedy trial: a single attorney with a single assistance or the DA's office, with dozens of assistant DAs and paralegals?)

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    37. Re:Nullified by countach74 · · Score: 2

      It wasn't that long ago that the majority of the time, the accused was simply told to not leave town until trial. At least in the US, the notion that one gets sent straight to jail during the "interim", is quite new.

    38. Re:Nullified by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Are you insane?  You really think that is reasonable?

      Would you still have a job if that happened to you, and you were innocent?  How about a family?

      God.

    39. Re:Nullified by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      IANAL. There are certainly times when delaying the trial benefits the defense, but like as not, many are held ad infinitum in lower profile cases because they are poor and know no better. A Writ of Habeus Corpus can be drawn up by any jailhouse lawyer to challenge illegal detention...provided, of course, one hasn't run afoul of the Patriot Act or engaged in sedition.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    40. Re:Nullified by WarSpiteX · · Score: 1

      Why would someone do this? I presume it's to give the defense time to prepare a better case or review evidence?

      --


      I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
    41. Re:Nullified by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Where's your gun? When are you planning on being cannon fodder for your ideals?

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    42. Re:Nullified by iccaros · · Score: 1

      so he is more important than all the rest of the cases? who said reasonable... ??? this is a matter of the constitution and is this constitutional not reasonable. there is a court schedule which is over burdened, and there are others who are awaiting years for a murder case to move forward is that reasonable? is it reasonable the 100's of millions of dollars in damage he did, if he did it.. nothing so far is out of the bounds of our legal system which is the argument of the OP, who stated its unconstitutional. and as for me and my job, well I would not hack into a corporation because I was upset with some politics. No I would do more to help, like I already do, feed the poor in my area, reach out and help create jobs in third world countries.. you know working to help not working to harm. We can not fix all the issues in the world, but actions come with consequences. Take action to change your world in positive ways, not destroy

    43. Re:Nullified by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not uncommon for corporations to put their cases in courts that best suit them, they just hope you'd never find out and even then, there is rarely any repercussion for anyone involved in the scam, it's just retried under a different judge that best suits them. You can see that not only with patent cases in Texas but similar discoveries have been made in most of the high-profile RIAA cases where it has been discovered that judges were directly involved with RIAA companies.

      The way it works in the US, they can even fund entire campaigns anonymously (through PAC's - see how Stephen Colbert did it) for a specific judge (as they are voted in) to take the bench while they are building a case.

      The US government in all branches all the way to the President, Congress and Supreme Court is simply bought and paid for already 4-8 years in advance. Clinton, Bush, Mittens, whoever is even considered to be next is already on the pay roll.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    44. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

      Did he demand a speedy trial?

    45. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The way it works is you need to see what the prosecution is going to bring against you, which they have to disclose to you in advance of the trial. Then you have to construct a defensive strategy based on what you now know the prosecution has. Demanding a speedy trial is risky because although you would give the prosecution less time to build their case against you, you would also deprive your lawyers of the enough time to mount a good defense. It's only advised if you know the prosecution's case is weak.

      Also, in many cases the defendant is on bail anyway. That's not the case with Jeremy Hammond. He was denied bail. Given the sentence he could be facing (and his general disregard for authority), he's a flight risk.

    46. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If there are too many defendants for the number of courtrooms and judges it might not be possible to have a speedy trial for all of them.

      --
    47. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was with you until you went Full Retard:

      That's a yellow card for Improper Use of Terms.

      The proper term is Full Metal Jackass.

    48. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they did not do that. They simply established that they were going to govern themselves according to their assumed rights and the precedents of English Common Law, with some innovations. The "right to exist" was granted to the new Federal government by the States. The Constitution was simply the document that described how it worked and how power was to be shared between it and the States.

    49. Re:Nullified by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Servers him right for embarrassing wealthy people.

      Yes, people who became wealthy by making us poor, telling us there were terrorist boogiemen in the closet and under our beds, and then selling us snake oil cures like "enhanced" airport security scanners that give us cancer. Then they decide to start setting up cameras everywhere to record license plates, facial pictures, fingerprints, shopping habits, facebook profiles, private e-mail accounts... everything they can get their hands on. Why? To protect us against the boogiemen, of course. And not a single terrorist to show for it... but you know what can be shown for it? Marketing companies. Insurance companies. So-called "deep" background checks run against mid-level managers who know just enough to be dangerous, but not rich enough to be complicit and loyal to their corporate overlords without their knowledge. You can buy access to anyone's complete private data collection, just put a dollar in the jar over there labelled "For National Security Use Only".

      This guy may have been stupid, and doubly-so for getting caught... But there's an old latin proverb: "Every misfortune is to be believed when directed against the unfortunate." He's poor. They could tell us he raped thousands of young, nubile school girls before setting fire to the local orphanarium and then passing out drunk in the street... and we'd believe him... because he's poor. It's what we expect from poor people.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    50. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      That's still true. They lock the accused up when they think one of the following is true:
      the person is a threat to public safety
      the person is a threat to public order
      the person is likely to flee prosecution.

    51. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comments like that one only increase my conviction that the Culture War needs to go from cold to hot.

    52. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Even if the government breaks its own laws, that does not make it any less legitimate as long as the people keep voting it in. Whether you like it or not. The people who could vote but didn't bother still helped to pick the government by default- they abdicated.

      You still get crappy governments with Democracies, but on average the voters get the government they deserve.

      This all assumes the elections are overly "Diebolded". Yes there is gerrymandering, but ask a random man in the USA and he was either for Obama or Romney. Only a very small percentage wanted someone else. So that's what you get.

      If you don't like it, work to change the voters minds. Don't be like those idiots trying to suggest or propose violent overthrow of the Government. In violent anarchic revolutions, the group capable and willing of exerting the most violence tends to rise to the top. Once there they usually set up a Dictatorship - nobody else is powerful enough to stop them.

      You may try to bring up the American Revolution as an exception, but in that "revolution" the people leading the revolution were mostly already at the top or near the top. The structure of things, mostly remained the same, the difference was they no longer gave money to the British, or obeyed their orders. It was more a war of independence than a revolution.

      The French Revolution which had people literally losing their heads did end up with a Dictatorship, Same for the rest (China, Russia, Africa, etc) where the selection of leaders is by most violence instead of most votes.

      --
    53. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Ooh, National Security. Convenient excuse, that. Stratford should have paid attention to securing it's own shit instead of crying to the FBI. Oh well. At least their reputation is in the gutter where it belongs.

      That's the stupidest thing I've read today (and that's saying something!). By the same principle, if I can sneak into your house (or break down the doors) and take your stuff, that's your problem. I didn't do anything wrong.

    54. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Because what he did, although obviously illegal and a bad thing, should never grant him a life sentence in any remotely sane law system.

      And he probably won't get life. If he is convicted and he doesn't think his sentence is fair, he can appeal.

    55. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Subversive non-compliance may better suit an effective and reasonable method, to that of violent hostility.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    56. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      So, by your logic, the Head of Supreme Soviet was legitimate - because a means to vote was delivered?

      Bravo!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    57. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he stole 700 credit card numbers and used them then its the combined time for each one of those crimes,

      So if [random financial company] through criminal negligence or wilful action loses the life savings of thousands of people or even more, the bosses should also get the combined time for each of those _life_ savings? Sounds great to me.

      In the USA the social safety nets aren't that good so when you lose your life savings your life expectancy may go down significantly. Let's assume it's 5 years lost for the amount that takes you from wealthy to poor: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/rich-americans-live-5-yea_n_1616462.html
      Wealthy being those who have enough money to live 5 years longer. Let's assume they are multi millionaires - 5 million?

      So 700 credit cards could be not much in comparison. I don't expect or want a card crook to do life for 700 cards. How much money would he steal with those cards? Think he would actually be able to steal 20 million dollars with those cards?

      Another thing, stealing small amounts from many people might not decrease their life by much, compared to stealing large amounts from a few people- it is unlikely to be a linear relationship. Otherwise those telcos should be in deep trouble for cramming etc.

      So how much damage did this hacker really cause?

    58. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is dead wrong. Laws existed well before governments did.

      Check out "The Enterprise of Law" by Bruce L Benson

    59. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Regarding violence - I don't advocate it. I'm not sure of the alternative to the US system as it is today. I only know that it is a system of elite totalitarianism - where elite power has captured the duopoly of government action and market capital.

      There is no hope in resisting - but no other moral course of action.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    60. Re:Nullified by Creepy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He is charged with a crime as bad as crossing the border and shooting a couple of police officers - top of the scale zone D federal crime (which is where the 360 months to life lies). The MINIMUM fine for such an offense is $25000 - my guess is bail is $10 million or more. With politicians and judges obviously in the corporations pockets, stealing from them has become worse than mass murder or shooting cops.

    61. Re:Nullified by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      This is a false situation - maintained by deliberate policy of an Elite which effectively both owns the Government and monopolizes capital. The one/two knockout punch makes change through the electoral process obsolete and impossible.

      The combined worth of the 6 Walmart heirs and heiresses is greater than that combined of the bottom 41% of American families (48.8 million households). How do the grinning kids of Sam Walton stay so rich? By paying their employees slave wages and not providing benefits, forcing them to use food stamps and medicaid. Above, a poster by Miel Macassey that shows how Walmart siphons money from taxpayers so it can pay its workers (which represent 1% of the American workforce) an average of $8.81 an hour without having them and their kids drop dead of starvation.

      http://boingboing.net/2012/11/23/how-walmart-uses-medicaid-and.html

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    62. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like an Alex Jones rant. Best of the wacko-left and wacko-right. I can't even tell if it's sarcasm of not.

      Bravo!...I think.

    63. Re:Nullified by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      There aren't two million murderers or rapists in US prisons. Most US citizens in clink are there for drug offences where there is no victim but the inmate.

    64. Re:Nullified by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Unless the Culture War involve throwing Petri dishes at scientists, I have no interest in it.

    65. Re:Nullified by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Are you insane? You really think that is reasonable? Would you still have a job if that happened to you, and you were innocent? How about a family? God.

      Okay, Napoleon, calm down. Would I still have a job if I was sentenced to life in jail? No. I'm going with no here. I may still have a family, probably a guy from Brooklyn with a lot more chest hair than me who likes to cuddle.

      If I set fire to your house and it cost a hundred grand to put right, but I was doing it because something something annoyed me, that'd be okay? You're making the mistake that hacking is a victimless crime, that costs nothing to put right. If I blow up a bank, kill a bunch of hostages and hi-jack a plane during my robbery, the fault isn't with the bank's security. I'm being a dick.

    66. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so it's okay that he could face life, because he probably won't get it. Life for a fucking computer crime.

      People like you... *smack*

    67. Re:Nullified by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Is there anybody who hasn't run afoul of the Patriot Act [or rather, the administrations secret interpretation of the Patriot Act]?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    68. Re:Nullified by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disregard for authority?

      It's sad just how much now is characterized as "authority," including corporations.

      --
      This space available.
    69. Re:Nullified by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      two US Presidents.

      --
      This space available.
    70. Re:Nullified by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      If you have papers and documents of national importance I expect you to keep that shit secure. If you're a company that keeps shit secure, I expect you to keep that shit secure.

      It's like a safe company getting broken in to and all their safes robbed. Yes, it's their right to call the police and have them investigate, but damned if I'm going to trust them to protect my goods.

    71. Re:Nullified by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      The only answer if for everyone to have at least part of their life be "underground," even if it's just being part of the underground economy (flea markets, craigslist) or having money stashed somewhere untraceable, using software you're technically not allowed to, etc.

      It won't be long before the non-elite all have to be guilty of some misdemeanor(s) of some sort at least just to survive.

      --
      This space available.
    72. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the philippines, it is what normally happens.

    73. Re:Nullified by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Because propaganda documents are usually so honest...

      Or did you mean the parts with the force of law instead of the meaningless preamble? Cause those parts completely support your parent's claim.

    74. Re:Nullified by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Why would it make any difference? Judges are still primarily politicians in the US regardless of the court they're in.

      Do you really think criminal court is any different than civil court? Do you really think it's a coincident that the judge has ties to the company?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    75. Re:Nullified by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it can't be a coincidence?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    76. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the point of your question?

    77. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I thought the wikipedia article mentioned she was convicted of criminal charges related to her repeated lies to the cops, and that was for time served.

    78. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5, Insightful?

      I see the tarderators are on the job.

    79. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      If there's that many people awaiting trial, then drop the less important ones (victimless crimes) or hire more government for law enforcement. Violating constitutional rights because it's inconvenient for the prosecutors is a very bad thing.

    80. Re:Nullified by Chas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disregard for authority?

      It's sad just how much now is characterized as "authority," including corporations.

      Okay. You don't know Hammond.

      I do. He's a blight on society.

      The man has no respect for any form of authority whatsoever. His ideal form of "government" is that he's allowed to do whatever he pleases, regardless of who it hurts, and suffers no consequences. But everyone else has to play by whatever rules he decides on at the moment. And his number one crime? Daring to tell him "no".

      He preaches about "social justice". Too bad he doesn't believe a word of it.

      The thin veneer of charisma, that has some deluded idiots portraying him as some sort of "Robin Hood" figure, only barely covers his thug's mentality.

      He hasn't done any of this for any greater purpose. He's doing it because he feels that someone has done him wrong. And he'll use any means to get back at any and everyone for his discomfiture.

      That being said. If the article is right about the judge's ties to the case, she needs to recuse herself.
      Do it by the book so he has zero recourse in even the appearance of impropriety.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    81. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Did the people he ruled over have a significant part in voting for him? If they did then yes he is legitimate. e.g. they voted for him, or they voted for people who voted for him. Or voted for people who voted for people who voted for him even. And can most of the citizens run/stand for elections if they wanted to?

      If no then he is not legitimate. As far as I know the people in USSR didn't have much choice at all. Whereas the people in the USA are actually voting for their congressmen/congresswomen. And there are independents/3rd party candidates running. But hardly anyone seems pissed off enough to vote for those.

      So it ain't broke enough to risk a violent revolution. Hence it is still better to work within the system. I actually think Obama initially tried to do something, but seems a bit hard... I personally think term limits are stupid and undemocratic. If the voters keep voting for the same people over and over again, then they certainly deserve to get that leader.

