Slashdot Mirror
Steubenville Hacker Faces Longer Prison Sentence Than the Rapists
joeflies writes "In a previous Slashdot article, hackers worked to preserve content for the Steubenville rape case. The two football players charged received juvenile detention sentences of one and two years. One of the hackers, on the other hand, faces 10 years in prison."
I am literally speechless.
The system is totally fucked up, and I mean, TOTALLY FUCKED UP !!!
Never in my life I could imaging the government in the United States could be so fucked up !
Not only they broke the CONSTITUTION with their phone tapping and their PRISM, now they are doing that to the people who volunteered their skill to preserve what needed to preserve - THE EVIDENCES which had helped the prosecutors in that rape case !!
FUCK MAN !!!
United States is NO LONGER the land of the free, and those who live in it are no longer the braves, either !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
So... hacking into a fratboy's fb account is a more serious charge than raping the everloving shit out of someone?
Any tips on bulk-order condoms and hockey masks?
Juveniles get different sentences to adults. "Vigilante Hacker" is an adult and the reported possible sentence is "maximum possible" which is quite different to "an actual sentence".
But it's OK for the government to hack everybody, all the time. FTG
I must say...it is a perversion of justice, puns not intended.
I may need to write to one of my local reps, Zoe Lofgren who's working to change the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to make it "less vague" and have her add some other reforms.
Sure, "hacking" for vigilantism is wrong and two wrongs don't make it right, but neither does three: throwing the book at Deric Lostutter.
heck, that guy in texas who killed that escort got less
Think of what and who you will be voting for in the next elections.
It's not too late to reward politicians who will back sane and reasonable sentences.
Only, be aware that idiotically high sentences on computer breaking-and-entering are partly due to the feeling that a 'deterrent' is needed because the chance of discovery and successful prosecution is so low.
Therefore be prepared to allocate more money to e.g. educate the police, DA, and judges on computers and to to give every police force basic competence in computer crime fighting (so they will understand what they're doing). And yes, that will cost money.
This is the fun part though: the toughest questions end up with *YOU*, the voter. And it's *YOU* who bears the ultimate responsibility. Not "The Government", not the DA, not the police. YOU.
Be glad of that though ... you don't get that everywhere.
The rapist is a danger to the individual. The hacker is a danger to the government. Now you know which is held in higher regard in our new fundamentally reshaped America.
It doesn't make sense to compare actual sentences (and in this case juvenile sentences!) with theoretical maximums for adult defendants. So, knock off the fabricated outrage and let's wait for the outcome of the case. You can still get outraged after the actual facts are in.
article is BS.. comparing "could get" vs "did get" and getting slashdot nerds in a lather for no valid reason as if they were impressionable rush limbuagh listeners.
What a ridiculous thing.
Either have different treatment for Juveniles or not. Introducing stupid caveats like the above are responsible for the rot of the judicial system.
Why the hell is a rape a more adult crime than stealing?
At first, he thought the FBI agent at the door was with FedEx. "As I open the door to greet the driver, approximately 12 FBI SWAT team agents jumped out of the truck, screaming for me to 'Get the fuck down!' with M-16 assault rifles and full riot gear, armed, safety off, pointed directly at my head," Lostutter wrote today on his blog. "I was handcuffed and detained outside while they cleared my house."
That's either an intimidation tactic or the geniuses at the FBI have seen too many Rambo reruns. A 12 person SWAT team to serve a search warrant on one person who they have no reason to believe is violent? If it was proportional, they would have sent an armored division to arrest the rapists. Somehow I doubt they did.
This is nothing new. We, as a society, recognized long ago that children do stupid shit and sometimes shouldn't receive the full punishment for their actions.
If the Steubenville rapists had been tried as adults (and I think they should have), they would have been facing up to 25 years in prison. Under certain circumstances, Ohio law allows for a sentence of life in prison for someone convicted of rape, too, but I don't think that applies to those two. As it is, they not only have their sentences, but they're going to be added to the sex offender list for anywhere from ten years to life. They're going to find it very difficult to find jobs and places to live while they're on that list.
There's nothing shockingly disproportionate about a maximum of 10 years for hacking vs a maximum of 25/life for rape. You might argue about the specific numbers, but I think everyone will agree that rape is the more serious crime and Ohio law allows for more serious consequences, just as it should.
Justice system sending you clear message:
Stop sitting in front of the computer, go out and have some "fun"
1. The hacker is an adult; the other two were juveniles.
2. 10 years is the maximum possible sentence he could receive. He hasn't been tried yet. It is unlikely he'll receive the maximum sentence, or even anything close to it.
It turns out that jurys have to decide based on evidence and according to the law, rather than just guessing what happened and then picking the outcome that they personally prefer.
Never heard of jury nullification? It serves a purpose.
