Slashdot Mirror


Jeremy Hammond of LulzSec Pleads Guilty To Stratfor Attack

eldavojohn writes "After facing 30 years to life imprisonment and pleading not guilty to charges last year, Jeremy Hammond has pleaded guilty to his alleged involvement in Anonymous' hacking of Stratfor. The self proclaimed hacktivist member of LulzSec, who has compared his situation to that of the late Aaron Swartz, explained his reasoning in his plea: 'Today I pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This was a very difficult decision. I hope this statement will explain my reasoning. I believe in the power of the truth. In keeping with that, I do not want to hide what I did or to shy away from my actions. This non-cooperating plea agreement frees me to tell the world what I did and why, without exposing any tactics or information to the government and without jeopardizing the lives and well-being of other activists on and offline. During the past 15 months I have been relatively quiet about the specifics of my case as I worked with my lawyers to review the discovery and figure out the best legal strategy. There were numerous problems with the government's case, including the credibility of FBI informant Hector Monsegur. However, because prosecutors stacked the charges with inflated damages figures, I was looking at a sentencing guideline range of over 30 years if I lost at trial. I have wonderful lawyers and an amazing community of people on the outside who support me. None of that changes the fact that I was likely to lose at trial. But, even if I was found not guilty at trial, the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country. If I had won this trial I would likely have been shipped across the country to face new but similar charges in a different district. The process might have repeated indefinitely. ... I did what I believe is right.'"

28 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. New strategy in criminal law? by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Charge someone that you know is guilty of one thing with a ridiculous array of charges that you know he is not guilty of, on the chance that he'll take your plea "deal" and avoid the possibility of being convicted (wrongly) on the BS charges.
    Sounds rather like patent trolling.

    1. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason it sounds like patent trolling is more because it sounds like extortion. They leveraged the law to force him to plea. If he hadn't he could have spent years going around the country until someone convicted him. I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.

    2. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason it sounds like patent trolling is more because it sounds like extortion. They leveraged the law to force him to plea. If he hadn't he could have spent years going around the country until someone convicted him. I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.

      They have evidence he broke the law on numerous occasions. A murderer being charged for multiple murders isn't a loophole.

    3. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know the guy, from his activity at HackThisSite from long ago, I doubt these are trumped charges or multiples intended to get him on one. He has been charged and has server 2 years already for hacking back then it was for stealing a database with over 5000 credit card accounts in it. I wouldn't doubt this as well.
      http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/233208/stratfor-hacker-could-be-sentenced-to-life-says-judge
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/14/232217/lulzsec-member-pleads-not-guilty-in-stratfor-leak-case
      Jeremy has a long history of run ins with the law, I doubt this will be his last. I distanced myself from both him and the site years ago due to his volatile political stance and open opinions on hacktivism.

      For a site that was touted as a safe place to learn computer and internet security it was obviously a recruiting ground for hacktivism.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Informative

      You moron...

      "Now that I have pleaded guilty it is a relief to be able to say that I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites"

      He even admitted his guilt in TFA.

      So establishing his guilt, yes the sentence is way out of proportion with the crime, and yes this is a tactic way too often used by prosecutors to "scare" a defendant into a plea bargain. The problem here is the underlying law allowing for the possibility for a 30 year conviction, while it seems like DA is doing their job in an unjust manner, they are doing their job within the confines of the law. Best option is still to not get caught.

    5. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by stewsters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But should we punish someone with jail time who can repeatedly prove that they didn't do it? If the trials were all within a few days, it would be a small price to pay, but its more likely that that suspect would remain in jail for months or years to prove himself innocent in each case.

    6. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by Tom · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not new in the least.

      It's a standard feature of the legal system. You can claim many things, they can even be mutually exclusive, and the court case is there to check which ones hold up.

      It applies to both sides, as well. Defendants routinely claim that a) they didn't do it, b) they were intoxicated when doing it and c) it was an accident. The geek in you winces that these can not all be true, so how can you claim them all - but to a lawyer, that's not even worth mentioning.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's only a flaw if you're a member of the public.

      If you're part of the establishment it's a feature.

    8. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by DarkTempes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can definitely say that the United States' current methods and laws are not working.

      We have the largest prison population in the world (and the largest per capita). For the supposed land of the free I think that says volumes.

    9. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a false equivalent and is really kind of over simplifying the issue.