      Plus since it's the USA, there's a 9% chance he'll get killed anyway. ;)

      --
    82. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Many US people don't seem to like the idea of more government.

      I personally think quality matters way more than quantity, big government is fine if it's good government. And it is more answerable to the people- AFAIK stuff like FOIA don't work against corporations, and citizens have little say over who leads those corporations.

      --
    83. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100's of millions of dollars???? Where did you get that amount??..

      Oh... In the states they calculate not the actual damage he caused but all costs related to it and to fix all the security-holes he used...

      Comparison:
      - I find a fault in a physical lock and break into a house.. Here i would have to pay for the damage i had done and do time for the breaking and entering i did... Good so far...
      - I find a fault in a digital system somewhere and break into that system... Here i would be held liable for not only the thing i did but for the costs of actually securing the system so nobody else can break into it in the future the same way... I think this should be changed to the cost of checking what was stolen and then the cost of doing a restore of that system from backups.

    84. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The man has no respect for any form of authority whatsoever. His ideal form of "government" is that he's allowed to do whatever he pleases, regardless of who it hurts, and suffers no consequences.

      I think you've just described how 80% of the people who call themselves libertarians on slashdot see themselves. Thankfully they are too timid to put their deluded "tough talking" into practice.

    85. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "small government" people in the US exclude prisons and courts, as punishing people is an allowed purpose of the government. Even better, they want tax to pay for them, then pay some private corporation to charge 10% profit on top of the cost of running it because cost +10% is "cheaper" than cost, because private enterprise is always cheaper.

    86. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No. It's saying that whatever was done wrong does not threaten national security. Are you even aware of what Stratfor does (a clipping agency that produces an email newsletter) and how small they are?

    87. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Are you actually comparing this crime to hijacking, murder and bank robbery instead of the petty identity theft (of credit card numbers) it really is? You are? Interesting, but could you please be quiet and let the grown ups talk now?

    88. Re:Nullified by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be having a slow morning. GP stated quite clearly that politicos at all levels of government, and in all branches of those levels, are routinely bought and sold by corporate entities.

      WTF does criminal or civil court have to do with that statement?

      Your president owes his ass to corporate backing, and your local county judges almost certainly do too. County judges are worth a lot less than a president, so it's a lot easier to hide the money trails, but any place that money is involved, you'll find corporate meddling.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    89. Re:Nullified by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      That particular problem is tied to the "War on Drugs". How many millions of men and women since the 1940's have been through the system, facing meaningless charges for drugs? Possession of a damned naturally occurring vegetable matter? Insanity.

      It's the government's fault if the courts are over filled. If they can't do the "speedy trial" thing, then defendants need to be allowed to walk.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    90. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he need a gun? He already came forth with something more powerful than a gun: an idea. Violence usually makes people oppose ideas so using a gun would be counter productive.

      If an idea is a weapon, how do you discharge it? By writing about it, talking about it, convey people with it... that is what he did in your parent post.

    91. Re:Nullified by Sique · · Score: 1

      No, it is not. There are courts to call the government for its faults, and to correct them. That's why judges have to be independent of every other branch of the government. Your argument is that just because someone makes a mistake (either intentionally or not intentionally), he is furtherhin barred from ever doing anything again. Yes, the government can err. Yes, the government can intentionally disregard its own regulations. It's up to you and to the courts to give it a slap on the wrist for doing that. The government is made up from people like you and me. We are sometimes speeding, we don't follow environmental regulations everytime, and we cheat on our taxes hoping no one will notice. The government does the same, because the same people are there. This makes the government not more or less illegal than you. I don't understand how so many people are constructing a "them vs. us" regarding the government, if it's their own responsibility to control the government and either be the government themselves or getting people into the goverment they like to be there. If the government fails, it's also your fault. You failed at getting a working government in place. Blaming the goverment is nothing else than blaming yourself for your unability to get the goverment running correctly.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    92. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy hitjob, Batman!

      Who the fuck are you, and why should anyone trust your evaluation of this person?

    93. Re:Nullified by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that what you are saying might be true. While there are many of us who may cheer at the actions of hacktivists, it does take something different to actually.... and I don't doubt that there are those who hide juvenile or even self serving motives behind a veneer of idealism.

      That said...if its true, I must say... maybe my enemies enemy isn't my friend, but, it still doesn't mean that there is a downside from my view when they battle, because they both lose something....and as for the stratfor hack....wow could that have not happened to a more deserving group?

      I read some of the articles that came from that. If the US government wants so much credibility, they should prosecute every single crime revealed in those email leaks with every bit as much enthusiasm as they do this guy.
      (and remember, things like corperate bribery are crimes. In fact, any exchange of value to induce someone to do something they shouldn't do (give up secrets, allow access, whatever) is bribry.

      In fact, I have seen people at one of my previous employers get fired and prosecuted over it. One of them went to jail.

      Surely their criminal conspiracy of a company is a bigger threat than some guy who published the contents of some email boxes.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    94. Re:Nullified by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You will get no argument from me that the lack of a strong well funded public defender system is a huge problem in the US. You can't have a fair adversarial system when only one side has weapons.

    95. Re:Nullified by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's up to the state. They can take as long as they like to prepare for trial providing they don't attempt to hold people. If they are holding too many people for all the courts to handle, then they are holding too many people.

    96. Re:Nullified by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

      I know little about the particulars of the individual or this case, but the speed of the US justice system is in itself an injustice. Is his case more important than the others - absolutely not. They should all be heard quickly.

      If you're charged with a crime the entire process from end to end should take a few weeks at most, assuming you're given bail. I'd go a step further and simply make it a law that anybody who isn't convicted in this period of time walks. If the government can't do that, then they need to build more courtrooms, or arrest fewer people. Everybody is busy, but being busy is never a valid excuse, as it is almost always under your own control.

    97. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with lots of things done by the government at cost and not for profit. Heck it can even make a loss and still make sense overall- stuff like public transportation.

      The escalators and elevators in a good shopping mall or office building aren't usually run as profit centres. Set decent targets for cleanliness, safety, availability and cost, and things are better than if everyone using the escalators/elevators were nickel and dimed just so that department can make a profit.

      Private corps can go do the new innovative stuff and not bother trying to make money out of boring stuff that's done fine by government. Even so governments are sometimes better at doing R&D on things that corporations aren't willing to do.

      Another alternative to consider are Cooperatives. Seems to me that _generally_ cooperatives are better behaved than corporations, and thus cost the country less (fewer bailouts, slash and burn CEOs). And the problem with cooperatives is it takes a certain sort of person to start a cooperative instead of a corporation - since that person tends to make more money doing the latter, for about the same amount of work, and so overall the latter is less of a risk/cost. Thus I think that countries should encourage the starting up of successful cooperatives more, maybe a smart economist can figure out a way of doing so without it being too exploitable.

      --
    98. Re:Nullified by StormyWeather · · Score: 2, Informative

      Libertarians believe humans should be free to do whatever we want as long as it does not bring harm to other humans.

      Grow up.

    99. Re:Nullified by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So those bail bondsman and only provide bail for rich people?

      And Dog the Bounty Hunter never chases down some lowlife good old boy or other "non-rich" person?

      BTW...4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/ ...And 80% are here illegally.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    100. Re:Nullified by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      If that was the case why didn't Washington just become king. Your rant is stupid and fanatical, and so are those that modded you up. It was a monarchy that foisted slavery on our nation not a republic. The republic ejected slavery as incompatible with a free society.

    101. Re:Nullified by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      May US people don't seem to like the idea of the government doing things they don't want done regardless of the value of the thing being done, it's constitutionality or popularity. These people generally define any such things as "big government", whereas everything they do approve of is "small government". It's how every libertarians hero Ron Paul can be pro "small government" while simultaneously supporting the right of the government to tell you who you can or cannot marry, among other things. There are a few genuine loonies who like to dress up anarchy in libertarian clothing, but the vast majority of the people who call for "small government" are simply self serving hypocrites who beat the "small government" drum as an excuse to object to things they don't like while not appearing like selfish ass hats. It also has the added advantage politically that everybody thinks the government does things which shouldn't be done, so your particular cause no matter how insane, selfish or otherwise horrendous can start out with people agreeing with you, especially if they don't finish listening.

    102. Re:Nullified by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I mostly feelthe same way...its just that, I don't have much faith in the current system brining any quality, so I argue for smaller government....because I don't see quality, nor how more is going to increase quality.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    103. Re:Nullified by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think you've just described how 80% of the people who call themselves libertarians on slashdot see themselves.

      So coming up with empty insults for your two minute hate is now called "thinking". What will they "think" of next!

    104. Re:Nullified by Chas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Because Libertarians believe they can do what they want so long as it doesn't impact someone else or cost someone else (who isn't willing to foot the bill) money.

      People who smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes? Problem.

      Drunk drivers who crash and kill people? Problem.

      Jeremy Hammond talks about equality. Always with the notion that special, gifted him is somehow "more equal".

      This is the guy who went into a 0-Day security group and was trying to tell the regulars they should "hold the best stuff back for themselves" so they "look like gods to the up-and-coming hackers".

      This is the guy who was teaching people to hack live servers at his day job, in an open IRC channel. And the servers he was using? Contained live customer data. Doing so without the consent of his employer.

      This is the guy who, because he didn't believe in property, was stealing every scrap of food his roomate brought home for herself and then advising for a freegan lifestyle.

      This is the guy who's breaking into servers of people who've done him no wrong. He does it, and causes damage, simply because he disagrees with them politically. Or is trying to get them to shut up.

      This is a guy whose first instinct on being heckled is to attack, tossing a bottle into a crowd.

      Here's a Vimeo copy of a DefCon 2004 talk he did. http://vimeo.com/38329327

      Playing "Spot the Fed" was REALLY easy that year. And Hammond himself was quite nearly lynched by some of the people at his talk.

      This is a guy who thinks it's okay to simply break the stuff and vandalize the property (real or electronic) of people who don't agree with you (and anyone else in the vicinity as well).

      So PLEASE don't try to paint a general political ideology as "the same" as him.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    105. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 2

      One of the other 20% I see.

    106. Re:Nullified by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't say you SHOULD trust me. I never claimed to be non-partisan in this.

      At one time, he happened to drift into my circle of hacking and security people.
      We were friendly, but we'd made it clear from the get go that he wasn't "taking over" or using the group as a bully pulpit for his particular brand of politics.
      We'd already had the FBI scrutinizing us for another idiot who'd been in the group several years prior. And none of us wanted that kind of heat again.
      When he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted, he started vandalizing our meeting place and the surrounding community.

      Do the research yourself. Unless you're already bought into the whole "Free Jeremy" thing, it's pretty obvious what sort of person he really is.

      And, as I said. Even disliking the man the way I do. I want him to get an open and impartial hearing.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    107. Re:Nullified by Chas · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that some of the things revealed by the Stratfor hack shouldn't be prosecuted as well.

      The problem is, Hammond's antics have now tainted the evidence.

      Also, while hacks on groups you happen to dislike gives you a nice feeling of schadenfreude, think about someone coming into your home and busting up your shit because they disagree with you.

      That, rather than some high-minded ideal of "justice" is behind this hack (and many of Hammond's other crimes). He dislikes what they say or represent (or what he believes they represent). So he, as final arbiter of what is right and just will do unto them before they do unto him.

      Sorry, but NOT a great ethos.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    108. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making assumptions and stereotyping whole classes of political ideologies makes you a fucking ass.

      I resent your statement. Learn what liberty is before you start bashing it please. If your confusing Lawful Evil or corrupt plutocrats with libertarian let me give you an example to help you out.

      Non-libertarian law = Everyone must install net nanny and not doing so will result in fines, punismhent criminal action for being a bad bad person.

      Libertarian Attitude = Its not the govermnments job to raise children.

      If you really think you can raise everyones children better then everyone else and dictate personal matters to individuals your wrong.

      Many libertarians support some form of democratic social controls on everyone as a whole. They just believe in equality and freedom to fuck up on your own first before nanny state bullshit comes into play to automaticaly brand and seggregate that "wierd guy over there".

      We are also less fearless in that we aren't living in constant fear that a terrorist with a tonail clipper will destroy our local governments by raising hell at checkpoints.

    109. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      No. It's saying that whatever was done wrong does not threaten national security. Are you even aware of what Stratfor does (a clipping agency that produces an email newsletter) and how small they are?

      Oh, so it's the fact they are SMALL that makes it OK to break into their computers and trash their files. Now I see your point.

    110. Re:Nullified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Congress, the law, the judge, other peoples' property. You name it. The guy is an asshat. If you feel sympathy with him well...

      You can do the math.

    111. Re:Nullified by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      He's facing life in prison. No amount of bail could ensure that he'll show up for trial.

    112. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, imbecile. Read dbill's post again. The claim is about the threat to national security, not whether it was "wrong" or not.

    113. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We already TRIED that, it was later called "the age of the robber barons" because i don't give a rat's ass what kind of utopia you dream up without rules it quickly devolves into "he who has the gold makes the rules' just as it has since the days of the cavemen. The problem with libertarianism (or any other ism for that matter) is at their core they all depend on those at the top not being douches when as we have seen a billion times throughout history the ONE thing you can count on is for those at the top to be giant self serving douches.

      As for TFA, evil corrupt government VS maladjusted and probably a little batshit hackers...yeah, not really anybody to root for in this fight, they ALL suck.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    114. Re:Nullified by jythie · · Score: 1

      That is the theory, or at least rationalization, but it is rarely if ever the practice. Libertarinaism, when put into practice or debated usually boils down to 'do not bring harm to others who can stop the harm'. Harming people without the resources to counter on the other hand is usually 'ok'.

    115. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real world is replete with real people who crave power, and at best merely play lip service to noble ideals of justice whenever such posturing might help them gain more power. Most of the time, they do everything they can to impose their will on others whether said others want it or not.

      These people are the most likely to run for government positions. Over time, all positions of power are awash with such people.