Back in the pre WW II days, those Jews who decided to stay behind (even if they could afford to move away), sure didn't commit any sin of cop out --- OTOH, those who did cop-out, didn't end up in the oven, tho
The government is us
According to my primary school history text books, the government is us
However, I have grown up, and the reality has changed as well
The US government is no longer "us"
No more
During the Watergate era, I was very proud to be an American --- because, at that time, America is the only country in the world where the CONSTITUTION took precedence, so much so that a president could lose his job for doing a wrong thing
Now ?
If you still think that the same thing can happen to Obama, I have a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It turns out that jurys have to decide based on evidence and according to the law, rather than just guessing what happened and then picking the outcome that they personally prefer.
It turns out that jury is one of those words where you drop the y and add ies when you want to make it plural. Also, we have not just a right but a responsibility to nullify juries when the very case is unjust.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
i mean, its right there in black and white in their internal documents. offensive hack capability violates international law and domestic lalw.
the fundamental problem is the idea that the government doesnt have to follow the same laws as the people. thats a problem and historically civilizations haved moved towards a system of legal equality for all, not a special eception for the already powerful
Just for thought, consider the case of Bernie Madoff. He was a con man running a ponzi scheme. There were a lot of folks who had money to invest. These folks wanted to get a large return on their investment. These folks willingly gave this investment money to Madoff. Most of these people ended up losing their investment, because it was a ponzi scheme. Madoff was arrested and has lost everything and is in jail for the rest of his life. People wanted Madoff to get the death penalty. Madoff did not rape anyone. Madoff did not commit a violent crime. The hackers also committed a non violent crime. And will spend more time in jail than most rapists. It's just not right.
be juveniles has some thing to do with it.
From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions
people can take to help change the situation.
Have more ideas? Please post below.
Links worthy of attention:
http://anticorruptionact.org/
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections
http://represent.us/
http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
https://www.unpac.org/
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
Suggestion #1:
(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the
incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these
incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better
serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean
giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a
lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close,
so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.
Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime,
taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system
gets fixed.
Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know
how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you
know to do the same.
If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously
those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have
seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional
switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.
I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,
especially if it is on corporate letterhead.
Suggestion #2:
Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the
internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.
Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.
Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for
knowledgeable and cooperative people.
Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers
across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed
to be!
Suggestion #3:
A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the
government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a
situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that
people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people
support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations
are very different.
In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is
closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and
politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot
Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in
general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not
"tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too
over-the-top in pursuing those policies.
Suggestion #4:
What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable
third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of
interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.
Suggestion #5:
Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will
"Realistically you have three options: Vote republican, vote democrat, or throw away your vote."
The point where you go wrong is in assuming that all democrats / republicans are built equal. They're not. Some of them *will* back a policy that you think is important. You actually need to be a couch potato who knows a bit about the candidates and what they stand for.
I'll admit this though: you need to make politicians and other voters aware that you care about this issue.
You must inform politicians because they are basically brokers: they sell policies that people will buy (i.e. vote for), and they are taking a risk (with their career) when they endorse *any* policy at all. That's because they'll get voted out unless they sell what people want. Some policies are safer than others (touting e.g. 'patriotism', 'god', 'family values', 'jobs', and being 'tough on crime' because few people can actually disagree with the plain language of those policies)
In order to get them to gamble on backing a policy you hold dear, you must give them a way to assess the risk of adopting said policy and convincing them of the cost-benefit advantages of doing so. As in: how many more votes is it likely to get them than to lose them?
You must also inform (and preferably convince) other voters because they are the ones that tip the scales and either generate sufficient of insufficient popular support for an issue.
But in the end it starts with you, not someone else. You'd be amazed what policies you can get adopted if you can muster support. Just look at what the Mickey Mouse industry achieved.
This is pretty common. A person can get more prison time for copying videos than for raping or killing a person.
We have similar problem in South Africa where the police is not willing or able to solve even basic crime but if you do something about it you will go to jail. This type of thing creates anomosity towards the law and law enforcement causing lawlessness and the breakdown of society.
The crime should fit the punishment is a basic premis of law but it does not seem to be in this case. Especially where computer crime is involved.
10 years for hacking ?
Mmmmm....
The two football players charged received juvenile detention sentences of one and two years. One of the hackers, on the other hand, faces 10 years in prison."
Come back if and when the hacker actually receives a longer sentence than the rapists. Then you've got a story.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Hacking crimes should be relative based upon scope. Steal $10 you a petty thief; steal $1,000,000 you are a felon. The only reason 10 years is on the there is because someone in the government got embarrassed not because of hacking as a crime.
10 years is a maximum, not a fixed sentence that all hackers get. The minimum is nothing. It's up to the judge to decide the actual sentence and, believe it or not, most judges understand that the scope of a crime should be taken into account when deciding the sentence given.
