Hacker Faces 105 Years In Prison After Blackmailing 350+ Women

redletterdave writes "According to the 30-count indictment released by the Central District of California, 27-year-old hacker Karen 'Gary' Kazaryan allegedly hacked his way into hundreds of online accounts, using personal information and nude or semi-nude photos of his victims to coerce more than 350 female victims to show him their naked bodies, usually over Skype. By posing as a friend, Kazaryan allegedly tricked these women into stripping for him on camera, capturing more than 3,000 images of these women to blackmail them. Kazaryan was arrested by federal agents on Tuesday; if convicted on all 30 counts, including 15 counts of computer intrusion and 15 counts of aggravated identity theft, Kazaryan could face up to 105 years in federal prison."

Comments

Plea bargain

[Paul Johnson]

But no doubt he'll take the plea bargain and spend a mere 1% of that in a low security prison, just like Aaron was supposed to.

Re:Plea bargain

[canadiannomad]

This is true, and it means that justice will probably be served in his case. But the problem I see is using the extortion of long sentences to force a plea bargain to avoid time in court. That is in my opinion where there is something going wrong with the system, and that we should all be worried about it.
In my opinion plea bargains are just begging to be abused by the system and creates a mockery of due process.

Evidence

[rbgaynor]

Now, now - let's not rush to justice until we've had a chance to see the evidence.

"begging to"?

[gatfirls]

That ship sailed long ago. Coincidentally, our system of 'due process' is basically one massive blackmail racket. If things operated as intended it would be an invaluable tool for the courts and the defendants to provide a win/win. In our completely perverted system charges are trumped up to the maximum (even completely fabricated) levels to force a plea.

Re:"begging to"?

[ShanghaiBill]

Not all plea deals are bad

But many of them are.

I don't believe the court system would handle everything going to trial.

When I was in the military back in the 1980s, if a defendant pleaded guilty in either an NJP or court martial, the presiding officer or judge was required to conduct a "providency hearing" and conclude, and document, that the plea was actually in the defendants best interest. I probably conducted over a hundred NJPs, and I never once , accepted a guilty plea. Usually this was because it was not in the defendants best interest, but also because a finding of guilty in a providency hearing could be an avenue for appeal, which would be a lot more paperwork. In several of those cases, there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, and the defendant got off.

Civilian courts should have something similar. Before a judge accepts a guilty plea, they should have to review the evidence, and conclude that the defendant is probably actually guilty of what they are admitting to, although the standard would be less than "beyond a reasonable doubt". This would eliminate the most egregious plea bargins, but still allow most to go forward.

Re:"begging to"?

[jxander]

While I was fortunate enough to never undergo NJP during my military career, I can see one major flaw with moving that system into the civilian sector : Chain of Command

In the Marines, my boss at work was also my boss overseeing my personal life (to a degree) and on up the chain. This gives us a vested interest in not crippling someone via monetary penalties or jail/brig time. I knew a few guys who got NJP'ed for a few things, and there was almost a family-type thought process in place. We'll take care of it in-house, punish the person for their stupidity, and get them back on their feet so they can keep working and stay combat ready.

A judge in civilian court doesn't know you, doesn't care if you're living on ramen noodles and sleeping in your car for the next year. That judge is never going into combat with you. You could literally step into traffic and die as soon as you leave the courthouse, and the judge would not be affected in the least. They just want to set an example of you, and bilk you for as much money as they can, because that money goes straight into the city coffers. Which brings up another major difference that hurts NJP in a civilian setting : Barracks and the Chow Hall (or BAH and comrats) No matter how much money you garnish from a Marine's paycheck, they will always have three square meals and a roof over their head.

I'd love to see some sanity instilled in the Justice system, and I think NJP might be a decent starting point ... but it's going to need some serious revisions before it works outside of the military.

I HATE this

[SoTerrified]

He's scum. He preyed on innocents without remorse and deserves punishment. And yet you're going to give him more jail time than he'd get for MURDER?

I hate that I have to stand beside him and say this is wrong. I hate that I have to support someone so despicable. I hate that the flawed system actually makes me support people like Gary Kazaryan.

And yet it's something I must do.

Re:Won't come close to that

[shaitand]

"Why? Then you just trivialize what he did and make it so other people can do this."

Because what he did was trivial. He tricked some girls into letting him see them naked. OMG. They are just bodies for god sake we all have them and they will all show them to hundreds of guys over the course of their life and regret many of those times. But but he LIED. Yes he lied and those same girls will no doubt have been lied to by every guy they sleep with to some degree or another. All men are willing to lie or withhold, or otherwise twist the truth to get laid.

What he did is morally reprehensible but hardly criminal. It makes him worthy of despising and calling a pig but then so would a more severe action like cheating on a girlfriend.

"a $500 fine for criminally using someone else's account? No way"

He didn't use someone's bank account. He used their social networking account in a way that results in absolutely no tangible damage to anyone. The bar for identity theft can't just be pretending to be someone else in a harmless prank and if that is going to be the bar then yes the punishments have to dropped to something appropriate for a harmless prank. What next? If he pretends to be a friend confirming his alibi to his girlfriend/wife on the phone so he can sleep around we charge him with identity theft and communications fraud?

105 Years versus LIBOR

[tekrat]

So, let me get this straight...
This shmoe could face up to 105 years because of "XX" number of counts of the exact same crime.

By that way of thinking, each perpetrator of the LIBOR fixing scandal committed acts which affected millions or perhaps billions of people. Shouldn't THEIR sentence be something then on the order of millions of years of prison?

And yet, NOT ONE person is going to go to jail for LIBOR. Aaron committed suicide over his potential 50 years, for downloading some crap, but LIBOR guys are going to have their banks pay a small fine, they are still going to get their bonuses, corner offices, mansions, Ferraris, Yachts and hot babes in bikinis.

Dude, if your going to commit a crime, think big -- as in "too big to fail", "too big to prosecute" -- Frankly, if Lance Armstrong had just been Lance Armstrong Bank, he'd still have all his medals, and everyone would still be doing business with him, because they'd have no choice.

Re:The Taliban blames the victim

[tnk1]

What it comes down to is this:

It is not the victim's fault that they got robbed or raped or whatever at any time.

However, society cannot prevent and cannot be responsible for preventing it from happening. There are animals out there and just telling them to respect your right to dress how you want isn't going to change the fact that they are animals and possibly mentally unbalanced.

So, it is not the victim's fault that they are a victim, but they cannot rely on that to prevent them from becoming a victim, and if they do, they are fools. Reasonable arguments only work on reasonable people. Criminals and particularly criminally insane people are not reasonable. Dress to match the environment you are in and maintain situational awareness of your environment and the dangers.

Re:105 Years versus HSBC money laundering

[dkleinsc]

The HSBC money laundering case is another good one: That bank was caught laundering billions for drug lords, and there will be no jail time for anybody involved.

Re:The Taliban blames the victim

[morgauxo]

No, in the context of a man physically raping a woman and the Taliban punishing the woman I'm pretty sure most of us here, myself included disagree with the Taliban. I think we can all also agree that Kazaryan is the only one involved who set out to harm others (in a sense) and is the only one deserving of legal punishment.

However.. these victims ARE also at fault. They did something stupid. They sent naked pictures of themselves to someone on the internet without even verifying who it really was. It cannot be called anything else, it was STUPID. I'm sorry, but there is way to much stupid out there. It's long past time to give up on political correctness and call it what it is. STUPID! Point it out and hope that between someone somewhere's ears the lesson actually sticks. We need this because we have way too much stupid in our society.