      Speaking noble words will have zero impact on them. Posting such noble words on Slashdot will also have zero impact. You must get up and actively oppose them in order to protect justice for yourself (and your neighbor, inasmuch as you care about that).

      Encouraging others to fight your battles for you will have little effect.

    116. Re:Nullified by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      I'm not a libertarian, because I don't agree with them on some very key things, but I do respect their opinions as long as they are educated. You however are one of the 80 percent if 80 percent are imbeciles that can't be bothered to educate themselves on what someone else believes before belittling them. Libertarians do not however believe there should be no government, that is an Anarchist tenant.

    117. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider Jeremy Hammond a personal enemy.

    118. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Yeah look close at what goes on in the state and county levels and it makes the feds look like choirboys in comparison. Its ALL about who you know and who gave money to whom, it don't have a damned thing to do with laws or justice. I invite all to sit in any local courtroom for a week and see if you don't pick up the waft of corruption, I have watched guys in Gucci suits have so many charges it ain't funny waved away while some poor kid with a bag of weed gets 3-5, its ALL about the money.

      I'd say the only difference between our courts and the third world is at least in the third world ANYBODY can buy their way out, in America you have to be hooked into the right corp or be part of the right group, much more classism here.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    119. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is why we in the south call 'em "public pretenders" because last numbers I saw you literally have better odds defending yourself and getting off (4%) than getting a public pretender and getting off (less than 2% last figures i saw for my state) because they are so overworked and underfunded their answer to ANYTHING is 'plead guilty' no matter how weak a case the state has.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    120. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I believe it was Richard M. Nixon that said that first, so it would be a 20th century idea that has simply made a comeback. I would argue that simply from the Wikileaks dump at least one, probably two, presidents should have been brought up on War Crimes if there was actual rule of law in this country but the fact that they weren't just shows that Nixon was right, he was just ahead of his time.

      Kinda sad to think that if Nixon had pulled Watergate today Woodward and Bernstein would have probably been labeled enemy combatants and both sides of the aisle would be rushing to defend Nixon, but that's what happens when the whole system is corrupt,those at the top cover each other's asses in case they want to pull the same shit when its their turn in the big chair.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    121. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Oh Lord,you have GOT to be kidding me...you thinking VOTING is gonna do a God damned thing? Well i have a game of three card monty you should play, I'm SURE that you'll find the lady!

      Not only do you have an entire class of people that get ZERO say because they got their rights taken away due to a pot bust or other victimless crime, but frankly your "choices" are both bought and paid for before your ass ever gets in the booth! it costs on average 100 million to become a senator, a billion bucks to become president, hell even at the state level you are talking several million a campaign...you think those people that paid those bills and wrote those checks won't be making that money back and then some when the election is over?

      Your "choices" are Coke VS Coke in a holiday can, and that is it. Its a bad joke that keeps those silly peasants thinking they have a say when they don't, because the corporations vote in $$$ and $$$ tops votes any day of the week.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    122. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI Britain declared the slave trade illegal quite some time before the US did.

    123. Re:Nullified by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yep I hadn't heard it was nearly that bad, 2%. Wow. That being said I hope the federal government steps in and forces more funding.

    124. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The problem with that idea is the money party is almost over and when this bubble bursts your money is gonna be worth less than a Zimbabwe dollar. this is why gold is over $1700 an ounce and rising, the ones at the top are cashing out and quietly moving overseas before the bubble bursts. look at the charts starting at 3.30, notice how the great depression had 125% of GDP in the market, and that trainwreck ended up leaving us with a busted economy for decades? Well look at the giant hockey stick starting around 1992, we are now at 400% of GDP AND RISING.

      All of us who sat back and wondered WTF was gonna happen when the USSR collapsed is gonna get to see it right here on American soil, as you are gonna have millions of poor being handed worthless checks, millions of homeless and exploding crime, the whole thing is gonna fall down and go boom and there is not a damned thing anybody can do now, it is inevitable. So while being part of the underground economy may help a little in the short term the simple fact is with the currency made worthless you are gonna have a hard time even trading,as sooner or later you are gonna need currency to trade for food, shelter, power, and it'll be just like Zimbabwe where you need a wheelbarrow just to go buy some milk.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    125. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There have been a number of credit unions fail with the recent (and prior) crises, so I'm not sure how much better behaved credit unions are, and without mandatory government insurance, many members would have lost their savings (a few complete losses like that and people really will go to gold stashed in their mattress).

      The part that breaks my brain is that when the banks fail, it's because of government regulations. When they are deregulated and fail shortly after (see the '80s), it's that the government had previously regulated so they didn't know how to act in an unregulated market.

    126. Re:Nullified by jep305 · · Score: 1

      "they all depend on those at the top not being douches"

      As you said, this is so with every "ism". So why use it as an argument against Libertarianism particularly? At least in a Libertarian system, you're not required to have very much interaction with the douches in charge.

      --
      In Reason We Trust
    127. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Oh Lord,you have GOT to be kidding me...you thinking VOTING is gonna do a God damned thing?

      Were those votes in the recent elections from the actual voters or not? Did anyone hold a gun to their head and force them to vote that way?

      The "peasants have a say", and they said their piece recently. You just don't like what they are saying.

      So what do you propose be done? Ignore what "the peasants" say? You want to be the great Dictator because the silly peasants can't vote properly?

      Those peasants may be silly. But you sure look as silly to me. So maybe I should be the great Dictator of the USA instead? Or maybe some other guy who thinks everyone else is silly but him?

      --
    128. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's several million welfare recipients who consider that government very legitimate.

      Of course people benefiting from government handouts will find that government legitimate.

      The people who should find this government illegitimate are the ones footing the bill.

    129. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Of course there will be failures. As for regulation, the credit unions needed to be better regulated: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40755408/ns/business-local_business/t/credit-unions-paying-risky-behavior-few/

      --
    130. Re:Nullified by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      Libertarians believe humans should be free to do whatever we want as long as it does not bring harm to other humans.

      Grow up.

      My purely anecdotal observation (as an ex-libertarian) is closer to "A libertarian is someone who wants just enough government to prevent the angry mob from giving him exactly what he deserves".

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    131. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Petty might be a waitress copping one or two credit card numbers.

      A hacker stealing an entire database of thousands upon thousands of credit card numbers and exposing it to the world...petty that is not.

    132. Re:Nullified by doccus · · Score: 1

      Every word may be true, but a life sentence is too harsh for anything less than violent asexual assault or premeditated murder. If judges don't make sure the punishment fits the crime fairly, it send a very bad message to society, like countries where the death sentence is proscribed for even minor infractions. Just because the person is an a-hole, that doesn't automatically justify throwing away the key..

    133. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      title>

                                      "8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him."

                              ???

                              He was indited in March, where he went to court, There was no bail request from his lawyers, so he waits for the courts schedule to open for the case, which was July 23rd, where he did request bail but was denied. In that inditement the prosecution request time to gather evidence, which comes to now, when the scheduled opens and time is up for the prosecution. In the constitution he is given right to a speedy trial, but what does that mean? Well normally when ever the courts have the ability, or laws set by the state, but in this case this is his third time in court so he has not been waiting, so no his constitutional rights have not be violated.

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

                              but how were the actions of Hammond a good thing for people to hold up, The attitude of I do not agree with you so I will destroy your property is a childish way to act, and the conspiracy theories surrounding this case make it hard to tell truth from fiction.

      He destroyed nothing, simply exposed that which should of been exposed....

    134. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing "libertarian" with "socialist elite."

    135. Re:Nullified by gelfling · · Score: 1

      LA's Nightstalker serial killed languished for 3 years before trial. He should have been released I guess.

      You DO realize that w/o trial and w/o charge are two different things, yes?

    136. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using an inane statistic to cover up a no true scotsman argument?

      I get the impression that most other libertarians are actually authoritarians: "Government can't do anything right except for what I tell it to do!"

      For me, libertarianism is intellectualized anarchism; The game is to see how long you can argue it without people catching on.

    137. Re:Nullified by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      You do realize that majority of people receiving government "handouts" are old people who had been paying into the system for longer than you've been alive?

    138. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He was recognized by every other country on the planet as legitimate, as well as his own people (well, most of them at least), so if that isn't legitimate, then we have semantics issues.

    139. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That being said. If the article is right about the judge's ties to the case, she needs to recuse herself.
      Do it by the book so he has zero recourse in even the appearance of impropriety."

      yeah, like Kagan did with Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare. Oh wait, she didn't.

    140. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Koch etc are very keen on policies that harm others (eg. scrapping Nixon's pollution controls) and very loudly proclaim themselves to be libertarians. Then there's aspects of the gun issue and differing ideas of what denotes self defence or protection of property (eg. the libertarians who assert the right to shoot and kill trespassers). As for the final point - guess what US Anarchists call themselves these days? Libertarians.

    141. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There's a major difference between possibly obtaining 7000 ("thousands and thousands"? why try to inflate it? And why are idiots here pretend Strafor is something more than a newspaper clipping agency with 70 staff?) credit card numbers and "hijacking, murder and bank robbery".
      There's also a bit of an issue here that Strafor were so useless that they had 7000 credit card numbers stored on their piece of crap server. It really shows what sort of chewing gum and string operation they had. That does not excuse the crime but it did turn a very petty crime (trespass on a poorly secured server) into one with more than petty consequences. I've got no idea why these idiots didn't do what nearly everyone doing commerce on the net since 2005 has been doing and have a third party that can do secure payment processing handle it all for them.

    142. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Please read the text you quoted and not just the third sentence of it.
      I'll assume it's just lack of coffee or posting while drunk instead of some sort of learning disorder.

    143. Re:Nullified by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I was trying to point out the opposite, to point out that some people pretend a political ideology justifies their selfishness.
      Thankfully a lot of the "I should be able to do anything I want" crowd usually don't go to the sort of extremes they talk about so we don't see thousands of Hammonds.

    144. Re:Nullified by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not everyone who claims to be a libertarian understands that. A great many call themselves 'libertarian' because it sounds much nicer than 'toxic narcissist'.

    145. Re:Nullified by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I think you meant

      People who smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes? No Problem.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    146. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Because again we have ALREADY TRIED IT and what we got was polluted rivers, strikers executed by private armies, and those at the top living just like the barons of feudal times.

      Now maybe you LIKE the idea of the air being as nasty as China, of having rivers catch fire like they did in the 70s, or having corporate masters own you through a company store, but none of that sounds very appealing to me. hell before i'd sign on for another round of kiss the corporate ass I'd go socialism, at least countries like Iceland seem to be making a civilized go of it.

      the simple fact is without any government "intrusion" you quickly become Somalia, because again when there are little to no rules it devolves into "he who has the gold makes the rules" and I hate to break the news to ya, but if you think you have next to no chance of joining that little 1% club now? Just try it in the age of the barons. anybody that tried to compete with them were lucky if the barons just sent the Pinkertons to burn their house down, if not they ended up quite dead.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    147. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Geez, do I REALLY have to spell out how this works? if I buy BOTH guys then it really don't fucking MATTER which one you pick does it? And THAT is what you have. I personally think he is batshit but Alex Jones got on tape a perfect example of rigging the game when it looked like the outcome wasn't gonna be to their liking, he caught footage of the teleprompter on the voice vote for allowing the Ron Paul delegation to speak. BEFORE THE VOTE WAS CALLED it already had the "results" on the fucking teleprompter and they just read it, even though anybody with ears could hear the vote was too damned close to do by voice!

      And there are a TON of examples of outright primary rigging by both parties, just check out YouTube. Hell they even have the guys in charge of counting the rep primary votes in NH going "Uhhh...that's not the numbers we counted, its not even close" but did anybody give a shit? hell look up how John Fricking Stewart even made a clip set showing how Ron paul became "He who shall not be named" even getting to the point that one of the reporters says "We are talking about Christie and Palin, who aren't even here OR running, and not a word about Paul who is actually doing good here" and the douchebag anchor gets a smirk and says "If you get any footage of Christie or Palin send it in, but you can keep the Paul footage" I mean its so fucking obvious they are rigging it by killing his media coverage they are even smirking about it ON CAMERA.

      So I'm sorry but you'll get corporate whore #1 or #2, it doesn't matter in the end because BOTH are bought and paid for. fuck why do you think Obama kept so much of Bush's policies? Because his corporate masters told him too! If you TRULY believe voting does jack shit i don't know whether to admire how naive you are, or pity the cluelessness that it takes to buy that bullshit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    148. Re:Nullified by jep305 · · Score: 1

      Rant much?

      My question was why you chose to use "they all depend on those at the top not being douches" as a specific argument against Libertarianism. It applies to every form of government.

      Libertarianism is not about having no rules, and we have not "ALREADY TRIED IT". How can you look at the US history of the two-party system, in which either Democrats or Republicans -- but never Libertarians -- have run the country, and somehow blame that on the Libertarians?

      You confuse Libertarianism with oligarchy and anarchy, and you're wrong.

      Do you seriously think that the nasty air in China can be blamed on their Libertarian government? Was it Nixon's Libertarian Party who was running the show when the Cuyahoga River caught fire? Was it Grover Cleveland's Libertarian party that ran things during the rise of Big Steel?

      Speaking of Big Steel, and as to your argument about joining "that little 1% club", do you realize that Andrew Carnegie pulled himself up from being a common factory worker to become one of the richest men who ever lived? So I guess even in the 1800's -- although, much like your specious arguments this has nothing to do with Libertarianism --there were opportunities for hard work and ingenuity to pay off.

      --
      In Reason We Trust
    149. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Kevin Mitnick

    150. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If you have so much evidence can't you sue them or something? It's the USA after all. Or nobody really cares enough?

      Only reason why I care is the USA has nukes, aircraft carriers and a habit of going around telling other countries what to do. A violent revolution in the USA that installs a dictatorship is unlikely to be good for the rest of us in the world.