In other words, the legal system is set up the way you're saying it should be, but you don't realize it so you're arguing that it's wrong and should be set up the way it's already set up.
I understand that 10 years the max, but judges discretion can be vary widely. I would hate to have a couple years of life depending on whether a judge wants to push an agenda instead of being fair.
Incorrect. The rapists faced up to 15 years in prison. More than the hacker.
We can debate the relative maximums, but we shouldn't be debating an outright falsehood. Get your facts straight.
While you're not speaking, re-read the article or summary. They compare the sentence someone involved actually received to the maximum possible sentence any hacker could theoretically get. Most commonly, a first time offender "facing ten years" will end up with probation. At this point, we have no idea what punishment the hacker will get, if any at all.
Things that could threaten the ruling elites in the U.S. and U.K. will inevitably have draconian, batshit crazy punishments associated with them. Anything dealing with information security falls under that umbrella. Things that threaten the physical well being of commoners, such as being raped, or beaten, or breathing poisonous air, etc. is of no consequence to the elites in the English-speaking world, and logically will be assigned relatively light punishments. It's a question of scarce resources. If you have your police and detectives chasing violent criminals, inevitably you'll have to scale back the hunt for anyone who could threaten the position of the elites.
Hackers are more a threat to the surveillance state than rapists ...
AccountKiller
In Soviet Russia (USSR) political prisoners were treated much worse than criminal.
There's a White House petition set up to request the matter be dropped. The FBI & the DOJ are both executive branch offices. Hit the petition to help Deric Lostutter - stop the senseless persecution of someone who helped justice get done!
See: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/drop-investigation-against-deric-lostutter-aka-kyanonymous/jdLfBh1z
Juveniles get different sentences to adults. "Vigilante Hacker" is an adult and the reported possible sentence is "maximum possible" which is quite different to "an actual sentence".
Rape is almost always prosecuted under state law.
The number of juveniles prosecuted under federal law for any crime is so low as to be almost non-existent.
This adult hacker is being prosecuted under federal law.
The feds don't welcome intrusions into networks and systems that cross state lines and international borders --- and they don't much care about the alleged purity of the hacker's motives.
We know that people under 21 aren't legally responsible enough to be trusted to buy alcohol, so why should rapists under 16-17 be held to the same standards as adults?*
Now, 1-2 years may be a bit low for your typical 15 year old tried-as-a-juvenile rapist but under certain circumstances or in states which give more than lip service to the idea that juveniles should be rehabilitated rather than punished, 1-2 years may be appropriate.
*If I'm wrong, if 20 year olds as a group really are mature enough to buy booze and use it as responsibly as those a year older, then we need to lower the drinking age, but that's a discussion for another time.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... 75+% of murderers (relatively easy) but only 0.01% of hackers (relatively tough) you up the sentence a bit just for the annoyance. :)
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
And a whole bunch of you fell for it like good little sheep.
The 'hacker' hasn't been sentenced, ten years is the maximum POSSIBLE, HE HASN'T BEEN GIVEN ANY TIME YET.
Guess what, the rapests faced a possible life imprisonment until they were actually sentenced. Then they sentenced them to something far less than that ...
A bunch of +5 threads above talking about sick puppet goverments and unfair treatment ... And nothing has actually happened yet.
Congratulations, all of you huffing and puffing are too stupid to realize that you should never, even for a second assume anything is correct or even close to correct when it's a post by timothy. He makes bricks look like highly intelligent creatures.
Not only have you been trolled, you've been trolled by a moron.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
No, I t don't think he should be in prison. He should be ordered to work, under strict supervision, until he repays every victim he defrauded.
I fervently believe that prison should be reserved only for the very most violent and unrelenting among us. It should be used as a way to keep the public safe, not as a form of official revenge ... er, sorry, "justice" (*splurt*)
I've long held that Canada is, at best, about 5 to 10 years lag behind the States in terms of these things. People started doubting my claims when the recent Bush Administration was elected. They ceased doubting me once the Harper Administration came into power.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
No credible chain of custody, so anything they "preserved" is worthless.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Are we ever going to get tired of comparing the actual sentence that one person was given with the maximum possible that another person may be facing? Not everyone gets the maximum sentence, and there are guidelines that describe the situations in which the maximum (or some lesser sentence) should be applied. Yet we always seem to be reading these stories about "OMG, he's facing UP TO ___ years". I can't remember the last time we saw one of these lame, over-reactions and then that person was actually sentenced to that maximum sentence.
They only committed rape... what's the big deal?? Now if the charge was "Rape... with a computer", well then they'd be in serious trouble.
1. He's an adult. They weren't.
2. He's not as good a football player.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/