      It's more like someone being charged with multiple murders in several jurisdictions, along with:
      1 count of aggravated assault for each murder,
      1 count of battery for each murder,
      1 count of kidnapping for each murder count
      1 count of reckless driving,
      1 count of improper disposal of a body,
      1 count of improper storage of human remains,
      3 counts of use of a firearm during the commission of a crime (because you had 3 guns),
      1 count of taking a body across state lines
      All this on top of the multiple murder charges you're already facing. Now substitute murder with "violation of CAFA" and change the violent charges to fraud charges.

      I think you get the point. The charges get stacked in such a ridiculous manner and if you're found guilty of even one you're still going to go to jail for something and the juries are so hopelessly confused that they don't have much of a choice but to usually just do an all or nothing. Prosecutors offer deals that seem minor to the potential 300 year sentence your facing. It is abuse of power and exploitation of the system by the people within the system.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    10. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by similar_name · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A murderer being charged for multiple murders isn't a loophole.

      It's not a loophole, it's a flaw. For several reasons. Among them;

      If the suspect is truly guilty of the charges then they should serve their time. Why are we letting criminals get away with serving so much less than they should simply because they plead guilty?

      Studies show that a great number of innocent people will plead guilty in the plea bargain process. Students were paired with actors to perform a task. They affirmed they would not cheat before the study. Since the other 'student' was an actor, it was fully known whether the person was guilty or not. Many innocent people plead guilty when they are told they can fight the charge of cheating and risk expulsion from school or plead guilty and write an essay.

      The only benefit argued by proponents of the plea bargain is that it helps speed up the judicial process for backlogged courts. I don't agree that's even a benefit. If courts are backlogged perhaps we should reassess what we criminalize and prosecute rather than speeding up the conviction process.

    11. Re: New strategy in criminal law? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This reasoning has never sat well with me, it's common knowledge the mobsters were in bed with the newly formed FBI during prohibition and had many high ranking "friends" throughout the judicial system for decades. A more likely explanation for the failure to convict is that the non-stick mobsters had their hands up the arse of the court, Sicily has a long history of the same problem. Mobsters don't adhere to the principle of a fair trial and will only come unstuck when they are confronted with an authority they can not intimidate (eg: the IRS). If you want to see a more extreme example of mobsters usurping authority, look no further than the drug lords of Mexico.

      At the end of the day, one of the fundamental principles of western law is that it is better to allow the guilty to keep their freedom than it is to deny freedom to the innocent. This of course assumes all trials are fair trials (to both sides).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by Dantoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pleading "not guilty" is a "plea" to charges laid and read. It is not a statement of facts. It is a formal notification that you are going to make a case for consideration by the Court. On some charges, in a number of jurisdictions, you are not even allowed to plea other than "not guilty". Pleading is not and cannot be either a truth or lie.

      So, when did he lie?

    13. Re:New strategy in criminal law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Weasel word it all you want. It was a lie. He committed a crime and then said that he was not guilty of the crime that he committed. You're not very sharp, are you?

  2. Lies? by moonwatcher2001 · · Score: 3

    " the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country"

    How can they claim this without giving the person a list?

    1. Re:Lies? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because Habeus Corpus is dead. Murdered in an attempt to "be tough on crime." I think these convictions will do very little to deter other anonymous splinter groups.

      Reminder that what this guy leaked that he's being prosecuted for: The company stratfor was using their government sponsored spying program to also spy on companies in order to provide Goldman Sachs with insider information through a foreign owned subsidiary, in order to dodge US insider trading laws.

      Then the government arrests him, and not them.

  3. lulzsec is not the good guys by D1G1T · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The more I read about what these guys were doing--and I mean the stuff they've admitted to, not just been accused of--the more I think they are getting what they deserve. Breaking into someone's network to get at information that the public should know is political. Breaking into someones network and racking up charges on personal credit card numbers is criminal. They're like the idiots that smash store windows during street protests.

    1. Re:lulzsec is not the good guys by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting
    2. Re:lulzsec is not the good guys by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Good guy" and "bad guy" status is not as mutually exclusive as you might think. The "idiots that smash store windows during street protests" sometimes organize to do something more productive, things you'd consider to be more "political."

      The Boston Tea party: Some hooligans in the US in Boston dressed up as native Americans and dumped the tea cargo into the harbor. That was vandalism. It wasn't to protest just one thing either, there were multiple issues the protesters were upset about. I suspect that were something similar to happen today, Fox would give them the same treatment they gave the occupy wall street movement. "It's vandalism! And what are they even upset ABOUT? They can't even tell us that (at least not in few enough words to fit on a bumper sticker.)"

