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."

Comments

Nullified

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Nullified

[Penguinisto]

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...)

Re:Nullified

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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.

Re:Nullified

[iccaros]

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.

Re:Nullified

[sgt scrub]

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

Re:Nullified

[Lendrick]

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.

Re:Nullified

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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."

Re:Nullified

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Nullified

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Nullified

[__aaltlg1547]

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.

Re:Nullified

[Creepy]

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.

Re:Nullified

[Jafafa Hots]

Disregard for authority?

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

Re:Nullified

[Chas]

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.

Re:Nullified

[dbIII]

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.

Life?

[garcia]

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

Re:Life?

[bartosek]

Well now you know what the judicial system thinks.

Re:Life?

[Larryish]

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

Re:Life?

[MrKaos]

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.

not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

meanwhile rapists and murders get off in 5-10

truly is a corporate run government.

Re:not surprised

[harvey the nerd]

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

Scam people out of their life savings

[future assassin]

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?

Hacking is now Terrorism?

[l0ungeb0y]

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.

Re:breaking and entering

[Penguinisto]

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.

So what are you in for?

[Ka D'Argo]

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

I uh..hacked a computer network..

Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation

[sugarmotor]

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.

Re:Soviet vs American justice

[Progman3K]

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.

That's not about corporations

[ElusiveJoe]

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.

US no better than China

[Anonymous Coward]

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.