      --
    151. Re:Nullified by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1
      Lets address the points you make. I fully believe your intentions to be good, but you are simply operating on incorrect or outdated information.

      what we got was polluted rivers,

      This was the result of government refusing to enforce private property rights under the auspice of "the public good". What was the public good? Industrializing. Politicians didn't want to "fall behind" countries like the UK and in the US during the early 18th century, people were frequently getting injunctions issued against factories over both air and water pollution. Both of those things were considered forms of trespassing onto another property, no different than if I dumped my garbage on your property. Once the government stopped issuing injunctions for pollution you then got the environmental disasters we see. It was a failure of government in one of its most fundamental roles that was the cause of that problem.

      http://mises.org/daily/5978/The-Libertarian-Manifesto-on-Pollution

      strikers executed by private armies

      You are probably referring primarily to the Homestead strike, but you are omitting a few important details.

      1. The strikers had seized the factory, which did not belong to them. In other words, the strikers were guilty of felony theft.
      2. The labor contract had expired, management had negotiated a new contract with all workers except the members of one union, representing ~800 workers. Yet when the strike began, all workers went on strike despite the vast majority having agreed to the new contract.
      3. Local law enforcement had proven itself unwilling and/or unable to maintain law and order in these events. Thus the company had to rely on private security firms to protect the property of the shareholders.
      4.The job of the Pinkerton guards was simply to secure the factory from the strikers and prevent damage to company property.
      5. Most sources agree that it was the strikers who fired the first shots and it was the Pinkertons who suffered the first wounded and killed.
      6. The strikers employed the time honored tactic of using women and children as human shields and to beat and brutalize replacement workers whose only crime was accepting terms of employment that the striking workers had rejected.

      I'm sorry, but if you're stealing stuff that doesn't belong to you and you refuse to give it up when asked and actively resist giving it up, you should not be surprised when you get shot.

      Do you say that Microsoft, Toyota, or Pepsi have"private armies" because they have their own security at their large facilities? If these really are "private armies" I miss the part in the history books where Carnegie Steel Company launched a military offensive against Bethlehem Steel and other competitors. What you call "private armies" were nothing more than hired security personnel.

      Now maybe you LIKE the idea of the air being as nasty as China, of having rivers catch fire like they did in the 70s,

      As I pointed out above, that's a problem caused by the government not enforcing private property rights. Note that some of the worst polluters in China are the state owned industries.

      or having corporate masters own you through a company store

      That was a temporary problem caused by the lack of affordable transportation for the working class. Their shopping options were limited to what was within walking distance and they also had to be within walking distance to the factory. This was solved in part by the mass produced safety bicycle and later on solved completely by the mass produced automobile.

      I'd go socialism, at least countries like Iceland seem to be making a civilized go of it.

      If anything they have been the most free market, when the crisis hit they let the banks go bust. Iceland is not a Socialist country, its is

    152. Re:Nullified by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      If he's been arrested, it can take as long as is reasonably necessary before trial begins - and he's already been charged.

      So, has everyone already forgotten about Kevin Mitnick? He was in jail for the entire length of his pre-trial. Four and a half years! Now how friggin reasonable is that? Not to mention the eight months he spent in solitary. Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment --not the right to a speedy trial, which the 6th Amendment is supposed to grant.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    153. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good luck with suing the US government pal. hell they have video of it all over YouTube, it wasn't like they were subtle and everybody and their dog has a camera phone now so it isn't like you can do anything without getting filmed, but to get criminal charges filed you have to get an AG willing to prosecute, good luck with that.

      You see since BOTH sides want to cash the checks, get their friends jobs, enjoy a cushy life after office, and enjoy all the perks of a corrupt system they won't bust the OTHER guy for it because THEY want to be able to do the same thing when they get their shot. It would be like having the mob overseeing the Yakuza, knowing full well ANY rules they impose on the Yakuza will be imposed upon them as well...how many rules do you think they'd impose under those conditions?

      I hate to break this to ya, as its scary as hell, but look at Germany in 37/38 and you'll see where most likely the USA will end up. Just watch this video and look at the charts starting around 3.30 and you'll see the collapse is inevitable, it simply can't be stopped at this point. You have more than 400% of the country's GDP, as well as the retirement of tens of millions of workers, all tied up in this massive bubble that is the stock market. Just as the bubble burst in 29 so too will the bubble burst here, only with THAT much money tied into it it'll make 29 look like a computer glitch.

      But if you are in the EU you probably shouldn't worry, most likely its South America that we'll treat like Germany treated Poland. I truly believe this is why neither side will say or do shit about immigration, because they WANT the peasants hating the people south of the border, so if the bubble ever bursts they can cook up a false flag and roll the tanks. Lots of resources south of the border, oil, gas, lumber, mines, lots of stuff that could be used to prop up a collapsed economy. I feel sorry for the people of south america but when you have a militaristic country armed to the teeth it simply won't "go softly into that good night" and as the crazy Austrian noted back then the way to get people off the internal problems is to manufacture an external threat.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    154. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The thing that always gets me is that if insufficient regulation causes a problem, the anarcho-capitalists always claim that the "invisible hand" would have fixed it all, if only the regulations weren't there in the first place, there wouldn't have been the collapse, as the real issue was they got so used to working under one framework, then changing the rules, whether more or less strict.

    155. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Can you provide links to the videos and stuff? I'm curious about which specific videos and other evidence you're talking about.

      If the election rigging is not just an isolated case, the USA is practically a banana republic with nukes...

      There were some international observers: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49655147/International_Election_Observers_Rile_Americans
      So I'm not sure if the rigging is widespread enough. I'm sure in such a large diverse country you will have rigging during elections, it's a matter of how much.

      It's weird the citizens don't want more observers, maybe it's the usual media spin - only report quotes of those who object. As for voter ID, I don't see the problem with it if it's done properly. It may be considered an evil, but if you're worried about rigging, you're going to need something like it.

      --
    156. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Speaking of invisible hand:
      Q) How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?
      A) Free market economists don't change lightbulbs, they write their papers in the darkness while waiting for the Invisible Hand to do it.

      As far as I see collapse is inevitable every now and then, it's a matter of how bad it is. Good regulations reduce the impact and how often the collapse happens. After all banks that didn't do crazy stuff didn't collapse, and it was quite obvious that some stuff was crazy- the greedy people didn't care - there was little risk to them. There's so much regulation can do though - if you run out of resources you can't regulate your way out of it.

      BTW Iceland had a rather different bailout approach - instead of bailing out the banks they let the banks suffer and bailed out the citizens. Maybe Iceland is different, but they seem to be doing better now.
      http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-12/imf-says-bailouts-iceland-style-hold-lessons-for-crisis-nations
      Look what Forbes said back then: http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/04/11/icelands-stand-against-bailout-repayment-will-hurt/
      Forbes thinks Iceland won't be able to raise money any more? Sure Iceland is clearly riskier now, but there's plenty of evidence that higher risk never stopped greed. Whereas losing your life savings can put a halt to lots of things.

      --
    157. Re:Nullified by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Don't have time to look them up as i gotta get to the shop, but all you have to do is go to YouTube and look under phrases like "Ron Paul voting wrong" or "Ron Paul NH numbers" and you'll find them quick enough, and as i said Alex Jones has the video of the RNC calling a voice vote and having the fricking RESULTS on the teleprompter BEFORE the vote had been cast...blatant much?

      But I really don't know what you think some "international observers" are gonna do when the US gov don't even respect other country's airspace, they sure as fuck ain't gonna respect their opinions about anything. Hell look up "Ohio rigged 2004" on YouTube to see cops HAULING OFF anybody who dared point out the poor had the RIGHT to an absentee ballot in Ohio! Silly peasants, thinking they had rights.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    158. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth is this judge still handling this case? If she has a direct link to this case then, much like a juror, she should be removed and a judge who is not attached to this case in any way shape or form should be brought in.

    159. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The later part of what you said has merit and I agree. The earlier portions of your statements are, simply put, your personal opinions, and weak ones at that. You have given no substantiating evidence to prove any of your arguments.

    160. Re:Nullified by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying he is innocent until proven guilty, and no one should be in jail so long before that.  I'm not even saying there is an easy solution to that problem--there probably isn't.  But you simply seemed to be defending it as just grand.

    161. Re:Nullified by alexo · · Score: 1

      The US has proven time and again, that justice is served only to those who own the system.

      That the hell are you talking about?
      The US has the finest justice system that money can buy!

    162. Re:Nullified by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      After all banks that didn't do crazy stuff didn't collapse, and it was quite obvious that some stuff was crazy- the greedy people didn't care - there was little risk to them. There's so much regulation can do though - if you run out of resources you can't regulate your way out of it.

      That's the real issue. If you have no risk, then there's no punishment for doing bad. So do all the bad investments you want, when you fail, demand someone step in and save you. It's stupid. It's immoral. It's American Capitalism (warning, may bear no resemblance to "capitalism" as defined in books, and isn't solely practiced in the USA).

    163. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The arrested who can't bond out (either too expensive or no bond available) commonly site in jail for several months

      So if a wealthy person and a poor person is accused of the same crime, a wealthy person can buy their freedom regardless of the danger? That's all a bond is -- money is their bond to freedom. The bond amount should be proportionate to how much resources it would take to hunt the individual down if they do not show up for their day in court. We're talking about a guy who uses a computer - not someone blowing up buildings.

      Every preson is entitled to a speedy trial - I'm not interested in what the reality is. It is not just a constitutional, but a human right. The evidence should already be complete at the time of arrest. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, serving an 8-month sentence because of the wheels of justice turning too slowly, you would be mad too. The person is innocent until proven guilty.

    164. Re:Nullified by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I forgot the /snark tag. I thought it diverted enough from the first sentence; but, this IS slashdot. My bad.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    165. Re:Nullified by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      OK. First, I thought the first sentence was sufficiently divergent from the second that /snark tags were not necessary. Reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. Second, the census part of the link is important. Illegal aliens are not counted in the census.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    166. Re:Nullified by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I sure wouldn't. Considering how bullshit the charges are. I'd go down in a blaze of gun fire.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    167. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That is idiotic, Kagan wasn't tied to that case, and didn't need to recuse herself. What was her supposed conflict? Oh, you don't know? Perhaps you heard about it on AM radio, but they forgot to mention what their "reasoning" was.

    168. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The Right to a speedy trial doesn't say, all trials must be speedy. In a complicated case, the defense always waves that Right. The Right is protect innocent people from having pre-trail detention abused when there isn't a good case against them. If you're facing a real case, where you might reasonably be convicted, you waive that right because it means more time for your lawyers to prepare. The prosecution doesn't need extra time, because the whole investigation phase is a head start. They went over the evidence before the charges were filed. So the defense will NOT push for a speedy trial, instead they do everything they can to drag it out. On the one hand, they have more time to prepare, on the other hand, evidence ages, witnesses die or move, and the longer the battle, the more likely the prosecution makes some mistake that the defense can use.

    169. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense, the jails already release people early because there isn't room. This claim that there are lots of people held "ad infinitum" in lower profile cases is crazy. There isn't budget for that. There probably are a small number of people who are "lost" in a cell somewhere, whoops, and people in small jurisdictions who pissed off the sheriff, but you're not going to find a large number that are held excessively pre-trial, and certainly not "ad infinitum."

      If you're looking for people held excessively, I recommend looking to the modern perversion where the State itself is your "accuser" and so you can be charged with victimless crimes where the "dignity" of the State itself is the explicit "victim." And pre-trial there again presents few problems. But there are people with life sentences for repeatedly violating modern Prohibition.

    170. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you read your Adam Smith, the Invisible Hand of the Market manifests itself when, and only when, the Government regulates enough so that the little guy has a level playing field with the established rich guy. Smith assumes all parties are after their own best interests and are not trustworthy unless watched over by a 3rd party. And without rules that protect the small players, the rich players can manipulate everything and cheat effectively. That is what Capitalism is all about, if you believe the Father of Capitalism. Capitalism is Government protecting business people from each other, and creating Trust through oversight and regulation. This imposed trust animates the Invisible Hand.

    171. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      As a voter I just have to say, you appear to be a disgruntled failed dictator. Why else would you attempt, in a pathetic and toothless way, to attempt to deny my vote even after it has been counted?

      You won't steal any votes, for one thing the average idiot is at least smart enough to understand that elections have both consequences, and voters.

      Oh and by the way, in many states felons have their right to vote restored after they finish their post-release supervision.

    172. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A party convention is not an election, it is a Party event and it is up to the Party to decide who to nominate and how that process is handled.

      You give some blahblah at the end seemingly trying to implicate President Obama in the Republican Party Convention backroom nonsense.

      And yes, talking heads on TV, even John "Fricking" Stewart, like to talk about Ron Paul. Others have also pointed out that he got about 7% of the press coverage, not bad for a guy that gets less than 2% of actual votes. If he was getting 2% coverage and 7% votes, you'd have a valid point. As it is you have a point that is simply wrong, and if you bothered to pay attention to the issues you're claiming to care about, you'd already know that.

    173. Re:Nullified by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Citizens who are supporting the minority party and who are anticipating an election loss are against observers, because they can't make as many fake complaints if there are more observers. This seems to be a problem almost entirely when one particular Party is losing, too, not a systemic problem that all US Parties have.

      I think most citizens support observers and want more.

      In Oregon we have a very transparent system and everybody who wants to volunteer can be an observer, with or without connection to an observer group. They can watch the ballots being fed into the machines, and they can watch the counters increment in plain view with each ballot, and they can see from a distance what the action vote is on the ballot being fed into the machine.

    174. Re:Nullified by TheLink · · Score: 1

      There's too much crap on youtube when I use those keywords. I also looked for alex jones rnc and I don't know which video you're talking about. Same goes for: Ohio rigged 2004

      I'm not saying the videos don't exist since I know youtube's search really sucks. I've personal experience of knowing that a particular video exists but not being able to find it easily via youtube searches. Just get lots of unrelated crap instead.

      --
    175. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw constitional rights for hackers. They are always some place uninvited. Messing up things. They are the rapists of the internet.when caught they should be messed over, just like they do to people and organizations regularily!!!!! As if that's their right!!!!!

    176. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay internet person, I'm sure you actually know him

    177. Re:Nullified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he raped thousands of young, nubile school girls before setting fire to the local orphanarium"

      wow, he deserves much worse than life, then... "poor" bastard. >(o__o)>

  2. breaking and entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why should the sentence be any different than the very same crime committed in meat space.