      Anyway, they can be thieves and window smashers and still have valid political motivations. And what they've done is illegal no matter what their motivations.

    3. Re:lulzsec is not the good guys by Infernal+Device · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not seeing anything on their page that is, on the face of it, illegal. Certainly, they seem to be getting near the edge of the law, but if they don't cross the line, there's nothing there.

      They may be immoral, but the moment you start legislating morality, you open up a can of worms that can't be unopened.

      Stratfor may be kind of dumb in some areas, but that doesn't make them a bad company.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    4. Re:lulzsec is not the good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Declaration of Independence?

      I think you missed the point. The rules you follow in social life are based on morals as defined by your cultural background, evolved over centuries of social interaction. The rights you cite are valid in places that do not care about the Declaration of Independence. The laws we follow are codified morals.

  4. Not at all like Swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unlike the LulzSec crew, Swartz was not politically motivated and did not do anything "black hat". Comparing the two sets of CFAA charges are like comparing someone who got a speeding ticket to someone who got a DUI, since they're both moving violations.

  5. One side of the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do have to point out that his statement is rather blatently self-justification and self-serving. Yes, indeed, he sounds like a sweet-well intentioned innocent, and the evil government is the villain, when he tells the story.

    1. Re:One side of the story... by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, there is certainly some self-serving element. I think he's probably guilty of something as well.

      However, consider if you actually felt that you were innocent, and I don't mean "activist innocent", I mean you didn't actually do anything illegal. If the government decided that they wanted you in jail, they'd just have to start stacking charges on you and get you up to 30 years or so. Then you have to decide if you can win or not, charge by charge, AND you have to decide if you can pay for it.

      The problem is, it is *way* too easy for the government to use this tactic, and tactic is what it is. It is tantamount to forcing a plea of guilty despite the fact that prosecutors are not sure that they could win the case. Instead of the search for truth, it becomes bullying of the worst form.

      All I can say is: think twice about doing anything where you will end up on the wrong side of an Assistant US Attorney. Their job is to convict you, and they will not hesitate to use overkill to do it.

      And for the rest of us.... think about how to make this go away. It is an understatement to say that it won't be easy to do, but in an age of increasing Federal presence, it is critical that these processes are firmly under control or there will be serious trouble going forward.

  6. Question by Sparticus789 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder when Stratfor is going to be prosecuted for engaging in corporate espionage? Never, because most Fortune 500 companies and government intelligence agencies rely on this private corporation to know what is going on in the world. Can we say "too big to fail?"

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Most disturbing; buffered charges by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Informative

    So, inflating charges is one thing, but I guess I have a much bigger problem with the idea that the government can buffer some of the inflated charges for later and keep you in a state of permanently accused and tried. I've heard of this for serial killers, where they only bring 1/2 of the cases in one block in case they don't get the conviction or the convict is released at a later date. I have no clue how you address this, but it sounds like a horrible precedent. A really unscrupulous DA could trickle out charges one at a time and keep you in court for life for all kinds of offenses.

    Slightly OT, but I just watched a movie called American Violet about disreputable DAs in Texas who were piling on charges with sometimes innocent poor people, getting them to plead out under the threat of YEARS in prison, then collecting money from the Feds for successful drug convictions.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  9. Plea bullying by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As others have said, if a lot of the charges were indeed bogus, a defense attorney should have been able to get them thrown out.

    If they are bogus they should not be there in the first place, according to a thousand years of western law it is not ok to throw "bogus" legal obstacles and distractions at the (presumed innocent) defendant.

    A significant part of the problem is that (US) prosecutors are judged by the number of convictions they obtain rather than the quality of the charges they lay. When implemented this becomes pile up 10 charges, plea bargain guilty for one, bingo another brownie point on the prosecutors score card, collect enough points and you are moved up a rung on the judicial career ladder..

    The US simply takes plea bargaining to the extreme and turns it into plea bulling, in the same way Fred Phelps takes free speech to the extreme and turns it into harassment. Other nations seem to be able to (largely) avoid plea bullying whilst still leaving the option of a plea bargain open to the defendant.

    US law is firmly rooted in English common law and yet a random person in the UK (or indeed all of the EU) is ~7X less likely to be incarcerated, and the figures don't look that much better when comparing the US to China. The main reason for the imbalance is that the US has 500K prisoners from the drug war alone, the EU with nearly twice the population has a total of 600K prisoners for ALL crimes.

    There is no sane explanation for these glaring differences other than "culture".

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.