    His crime is taking advantage of poor security to gain access. This would be the same as kicking in a flimsy door to gain physical access.

    1. Re:breaking and entering by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that the guy is getting unfairly treated (and charged, etc), but your logic sucks - no matter how flimsy the door, it's still B&E.

      The fucked-up part is, physically breaking and entering into the datacenter would likely have gotten him less potential jail time than busting in digitally.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:breaking and entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then burning the building down after he got inside (he deleted everything including backups).

    3. Re:breaking and entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hold fire, he has NOT been found guilty by a Competent Court of *anything* yet. NOBODY can say with conviction that he has committed any crime as at right now.

    4. Re:breaking and entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the guy is getting unfairly treated (and charged, etc), but your logic sucks - no matter how flimsy the door, it's still B&E.

      I'm curious, what's the penalty for that? I'm guessing it's not life imprisonment.

    5. Re:breaking and entering by Zondar · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking the possible penalties are more related to the sensitivity of the items taken, and less related to the method of obtaining it.

    6. Re:breaking and entering by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But if a billion dollar corporation is behind that flimsy door you are not going to get a slap on the wrist.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:breaking and entering by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

      It is in a state with crowded jails and early release for not violent crime. It would be time served if he went to court today. Ironically, he would have had his day in court, had it been physical B&E, 4-5 months ago.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    8. Re:breaking and entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or, more to the point, the possible penalties are so harsh because he not only interfered with a company that serves the United States' ruling class, but also demonstrated that they're clueless idiots, which in turn damage their stock price.

    9. Re:breaking and entering by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Nope, a better (even if still flawed) analogy would be B&E and destroying things inside without killing or doing anything that would imply into physical threat to the people inside and around it, like burning. It is B&E and destruction of property, which hardly incur in a life sentence even in US.

    10. Re:breaking and entering by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Oh, he is already found guilty by the government, now they are just waiting that long to make sure they can make a good case to justify it.

    11. Re:breaking and entering by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If it could be deleted remotely it's not a backup.
      I'm not just picking on you, it's an increasingly common mistake that a pile of people here would make and incidents like this and many others highlight. One web hosting machine near me recently went broke because their "backup" was online and somebody apparently deleted both copies of everything.

    12. Re:breaking and entering by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How is that relevant when it's a little thing like Stratfor that employs less people in total than your local supermarket does at the one outlet?

    13. Re:breaking and entering by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Plebs are not relevant, money and power are.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    14. Re:breaking and entering by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Stratfor doesn't really have that either - just noise.

    15. Re:breaking and entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about leverage. The defendant dared to use the leverage afforded by the telecommunications infrastructure against the powers that be. No explosive precursor purchases to tripwire. No stolen blasting caps. No firearms or ammunition purchases to tripwire. No physical travel for cameras to record. All that is needed is computer and a broadband Internet connection.

      As for the data involved, it smacks of ''secret evidence''. That ought to tell the jury something notwithstanding voir dire.

  3. Life? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.

    1. Re:Life? by bartosek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well now you know what the judicial system thinks.

    2. Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why who do you think writes the laws & subsides all the junkets of the judges?

    3. Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like in most of these things, the max sentence is unlikely. In the end, I'm sure it will be no picnic, but it won't be life either.

    4. Re:Life? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure a hacker won't have any trouble surviving 360 months in jail.

    5. Re:Life? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'll try to catch you up since you've obviously been in a comma for a while. Reagan won, his VP's son trashed the economy and started a couple wars, and in between the clan industrialized a few of their pet projects.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    6. Re:Life? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      30 years is still ridiculous for a crime like this...

    7. Re:Life? by Larryish · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would rather be in a comma than be in a colon.

    8. Re:Life? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      30 minutes should be considered ridiculous for this. Stratfor as a company should be under investigation, with possible criminal charges. Of course, why would society want to thank intelligent people who do not use their skills to exploit other people and actually try to benefit society, when instead we could punish them and demand that they just get in line and be selfish like everyone else?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Life? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is because hackers don't just act greedy. After all, they are daring to question the system, rather than just falling in line and trying to exploit other people. That is more dangerous than anything else, even more dangerous than someone who plans and executes a murder.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    10. Re:Life? by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.

      Read: Don't mess with our intelligence services.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    11. Re:Life? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.

      Read: Don't mess with our intelligence services.

      but it wasn't even an intelligence service, but a fucking corporation telling people that they were one. legally it should be on the same level as hacking your local McD. though chances are you'd have access to more cc's and bank codes if you owned the local mcd's pos systems. yet the judge seems to treat it like it was a defense contractor, which it was not.

      it was just shit borderline fraud operation due to the analysis being of the quality it was and that was the thing exposed - and stratfor should never ever legally should have kept record of those cc numbers either.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:Life? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Dead people don't contribute to political campaigns.

    13. Re:Life? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      After reading how he hacked them, I think calling them "intelligence services" is a bit of a stretch.

    14. Re:Life? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Yes, the court system is going overboard. But hacking into and nearly destroying a company should still be illegal, irrelevant of how stupid they are. A year in prison would be plenty.

    15. Re:Life? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If I may translate: "you don't mess with our military industrial complex or we WILL HURT YOU."

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Life? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      In the UK life is typically 15 years (possibly out in 7.5). This poor bastard has already been sentenced without trial to 30+ years, that is outrageously immoral.

      Thank god Gary McKinnon is not going to be extradited, wrong reason though, I would say that the length of the sentences handed out in the US are simply cruel and unjust.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    17. Re:Life? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      $700K in fraudulent credit card purchases. Hammond is now a big-time thief with significant prior criminal history.

  4. not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    meanwhile rapists and murders get off in 5-10

    truly is a corporate run government.

    1. Re:not surprised by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      British Petroleum managment always gets off with no time served. Bodies and billions destroyed all over the US.

    2. Re:not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if there is'nt any crime there can be no punishment.
      was there an accident? yes.
      was it taken care of? yes.
      do you like the settlement? no?
      thats because your hating a piece of paper.
      you know there is a real world out here.
      come and join us.
      regards
      mike

    3. Re:not surprised by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      Well, upper management may have gotten off with a slap on the wrist and a fine, but a couple middle management guys were charged with manslaughter.

    4. Re:not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they did. They were huge Obama donors.

  5. Scam people out of their life savings by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and get bailed out. Maker some intelligence company look like chumps and get life in prison. I know its the states but what happened to the punishment should fit the crime?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Scam people out of their life savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That never did exist, that is the thing.

      Everyone wants that ideal, but it doesn't exist.

    2. Re:Scam people out of their life savings by xs650 · · Score: 1

      In a Corporatocricy such as the US, committing a crime against a corporation is like committing a crime against the King in a monarchy. We are just seeing the start of this. In the eyes of our corporate overlords and their bought and paid for legislators and judges, this was a fitting punishment.

  6. Hacking is now Terrorism? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Crabtree notes that Hammond ... has also since been added to a terrorist watch list.

    So hacking into a Corporation will now get you labelled as a Terrorist and could land you life in prison.
    Seems that being a plain ol' armed robber and/or murderer would net you far less severe a punishment.

    Seems that if a crime happens on the internet, the punishment is automatically increased 10 fold from it's brick and mortar counter-parts.

    1. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by garcia · · Score: 1

      Depends on what the company he hacked does and if the government considers them a part of the US computer network infrastructure.

    2. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Seems that if a crime happens on the internet, the punishment is automatically increased 10 fold from it's brick and mortar counter-parts.

      Well, the last thing we want is for these newfangled e-criminals to compete unfairly and ruin the tried and true business model of all those struggling mom-and-pop criminals out there.

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    3. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the magic of the network effect. The Internet is a punishment multiplier.

    4. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      So hacking into a Corporation will now get you labelled as a Terrorist

      It has been since the DMCA hit the books. This is why I left goofy crap like "hacking" back in my college years.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Recently a friend of mine caught a burglar in the act and the burglar attacked him with a knife. Fortunately this friend was able to overpower him and the police caught the guy (who apparently has a drug addiction he was attempting to finance). Imagine the surprise when this guy was released after only 4 days in jail (still awaiting trial or a plea)! The way we elect our legislators and (in some districts) prosecutors is not conducive to having logical sentencing.

    6. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how did you get your job at the three letter agency?
      And how did you convince them to pay you for spending your workday posting here?

    7. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A small clipping agency with an email newsletter is considered a part of the US computer network infrastructure? Just as well he didn't go after something big with hundreds of times the intelligence resources like the NPR news section :)

    8. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Torvac · · Score: 1

      hackers should just stop hacking and shoot people in the face. cheaper trials, shorter prison time

    9. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > So hacking into a Corporation will now get you labelled as a Terrorist
      > and could land you life in prison. Seems that being a plain ol'
      > armed robber and/or murderer would net you far less severe a
      > punishment.

      Good thing he isn't black and wasn't smoking a joint when they caught him, or else he would have some of the worst debuffs the american justice game has to offer.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why I bought a ski mask and a hand gun, instead of a new computer.

    11. Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66 It has been since the DMCA hit the books. This is why I left goofy crap like "hacking" back in my college years. 99

      Now that you have toys that can be taken away from you or you can be taken away from your toys causes you to ''behave''. Freedom is about having things to lose so that people ''behave'' (i.e. become politically neutralized),.

      Terrorism is simply crime that utilizes the First Amendment.

  7. BUT !! BUT !! BUT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only copy infringement !! (2 MILLION DOLLAR FINE !!) I mean, it's only unauthorized computer access !! (360 MONTHS !!) I mean, it's only murder !! (2 YEARS, 1 SUSPENDED, time served) !!

    The moral is, don't try !! I mean, if you are going to commit a crime, GO BIG !!

    1. Re:BUT !! BUT !! BUT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I'm pretty sure that if he'd killing an important person he'd be looking at the death penalty. Murder all the peasants you want, but lay hands on a knight, or god forbid, a noble, and it's death for you, peon.

    2. Re:BUT !! BUT !! BUT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all rich white women count as nobles.

  8. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    proving two things; "smart" people can say the dumbest things, and she shouldn't be a judge.
    Did you hear her "view" on religion in schools? obviously she didn't listen, or understand, while she was learning to be a judge.
    She should be removed. Both from the case, and the bench.

  9. This makes perfect sense by mmHg760 · · Score: 1

    Think about it, they NEED to keep him in jail for at least 10 years : this is the only way to be sure that his "dangerous" knowledge about the interwebs will be obsolete enough to be harmless !

    JUSTICE !

    1. Re:This makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to agree with your joke but sadly most of the security vulnerabilities on the internet are classifications that are at least 10 years old.

    2. Re:This makes perfect sense by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Think about it, they NEED to keep him in jail for at least 10 years : this is the only way to be sure that his "dangerous" knowledge about the interwebs will be obsolete enough to be harmless !

      JUSTICE !

      Oh come on, it will be sooner than that

    3. Re:This makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your misunderstanding the type of person it takes to do something like he did. When your dealing with a real hacker you can pick him up out of any environment and drop him into a completely alien environment, he will still become more knowledgeable and practiced than the vast majority of the population in that new environment. It's in our (hackers) very nature to be extremely curious, the moment we see something that peaks our interest we find a way to learn about it, even if that traverses the boundaries of what's considered legal. Some of us do everything we can to avoid harming others, some don't seem to care, it's inevitable in any field to have people of both extremes as well as every shade of gray in-between.

    4. Re:This makes perfect sense by mmHg760 · · Score: 1

      I think you overestimating the knowledge legislators have of the hacker world, as well as the irony of my comment. I'm a firm believer in "curing" criminals instead of punishing them.

      I'm sure we can argue back and forth on the "good" or "bad" intrinsic nature of the human beings. From an evolutionist point of view "good" behavior (not in a moral way but in a rational way) within a group being the norm, and bad behavior being the anomaly, makes more sense than the opposite. ...or maybe the "hope" I'm exhibiting is biased by evolution as well...

      P.S.: Comment not applicable to large entities such as states. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment for more information on this exception.

  10. Is he really that dangerous? by physlord · · Score: 1

    Again, the government is trying to make the hackers look like overwhelmingly dangerous guys.

    Is a person like this so dangerous so he has to be kept away from the rest of us, the good working honest citizens, for the rest of his life?

    The last sentence is alarming, "[...]after it's been revealed that Judge Preska's husband was a victim of the Stratfor hack.". So, this is what justice is about.

    1. Re:Is he really that dangerous? by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Wait, is this not a conflict of interest? I feel a mistrial coming up.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    2. Re:Is he really that dangerous? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Which means if this was a non-politically motivated trial, the judge would have rescused herself out of conflict of intrests. This violates the very principle of a "fair trial".

      But we'lve already heard the system, and its supports for justifying breaking whatever rules if the accussed is high profile, and politically relivant.

      Does it sound like a little bit of history repeating.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

      except no one died in stratfor hacks. And its been established they were done at the behest of a man working as an agent of the US government.

  11. So what are you in for? by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh I murdered a couple of families on the eastern seaboard, luckily all I got was life. You?

    I uh..hacked a computer network..

    --
    Aw Frell this
    1. Re:So what are you in for? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Oh I murdered a couple of families on the eastern seaboard, luckily all I got was life. You? I uh..hacked a computer network..

      Remember, Peacekeepers have no sense of humor.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  12. abuse of power by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    nepotism

    plain and simple

    stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"

    prosecute them

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:abuse of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nepotism

      plain and simple

      stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"

      prosecute them

      What makes you think the legal system will do anything to well-connected
      criminals ?

      You must be new here. And by "here", I mean planet Earth.

    2. Re:abuse of power by tftp · · Score: 1

      stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"

      Services of all well-connected douchebags are not cheap. You pay for their connections. Sometimes the information is well worth the money. If you don't like the price you can always deploy your own network of spies, or you can resort to tasseography.

    3. Re:abuse of power by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      your cynicism means what exactly do you think? how do accept the unacceptable?

      you fight for what's right in this world. or you're a shitbag. you choose

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:abuse of power by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Actually most posters here probably work for places that can buy and sell Stratfor in total many times over with whatever the monthly profit is. It's a very small den of "well-connected douchebags", who really don't seem to be as well connected as they pretend.

  13. Interesting article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couple interesting things from the article:
    - the judge's spouse was a victim in the credit cards that this scumbag stole
    - the article says if convicted on all counts, it's a 360 month sentence (30 years)
    - he was denied bail
    - he has been added to a terrorism watch list

    If none of this makes any sense, then the article also points out that:
    - he was part of group that stole the emails published on wikileaks including those that revealed the existence of the Tripwire program (secret anti-terrorism surveillance on high value targets all over north america [includes face recognition and behavior analysis]).

    I have no sympathy for thieving scumbags and I look forward to him spending a good long time in jail for the cc thefts, but let's keep things in perspective a little. he's not Jeffrey Dahmer.

    1. Re:Interesting article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's please try and keep some perspective on this: he has not been found guilty of any thing by a Competent Court yet, so hold fire on that please. :)

    2. Re:Interesting article by cusco · · Score: 1

      Just a hint - Tripwire isn't an anti-terrorism program, it's an enormous black budget money hole. They don't have the infrastructure to deploy it, and no contracts to build out that infrastructure have been granted. Just more smoke and mirrors.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Interesting article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank the gods that you are all knowing and can so easily discount the possibility that an embarassing and legally questionable program has not been funded by diverting and mislabelling allocations. With such omniscience I bet you can even come up with a plan to get out of your mother's basement. It's trapwire not tripwire by the way.

  14. Legal precedence scare tactics by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    This would give the government a very scary legal precedence to scare script kiddies with.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
  15. Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation by sugarmotor · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the article

    In a press release issued under the branding of the Anonymous collective, supporters for Hammond call for Judge Preska’s immediate resignation from the case. “Judge Preska by proxy is a victim of the very crime she intends to judge Jeremy Hammond for. Judge Preska has failed to disclose the fact that her husband is a client of Stratfor and recuse herself from Jeremy's case, therefore violating multiple Sections of Title 28 of the United States Code,” the statement reads.

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She should have resigned the moment she knew her husband was involved. This personal vendetta is reprehensible. Can she be disbarred for this, or whatever the equivalent is for judges?

    2. Re:Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. It's so amusing to watch the sheep starting to wake up.

    3. Re:Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she doesn't, she should be thrown in jail. Really. She's definitely not worthy of being a judge if she doesn't realize the problem with this.

    4. Re:Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called denial of due process. The judge's actions are indeed grave and undefendable. Any action by this judge in this case so far should be void. Hammond has been denied objective oversight of all involved for the entire time the judge has been in control of his case. It is in everyone's interest that this situation is fully remedied because a court that is corrupted in this manner can abuse anyone in the future. The removal of the judge from this case should not be a battle. It should be a given. The impeachment of this judge should not be a battle. It should be a given. That all acts by this court so far are null and void should not be a battle. It should be a given because anything less means that our courts can be so easily abused by the corrupt as to make a complete descent into chaos inevitable.

  16. Re:Simple - If you can't afford the time by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    Then don't do the crime.

    Baretta is that you?

  17. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused...Is this a troll, or is he serious?

  18. Re:Simple - If you can't afford the time by siddesu · · Score: 1

    Even simpler - if you let some people game the system against you and one day you end up on the receiving end, open wide. The democracy is like the security -- it is a process, not a state. The moment the citizenry relaxes its vigilance (and back muscles) is the moment its freedomz are under attack (and democracy is anally raped).

    Yours, dirty K.O.

  19. Wrong. by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is almost universal that the defendant waives their right to a speedy trial on the advice of their attorney. Otherwise, their attorney would have to put on a defense far sooner that they would be ready.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Wrong. by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Also, lawyers charge by the hour.

  20. give him community service by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    give him community service or make him work work off the damage

    1. Re:give him community service by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      This.

      Why waste time and money putting non-violent criminals in jail? Temporarily seize their assets, put them in crappy low cost housing, then put them to work at minimum wage (think affordable nursing homes). Have them work 9-5, and in house arrest the rest of the time. No TVs, no computers, no phones. Easy and cheap compared to prison - they even have to pay for the food and housing.

      Any breach of the rules could of course result in a trip to the 'real' prison.

    2. Re:give him community service by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      in a real prison you get TV (more then just the free OTA stuff) and can make high cost phone calls.

    3. Re:give him community service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seriously want any type of criminal in a NURSING HOME??? Where a few of the residents there often need to use the call button in some cases just to get out of bed? Where some other residents there may need assistance to be showered or fed even if they get out of bed on their own? Where others may need a special medicine or diet even if they walk on their own and bathe on their own? Seriously? WTF?

    4. Re:give him community service by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Those nasty dreadlocks he's sporting are a crime by themselves.

    5. Re:give him community service by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see this work, but I think this has been tried before. Google something like "industrial revolution poorhouses debtor prisons".

      Actually, some of these things were good ideas at the time to solve some of the same problems. Once institutionalized, though, you had all kinds of abuses from people, companies, and governments taking advantage of the situation.

      Our current system of incarceration is our current attempt at a solution. Now it's being privatized. Now companies & communities depend on this for their livelihood.

      History is re-entrant.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:give him community service by dbIII · · Score: 1

      History is re-entrant.

      True, various US justice systems appear to be trying to re-run the complete fuckup that was the British justice and penal system at the time of the American war of independence.

    7. Re:give him community service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very fact that he sports such a hairstyle is prima facia evidence that he intends to renounce white privilege. However, since he still is technically white for the purposes of the ''hierarchy of protected classes (yes that list again)'', no one will say anything. If he wants to be treated as a minority, that legal fiction will be permitted to stand,. Minority for some purposes and white for others so as to maximize the sentence.

  21. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the best punishment would be a year or so in prison with the most violent and vicious criminals our society has to offer. If that doesn't discourage him from his black-hat activities then nothing will. A few before and after pictures (of both his face and anus) posted online should do the trick.

    You sir are simply a sadist.

    Even without experiencing the horrible torture you propose, you are already as cruel and depraved as if you had.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  22. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try, Stratfor.

  23. Or how about we just not have political prisoners? by Rix · · Score: 1

    Is that really too much to ask?

  24. That's not about corporations by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Corporations are virtual entitty. He tried to fuck with "priveledged" people, so he must be severely punished in order to demonstrate the power to other peasants. Sending a message is more important than any peasents' business.

    And I'm not being sarcastic.

    1. Re:That's not about corporations by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Per the SCOTUS, corporations are people -- just like Soylent Green.

  25. u.s no longer check's and balances by Vince6791 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So when the U.S government hacks into foreign government servers and causes damage it's patriotic but a u.s citizen it's criminal. What about government monitoring every aspect of the web including your emails(email and mail same shit) without a court warrant. Anyway, the judge violated parts of the Title 28 of the United States Code, The judge by law cannot take a case where his own family member is involved in which it might affect his decision making he/she no longer impartial, and it showed. The hacker was held for that long with no bond or speedy trial, decision made by the judge, it's illegal. If this is the fault of the patriot act or ndaa for holding him without trial we are all fucking screwed. Unfortunately, when high officials abuse human rights they get fired and never see jail time. This whole government is acting like a fucking monarchy, like they are all kings or fucking special. Government will never work because people are corrupt by nature this is why we should build machines with impartial behavior built in their cpu to rule us all.

    1. Re:u.s no longer check's and balances by jbolden · · Score: 1

      So when the U.S government hacks into foreign government servers and causes damage it's patriotic but a u.s citizen it's criminal.

      Yes. The state is empowered to do many things you aren't. For example if you hold people against their will that's kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment, they get to openly run a prison system.

      The hacker was held for that long with no bond or speedy trial, decision made by the judge,

      That's not true. The hacker waived his right to a speedy trial. That right rests with the defense not the judge.

  26. Re:Soviet vs American justice by TechnicalFool · · Score: 2

    That or you'll create someone who is so disaffected with society that they will end their own life approximately three months after coming out, in a way that involves a hail of bullets and a packed shopping mall.

    Some people break under pressure. Other people, well, they snap. You going to take the chance on which one Hammond is?

    This is without going into the particularly virulent sadism you seem to exhibit. Some people, just want to see some poor sod burn, eh?

    --
    09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
  27. 360 months! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, people keep talking about life: Do a little math, 360 months is 30 years.

    That shits outrageous.

  28. Re:Nullified - Did he waive his right... by BenJCarter · · Score: 0

    to a speedy trial?

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
  29. Why do I get the feeling that.... by 3seas · · Score: 0

    little bullies with their toys have their panties in a bunch over being exposed for what they are?

  30. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote Libertarian don't you.

  31. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you want to reward Bubba?
    If you want someone raped, you should have officially employed rapists, not let random criminals handle it.

  32. Bastille Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is the US going to have one? Here's another political prisoner the angry public needs to break out.

  33. US no better than China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    360 months (30 years) to life? Who the fuck has seen the inside of a jail cell, for any of the numerous unending scandals behind the financial crisis, that have impoverished and will impoverish many more people still? Who has seen the inside of a jail cell for engaging in war crimes, in a war of aggression, that after WWII was enshrined as one of the principle most evil acts a country can undertake? Who has seen the inside of a jail cell, for illegally spying on their citizenry, or for sanctioning that? For murdering other countries citizens (and even some of their own) in drone strikes?

    Fuck off with this utter bullshit; this guy was caught and should spend time in prison for what he did, but the length of the sentence they are going after is hideously gratuitous; this is the totally unaccountable elite trying to make an example out of someone, for giving enough of a shit to fight back, and reveal information that embarrasses that elite.

    I don't pretend that this guy or Anonymous in general work with noble intentions, it's plainly obvious many of them do it just because they like the attention and drama of high-profile hacks, and useful information gained is often incidental, but there's a lot to be said for the civil disobedience aspect of these attacks on establishment institutions; much of the information gained from Stratfor provided a valuable service to the public interest, and this guys attack should be treated as an act of civil disobedience, meriting the same level of outrage defense, of someone getting a similarly gratuitous sentence for trespassing while protesting.

    This is a government that already massively invades everyones privacy through surveillance, and is trying to gratuitously expand their attacks on peoples privacy through massive expansions on monitoring the whole Internet in the US, with the legal ability to invade anyones online and personal lives.

    If they're going to try and invade peoples privacy to such a huge degree, people should fucking fight back and legitimize digging dirt on government and connected establishment institutions through hacking, as an act of civil disobedience; if they want to invade peoples privacy and lives, but try to remain opaque and unaccountable, people should fucking well force transparency onto them, and be ready to face the legal consequences, and defend those that get caught up in gratuitous cases such as these.

  34. Client ? by raind · · Score: 1

    So the judges "husband" is a client? why or was it a corp he worked for?

    --
    Get up!
  35. I guess you forgot the Kevin Mitnick Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It happened to Mitnick It happens every day

  36. Re:Stratfor To Get Life by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Yes, because my honest opinion on the matter is flaimbait, and overrated at 0. Yes, makes perfect sense to me. I repent; Stratfor is a great all-American company and should be loved by serfs and overlords alike. If companies like Stratfor only had more power, the world would be at peace. I luv u Sratfor! I know you only collude and keep information from the public because you care. We're not worthy. The Authorities should never need pause for public inspection.

    - Reformed by Modpoints

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  37. I would hope that it's up to the defendant. by Sanians · · Score: 2

    The prosecution certainly has as much time as it wants. It can gather evidence indefinitely, gaining as much of a head-start against the defense as it would like, before filing charges. In essence, when the prosecutor files charges, that's saying "OK, I'm ready, let's go."

    To allow the defense to have as much time as it would like, but not require the defendant to give up their right to a speedy trial at the same time, would only make sense. It's already impossible for the defense to have as much time to prepare a case as the prosecution has. There's no reason someone should have to give up their right to not sit in jail waiting for a trial indefinitely just because their defense needs a little more time to prepare a response, when the prosecution essentially had all the time in the world. ...but then, making sense isn't all that common, so who knows...

  38. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Maow · · Score: 1

    Had this happened in the old Soviet Union he would have gotten life in prison as well. A short life, punctuated by a bullet to the back of the head.

    You seem to wish a return to "the good ol' days".

    But because this is America, my tax dollars are going to spent keeping him alive for the next several decades. Either kill him, or deliver a cost-effective but brutal punishment such as will discourage anyone else from pulling the same crap he did.

    Cheap cunt. All you care about is your tax dollars? And yet nothing in your post about reforming the system to have fewer non-violent prisoners. Yeah, I bet you'd love China's or Soviet Union's penal system.

    Seems to me that the best punishment would be a year or so in prison with the most violent and vicious criminals our society has to offer. If that doesn't discourage him from his black-hat activities then nothing will. A few before and after pictures (of both his face and anus) posted online should do the trick.

    You sick fuck.

  39. Stratfor's Dictionary by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Intelligence:
    Noun
    1. A collusive process whereby otherwise public information is made proprietary, assimilated and either (a) retained, or (b) reconstituted by the few for purposes of affecting the many.
    2. The art of making something seem more intelligent by obscuring the details necessary for thorough evaluation.
    3. A politically-correct synonym for propaganda (America, UK).
    4. A private precursor to public ignorance (America, UK)
    5. An expendable and valuable resource thought by oligarchs to produce results at a significantly-faster rate than wisdom, but with greater consequences and less predictable results on long-term scales. (America, UK)
    6. An industrialized, highly refined form of data-processing specially tailored for those deficient of intellect.
    7. A misnomer, popular amongst pun enthusiasts

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  40. Culpability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why isn't this corporation held accountable for their failures?

  41. Re:Stratfor To Get Life by cusco · · Score: 1

    they'll soon be getting some heavy-duty sentences themselves

    Not bloody likely. Remember who they work for. All they have to do is whisper in some highly-placed ears that their dirty laundry is about to be exposed and any charges will be dropped and all proceedings classified. Once the scum rises to the top it's pretty much untouchable.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  42. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he could always spend his time in prison to teach these same unsavoury folk what he knows which should really help society

  43. Before people go jumping to confusions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First, do we know for certain that it is the prosecutors who are delaying this?

    MANY defendants in the U.S. chose to slow-walk things for strategic reasons. Sometimes they are advised (by their own lawyers) to do this to allow the public to cool-off a bit and hopefully make the trial easier to win with less public attention and a less "tainted" jury pool, and sometimes it is to get more time for the defense team to locate some favorable evidence or "expert" witnesses. Defense teams also often lie about this tactic... although in the racially-charged shooting case in Florida the defense team has admitted they are doing this (it's perfectly legal and ethical). Do we KNOW for certain whether the defense team in the StratFor case has actually filed the proper motions to speed things up? There actually have been cases in the U.S. where defendants filed the proper papers to speed things up and this trapped the prosecutors who had been dragging their feet to finish putting their case together... the defendant generally wins in efforts to speed-up the action.

    One other caveat: The story linked is from "Russia Today"... and Commisar Putin's people are not generally friendly to the U.S. It's fine to read stories on RT that put things in the U.S. in a negative light... but it's always a good idea to verify the facts someplace else that's less-likely to be grinding an axe.

  44. The jerk is not a political prisoner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    People who actively commit criminal acts are not "political prisoners"

    Political prisoners get jailed for saying or writing things the government does not like; they are jailed for having and/or promoting the "wrong" political views

    Nasty, foul, obnoxious twits do not get to commit crimes against other citizens and lawful businesses they do not like and then claim to be political prisoners when arrested By the standards of this guy's supporters, I guess a cop who beats somebody up and then gets prosecuted would be an innocent political prisoner, right? I guess the American guards who were prosecuted for abusing prisoners at the Iraqi prison were, themselves, political prisoners right? If Mitt Romney is angry at Democrats after the election and decides to get revenge by robbing a store run by a Democrat or burning-down Democrat part headquarters and he is caught and prosecuted, does he become a "political prisoner"? In the real world, the answer would be "no" he would just be another criminal... but in lefty-world he apparently would be (but only if he was a liberal and had attacked something he thought was right-wing).

    If the politics of the StratFor hack were reversed... if this was some right-wing "hacktivist" and he had gone-after things like move-on or daily Kos, or maybe some entity that was part of the Obama campaign's internet activity would you be on his side and calling him a political prisoner? I'd bet more than a nickel that you'd be calling for his execution. You know, there were once some "hactivists" who broke into a Democrat office to try to pry loose some dirty hidden secrets... it was called "Watergate" and the left in the US still hisses about it... people on both the left AND the right called for jail time for the crooks (who did indeed go to jail). Yeah, Nixon never went to jail, but there was no evidence he ordered the break-in or knew about it before it happened... his crimes were the political ones of trying to cover it up and he paid the political price of being driven from office and having his reputation destroyed...but that's a separate issue... his "hacktivists" who broke into a "site" run by people whose politics they opposed were, irrespective of their politics or political motivations, just plain crooks... same as this jerk

  45. Threats? by deimtee · · Score: 1

    That sounds like the judge is seriously trying to push him into a plea bargain.

    --
    I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  46. The Judge should have recused herself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She is derelict in her duties.

  47. Sniff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A more appropriate sentence would be to lock him in a room with the Vista operating system.

  48. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Well said.

  49. Judicial system at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Husband ? conflict oops Change of venue Eights months in jail no trial, what happened to due process and right to speedy trial. Breakdown all the way around

  50. Equal protection under the law? What's that? by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Jeremy Hammond actually did commit the crimes of which he is accused (and remember he is legally entitled to the presumption of innocence), then he deserves to be punished. But it's very difficult to think of any situation where life in prison would be appropriate for what is basically a small-scale hack of the type that happens dozens if not hundreds of times every day. Stratfor is a company with 70 employees. The local library where I work has more employees than that, and probably more patrons than Stratfor has customers. If someone hacked our databases, do you think the authorities would investigate the complaint as seriously, much less try to sentence the hacker to life in prison? If someone hacked into the poorly-secured credit card data from a small restaurant and did the same amount of damage, would the authorities be treating him or her as Public Enemy No. 1? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Hammond is being pursued with such vigor not because he broke the law, but because he committed offenses against politically powerful people, the clientele of Stratfor. (According to Wikipedia, "the company's publicity list includes Fortune 500 companies and international government agencies.") While this may not be surprising, it's a clear violation of the Constitution and needs to be fought against.

    1. Re:Equal protection under the law? What's that? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      he deserves to be punished. ?????

      Seems like the companies and banksters which refused, interfered with and interdicted the normal business processes of Wikileaks committed a whole slew of criminal violations (both in Europe and the USA) and nothing has nor will occur to those corporate criminals. Jon Corzine recently stole over $1 billion, and he's getting off scot-free! Over 800 banksters were convicted and jailed in the aftermath of the S&L debacle --- care to name me any who've seen the inside of a penitentiary recently????

      You, JDG, should experience an Obama drone up your butt.......

  51. The call it "global intelligence" ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The call it "global intelligence" because a real news service has more staff. They were a newspaper clipping service FFS! Your local supermarket probably employs more people just putting boxes on shelves than these guys did it total.

  52. National Security? Give up the drugs! by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    National security is irrelevant when the apparent felony was a computer based attack committed against a tiny clipping agency that didn't even have a full time guy to look after their computers.

  53. Re:Soviet vs American justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    If you're, essentially, proposing torture as a punishment, then why don't you just say so in the open?

  54. Typo above - "company" not "machine" by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Typo above - "company" not "machine".

  55. The Same Argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..has been used by people suffering the NKVD for decades.

  56. You Are Full Of Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was not at all "national security" related. It was a private company being pwned. You are defending the rich&powerful in their attempt to destroy a person and then lock him away until he dies.

    You deserve to die in a KGB Gulag, as you obviously have shit at the place where others have a spine.

  57. Don't Mess With The Private KGB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a private company with some links to the rich&powerful being pwned. It is really astounding how subservient and stupid you Americans can be. You really deserve the Soviet Union Of America.

  58. Don't Say THAT ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will be put on the Too-Reasonable-To-Be-Harmless Watchlist of the Department Of Hobo Security !

  59. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a really simple solution. Don't fucking hack into someones system. It's no different than breaking into their residence, or place of business. You do not have a right to do this. Plain and simple. If you are considering commiting a crime you might want to look up the applicable statute, the sentencing guidelines for violating that statute, and if your cost to benefit analysis tells you the penalty is not worth the gain, get a fucking job like a normal person and don't commit crimes. Simple enough? Millions of people do it everyday, and lead happy productive lives.

  60. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such is the ignorant and short-sighted opinion of those too foolish to realize that the system can and likely will be turned on them at some point in the future, probably for something trivial.

    Will they be clamoring for more ass-rape in jail then? We can only hope.

  61. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 0

    If I were a sadist, would I be troubled by you calling me one?

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  62. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    They're not capable of learning.

    You don't end up in San Quintin for armed robbery because you are intelligent, insightful and calculating.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  63. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    I'm proposing that he get the same punishment that Hans Reiser has received, quality time within that special place known as San Quentin. Hans has learned the hard way that murdering the mother of your children is not a great way to solve a marital spat.

    Whether that qualifies as torture or not doesn't trouble me. If you say it is torture, so be it, doesn't matter to me. What does trouble me is the idea of the American people having to shell out 2 MILLION dollars, or more, to keep this guy under armed lock and key for the next half century. Total waste of money.

    Far too often in this country, criminal penalties cost society more than the actual crime for which that person is being punished. Not sustainable in a nation that is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt, and growing by BILLIONS more each day.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  64. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    Exactly

    This guy, if actually guilty of the charges against him, is a scumbag. I've no real qualms about the punishment he receives, provided it represents a real deterrent to others and is cost effective. Life in prison is a good deterrent, but one that is going to cost the taxpayers 2 MILLION dollars or more. Meanwhile there are violent criminals who could be locked up instead. There has to be a better way.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  65. Re:Soviet vs American justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You truly are one disgusting, sociopathic individual. Have you considered that some of the people in those prisons may be innocent, for a start? Are you okay with inflicting severe mental grief and physical pain on people with that in mind so that you can skimp on your taxes?

  66. Been There, Done That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..and I can tell you "funny" things happened in my life. All sorts of military/intelligence people show up and they are normally the opposite of friendly. Only strong people really survive this. These days I make sure most things are done with a high degree of anonymity - that keeps at least the non-government "shit" away.

    You can play the hero if you are ready to accept the serious downsides. That's why most are Obedient Sheeple and like to go to movies to watch heros, but of course they would never even seriously open their mouths.

  67. The Problem With You Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..is that you have lost any decency, if you ever had that. This guy and Bradley Manning deserve *some* punishment. But what they do and contemplate to do to this guys if just way over the top. Torture, life imprisonment for hacking a corporation, what the hell is that ? United States of Uganda ??

  68. The Elephant In This Room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..being the excessive jail terms. This case demonstrates this. In any sane country a hacker would not have received more than three years. They are contemplating "life".

    That's the easy explanation for a huge prison population - kneejerk justice.

    1. Re:The Elephant In This Room by Marxdot · · Score: 1

      And the profits of contractors.

    2. Re:The Elephant In This Room by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why sentence low when the sentencing judges own stock in the private prisons (or have other family in "law enforcement" working there)?

  69. Welcome To The Soviet Union Of Amercia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the subjects even defend the actions of the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, errm - the "President".

  70. More than Unfair by davydagger · · Score: 1

    Life in prison for "hacking". and it didn't involve an axe?

    Considering this was a government directed attack, isn't this a little much. If he was selling massive amounts of drugs he would have been safer.

  71. Just Join The Foreign Legion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..and get yourself removed from the face of earth. Thank you.

  72. Dear Mr Kneejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr Nixon was removed from office so as to not having him Kennedy-ed. Look up "Giant Lance".

  73. You Are Fucking Insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy did something wrong. He fucked with an IT system. He needs to be punished. But certainly NOT as hard as a murderer, rapist, lethal arsonist etc. Your argument supports any NKVD-style state crime. Or Saudi-style state crime. "We chopped off his hand as an example to everybody who thinks they can steal candy". "We shot him in the back as an example for all who come five minutes late to work".

    1. Re:You Are Fucking Insane by leereyno · · Score: 1

      Murderers, rapists, etc, etc, get DECADES in prison, or at least they should.

      I'm recommending a year precisely because his offence doesn't warrant the same sort of punishment.

      Life in prison should be reserved for those who truly deserve it.

      As for your other accusations, they are purely gratuitous.

      --
      Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  74. So America is one Millimeter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..better than the Soviet Union ? That's very reassuring. I always knew the US cancer must be contained.

  75. They ARE "Dangerous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..after all they threaten all the cosy, corrupt arrangements between Washington, NY and the MIC. Mr Fuld of Lehman Brothers could actually indicted for book-cooking if these Nasty Nerds don't stop telling everybody what actually happened. These people are, well, Information Terrorists !

    So, Make And Example Of One. Lock him up forever, so that O'Bomba's and Richard Fuld's financial future is not being threatened !

  76. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    Calling me names is such a persuasive argument. How can I possibly argue with someone who emotes rather than thinks?

    So life in prison is better for those who are innocent? Dying of old age in a cage a half century from now is better than a year behind bars? Exactly where do you think these innocents are being incarcerated? In the prison where only nice people are kept?

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  77. Don't Be So Selfish ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't You Think About The Prison Industry ? Don't be so selfish; these people need "work", too. Replenishing that 1% of America Population is not so easy !!

  78. +5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +5

  79. YOU Are A Threat To Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..because YOU Advocate Excessive Punishment. This guy fucked up and deserves one or two years jail, not life.

  80. Rolling Stone did a profile of Hammond by indytx · · Score: 1

    Couple of issues ago. Sorry, no link, read it in the paper edition.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  81. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Marxdot · · Score: 1

    Why yes, how dare he challenge the 'authority' of a crooked corporation.

  82. Amazing....... by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    Break into some idiotically secured defense contractor website and try to donate some money to charities and have life in prison swinging over your head. Bankrupt millions of people and sabotage the world economy to pillage billions of dollars, get a series of bailouts and golden parachutes.

  83. Can you actually read English? by Chas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..because YOU Advocate Excessive Punishment. This guy fucked up and deserves one or two years jail, not life.

    Reread what I said. In no way, shape or form do I "advocate excessive punishment" (you don't really need to capitalize every word in the phrase).

    I said he deserves a fair and impartial trial with no taint of impropriety.

    As to "he fucked up".

    The man is a SERIAL fuckup. He's already fucked up and been charged for his "fuckups" multiple times. He keeps doing it.

    He didn't go into this blind. Not knowing the consequences of his actions.

    He ALREADY spent TWO YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON for a similar hack (again, breaking into a site of someone with a political ideology other than his own and stealing financial info).

    So arguing that somehow didn't know the consequences of his actions is flat-out bullshit.

    At best, he misjudged the MAGNITUDE of his consequences.

    As a serial offender, he requires something a bit more significant than a two year vacation at Club Fed.

    Does he deserve life?

    Probably not. But his return to society should be protracted enough to insure he understands the consequences of his actions (two years in prison weren't enough to keep him from doing it again) and never, EVER wants to do something this stupid again.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Can you actually read English? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The US legal system explicitly is NOT about teaching somebody a lesson. It is not designed as a reformation system, it is a punishment system. Not only is he unlikely to learn that his actions were wrong, they're unlikely to try to teach him that.

      You can learn using pictures at http://lawcomic.net/guide/

      And if a convicted felon doesn't deserve life even after repeating the same felonies, with potentially thousands of victims, I don't see how you could assume that any amount of time in prison would "teach" them anything. If you measure how many people could be harmed by the financial disclosures, and divide it by the number of years of his expected lifespan, even a first offender at most felonies are going to get a larger punishment. He won't live long enough to "pay" for his crimes, so I'm not sure how a life sentence would be disproportionate.

      I say, if he is found guilty, throw away the key. And yeah, these charges are too serious for him to ask for a speedy trial... he's the one that would be hurt by that, the prosecution has their case already, his guilt is in the evidence. It is the defense that is most advantaged by time to prepare. A speedy trial protects the innocent against having pre-trial detention abused to hold them without conviction, it doesn't really protect the guilty from having a large and complicated case with a boatload of evidence brought against them. And as a convicted felon, he has less presumption of innocence than the average man, and more presumption of flight risk.

    2. Re:Can you actually read English? by Chas · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry if you don't find the prospect of having to give up a portion of your adult lifetime in a penal institution educational.

      I do. In the same way burning one's hand on a hot pot is educational.

      The basic lesson "Don't do that! BAD!"

      Note: Not everyone learns from this teaching method.

      In which case, the second aspect of prison asserts itself.

      Segregation. The offender is removed from society so that he/she stops hurting it.

      Also, speedy trials are good in some ways, when the prosecution doesn't have the time to prepare its case fully and the defense can challenge in a straightforward fashion.

      In Jeremy's case, the prosecution has mountains of evidence and the case pretty much is a slam-dunk. In this situation, it behooves the defense to NOT move to a speedy trial so that they can go over all the evidence and attempt to get crucial pieces removed or cast reasonable doubt on them.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  84. Libertarians on Slashdot ? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    > I think you've just described how 80% of the people who call themselves libertarians on slashdot see themselves. Thankfully they are too timid to put their deluded "tough talking" into practice.

    Don't assume to speak for slashdot and don't assume that slashsdotter equates to libertarianism. In my opinion libertarianism presents a false argument, eg freedom versus big government. When in actual fact the danger originates in a form of corporate-feudal-corporatism. What these authoritarians types don't seem to realize is that WE are the government - they work for US.

    --
    AccountKiller
  85. Re:Soviet vs American justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Calling me names is such a persuasive argument.

    It was not an argument - merely a statement of fact. You clearly are sociopathic.

    So life in prison is better for those who are innocent? Dying of old age in a cage a half century from now is better than a year behind bars? Exactly where do you think these innocents are being incarcerated? In the prison where only nice people are kept?

    The difference between us two is that I don't think that Bubba et al should be part of prison experience by design. It's certainly there, and that's very bad and should be dealt with ASAP (as opposed to let it go with tacit approval of those running the prison). You, instead, go in the other direction, and proudly proclaim your support for something that's the single most disgusting and criminal thing about American prisons.

  86. Small correction. by Chas · · Score: 1

    People who smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes. NOT a problem.

    This is what happens when I type too quickly.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  87. Corporate Fascist State, est. 1963 by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Last democratic president to occupy the White House: President John F. Kennedy (murdered, 1963)

    Last progressive national leader: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (murdered, 1968)

    Last authentic democratic presidential candidate to get close to the presidency: Sen. Bobby Kennedy (murdered, 1968)

    Last senator to almost accomplish economic democracy for American workers with his legislation towards universal collective bargaining rights: Sen. Paul Wellstone (died in suspicious aircraft accident, 2002 --- last minute substituion of co-pilot)

    The brief BBC audio clip --- featuring a rare and short clip of Lee Harvey Oswald, articulating intelligently on the differences between Soviet-style communism and real Marxism is below (please ignore the author's remarks pertaining to Oswald's CIA-fabricated military record --- claims him to be have been an ATC, so he could pass on false coordinates to the Sovs, instead of a Russian linguist, which he actually was) --- sure doesn't sound like a looney lone guman, in fact, sounds like a CIA agent and FBI informant set up to be the patsy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010jyv1

    Recommended reading: Donald Gibson's Battling Wall Street: the Kennedy presidency, and David Talbot's Brothers

  88. Life in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are people who have only spent a few years in prison for murder!!! Were their deaths attributed to these hacks? I don't care if he is a good person or not, his character doesn't mater. The man deserves a FAIR trial based on his actions, not a kangaroo court where the judge's impartiality has been compromised to it's core. Whats next, the death sentence for hackers??

  89. Might makes right. by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    The rest is just PR.

  90. Re:Soviet vs American justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right. It isn't worth locking the worthless scumbag up. Just execute him.

  91. Any You ? INSCOM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of your points are not criminal issues at all. My guess is that you army types are offended by him being against the war your nice Muppet In Chief has started. Big money, big advanture in war. He is against it and that offends you dumbasses.

    1. Re:Any You ? INSCOM ? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Ex-Army. Been out nearly 20 years now (fuck, now I feel old...).

      And while us blowing a bunch of shit up in the Middle East satisfied some people's need for a projection of strength, the truth is, we're doing exactly what we did in Japan. We're rebuilding them. With OUR money. Hurting OUR economy. In the end, all it's going to do is replace one militantly unfriendly government with a militantly less-than-friendly government that may just collapse when we pull out, leaving us with a revolution and a new militantly unfriendly government.

      Please stop trying to paint me. Your brush is way WAY too wide.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  92. Very Old Thing, Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Greeks had Sparta, who were the opposite of liberty. Lots of people left and right are deep down ready and willing to give up the last scrap of freedom for all sorts of "security". Mid-age and Old Women are the worst of that sort of people. "Why do you complain they monitor your computer and telephone - they just make sure you don't rob me".

    All the shit they call "civilization" has been conceived by some perverts of Greece, Babylon, Israel, Asia, Arabia and the like. In reality it's full of hypocrisy when the rich&powerful are pissed off. I'll take the Freedom Of Germanic Barbarians ANY TIME over that bullcrap.

  93. Oh Re-a-l-l-y ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the establishment parties are deeply corrupted by NY, London finance, by the MIC, by Big Pharma. There is very little difference between Obama and Bush. Obama even called himself being "part of the 1%", when the truth of course is that he is just their puppet. Did he deport Richard Fuld of Lehman Bothers to Guantanamo ? No, not even questioning by the FBI. Instead they nailed a minor guy.

    But of course he expands the "war on terror" to half of Arabia and half of Africa.

    At the same time they are sliding into deeper levels of debt every day and the Day Of Default is quite close. There is indeed a need for a radical alternative to these incompetent and corrupt people.

  94. You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..could very well be a G-man who is still pissed he opposed an illegal war

    1. Re:You by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Uh no.

      I dislike what our government's become. But you're not going to see me blowing people's shit up. You're not going to see me vandalizing others in a childish hissy-fit.

      I'm going to do the hardest thing of all. Work for real changes. Not pull stupid pranks in the hopes that I'm going to jump-start a revolution.

      That kind a head-up-ass thinking went out with Manson...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  95. Oh Yeah, Mr INSCOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone offends your shitty overlords, he must be locked away forever. Land of the Free etc.

  96. Nice Try, Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we now proceed to discuss Jewish Theft Of Arab Land since 1949 to the present day ? Jailing People in Gaza "for fun" ? Assassinations by Jewish State Terrorists ? You better crawl back into your cave, cave-man.

  97. If The Guy Attacked Rich&Powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..he would by now be in a supermax "terrorist" jail.

  98. Please parse properly by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The words you quoted said what they said, and in no way indicate "slashsdotter equates to libertarianism". If you are getting bullshit like that out of the text I suggest discarding whatever baggage you have and instead just read it as written.

  99. Re:Soviet vs American justice by sjames · · Score: 1

    How about we sentence him to house arrest and give him some community service?

    If we are being honest, the so-called crime was already a community service.

  100. Getting caught by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

    A slight off-topic - but how do people who have the skills to realize complex attacks manage to fail to cover their tracks and get caught?

  101. Murder VS Any Computer Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you can commit 1st degree murder and get out in 4yrs on good behavior and yet computer crime comes with a minimum 10yr without possibility of parole is literally insane. This news has taken it to a whole new level of retardedly gay stupidity. (Note: retardedly gay added because it is funny how it will piss people off more than murder does)

  102. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    I'm clearly sociopathic eh? You are clearly prone to name calling and making gratuitous accusations towards people with whom you disagree.

    Prison is where criminals are kept. Criminals victimize people. So naturally they victimize each other in prison. This is why anyone accused of a crime is so fearful of spending time behind bars. It isn't the confinement that inspires such fear, it is the people they are locked up with. Shows like Beyond Scared Straight use this to full effect.

    There are prisons where this doesn't happen. They are called SuperMax facilities. Convicts are under 24 hour lock-down in isolated cells. They don't get to interact with each other.

    Interestingly enough, these facilities are commonly attacked as inhumane and cruel.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  103. Re:Soviet vs American justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    It's not about our disagreement. It's about the fact that you want to see other people suffer, and clearly enjoy that knowledge.

    The problem with your argument is that prison rape is not prevalent in most Western countries other than US, where it is systemic. Which seems to imply that it's either something to do with how prisons are organized there, or else it is systemically encouraged by prison authorities as a form of punishment, just as you want it to be.

    Oh, and prison is where people who were convicted by court are kept. This does not necessarily mean that they are guilty of what they were convicted for, and even when they are, there are many victimless crimes (War on Drugs etc). So, no, it's not natural that they "victimize each other in prison".

  104. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of convicts are guilty. Very few are innocent. Spend some time around corrections officers sometime and you'll learn all about the wonderful people under their charge, and just how depraved and vicious most of them are.

    I want black hats punished. I want them punished severely. I want them punished in such a way that other would-be black hats are discouraged. This is how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. I also want that punishment to be cost effective. Life in prison costs 2 million plus. A year costs less than 50 thousand.

    If that makes me a sociopath, then so is every other person who has ever been victimized by a criminal. In case you haven't noticed, politicians get a lot of mileage out of promising to be tough on crime, of locking criminals up under harsh conditions. I guess that means we're living in a nation full of sociopaths. You could always move to Norway where the mass murderer of 77 innocent people has been sentenced to a mere 21 years in prison.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  105. BULLOCKS! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    That judge should remove herself from the case as it will NOT be an unbiased ruling, that is for sure! Women tend to get emotional about things, especially taking their husband for a ride....I think there needs to be a governing body that watches over judges in such instances, ....I am sure she is not the ONLY judge in that state!

  106. Re:Soviet vs American justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Spend some time around corrections officers sometime and you'll learn all about the wonderful people under their charge, and just how depraved and vicious most of them are.

    Spend some time reading about the Stanford prison experiment, and you'll learn about the actual value of those anecdotes.

    I want black hats punished. I want them punished severely. I want them punished in such a way that other would-be black hats are discouraged.

    See, the very fact that you think that rape is a suitable punishment for any sort of crime at all - much less one that did not involve any physical harm - is why you're sociopathic.

    In case you haven't noticed, politicians get a lot of mileage out of promising to be tough on crime, of locking criminals up under harsh conditions. I guess that means we're living in a nation full of sociopaths.

    Yes, you do. Of course, it's also a nation full of idiots, because all those people voting for "tough on crime" politicians don't realize that they're one silly thing away from being prison raped themselves, for something like smoking a joint, or visiting a forum that happened to have CP posted on it at that particular moment by someone else.

    You could always move to Norway where the mass murderer of 77 innocent people has been sentenced to a mere 21 years in prison.

    Because these are the only two options that you can possibly choose, and e.g. life sentence is unheard of - either 21 years in prison, or torture them and let them go free.

  107. Re:Soviet vs American justice by leereyno · · Score: 1

    I just realized something. I'm wasting my time talking to someone whose opinion of my mental state is about as informed as my understanding of Swahili.

    You're not qualified to evaluate my mental state. You're a coder, not a psychologist, not a shrink.

    The Stanford prison experiment is interesting, but it is also irrelevant. Prisons aren't filled with individuals chosen at random from the larger society and arbitrarily assigned roles as guards and convicts. Prisons are filled with CRIMINALS. Bad people who have done bad things, usually repeatedly before they were finally caught, and who would still be out there doing more of those same bad things if they were not locked up.

    I want black hats locked up. If Bubba gives them a welcoming party while there.....maybe they'll think twice before pulling that kind of crap again. If not, Bubba will still be there for their second visit.

    Smoking joints is proof of profound stupidity. I've no sympathy for someone stupid enough to violate a law whose consequences are known to all. Get caught with a joint, go to jail. The only winning move is to stay away from such drugs. I do believe that the laws and money spent on such things are unneccesary, but then so are the joints themselves. Illicit Drugs aren't useful or helpful. They're damaging. A real pass/fail IQ test all around. Fuck drug users. If they're stupid enough to do drugs and get caught then I'm not going to cry cause they're having to face the consequences.

    As for the kiddy porn argument, that's specious nonsense. No one has ever been convicted of traffiking child pornography on that basis. There have been sexual predators who have tried to pretend that the tens of thousands of images of children being sexually abused found on their computer were somehow put there by others. Such arguments don't stand up in court and Chester the Child Molester gets locked up, as he should be.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  108. Re:Soviet vs American justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You're not qualified to evaluate my mental state. You're a coder, not a psychologist, not a shrink.

    It does not take a psychologist to realize that a person who wants to inflict torture on other people is not mentally stable.

    The Stanford prison experiment is interesting, but it is also irrelevant. Prisons aren't filled with individuals chosen at random from the larger society and arbitrarily assigned roles as guards and convicts. Prisons are filled with CRIMINALS. Bad people who have done bad things, usually repeatedly before they were finally caught, and who would still be out there doing more of those same bad things if they were not locked up.

    Right. Bad, nasty things like smoking marijuana.

    Smoking joints is proof of profound stupidity. I've no sympathy for someone stupid enough to violate a law whose consequences are known to all.

    Regardless of whether it is stupid or not, you are openly okaying, of not outright supporting, rape as a punishment for it. The fact that it does not disturb you in the slightest is further proof of my point.

  109. Re:Soviet vs American justice by TechnicalFool · · Score: 1

    Evidently you are. Some people can't handle the truth it seems, and begging for someone to be anally raped is sadism. Ergo, you are a sadist.

    --
    09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
  110. A quaintly outmoded concept: HONOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stratfor is a corporate spying and enforcement organization, just completely anti-democratic. If you've got money and want people investigated or even destroyed, they'll do it. They're criminals hiding behind the vestige of being a legitimate corporation. Rest assured, groups like Stratfor want to usher in fascism.....

    Having said that, I'm not a fan of "hackers" either, in fact many of them are complete wastes of intelligence and talent. While this guy should be punished, I think it's completely fair to say that the system is judging him way too harshly. Any person or group that calls for increasingly draconian punishments and/or using the system to entrap people they find unappealing is in fact a dangerous extremist (regardless of where they sit politically or socially).