Slashdot Mirror


Former Student Gets Year In Prison For College President Election Fraud

Gunkerty Jeb writes, quoting Threatpost: "A former Cal State San Marcos student was sentenced to a year in prison this week for election tampering by using keystroke loggers to grab student credentials and then vote for himself. Matthew Weaver, 22, of Huntington Beach, Calif., stole almost 750 students' identities to try and become president of the San Diego County college's student government. His plan went awry when the school's computer technicians noticed an anomaly in activity and caught Weaver with keystroke loggers as he sat in front of the suspicious computer."

274 comments

  1. This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Apharmd · · Score: 5, Funny

    in national politics. But who will get him, the Dems or the Republicans?

    1. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      in national politics. But who will get him, the Dems or the Republicans?

      Follow the money -- as in: who is the highest bidder?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GOP. Duh.

      Dems are neither intelligent nor ballsy enough for this sort of thing.

    3. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Diebold.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    4. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Dems. Duh

    5. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he hasn't. Tainting the veil of democracy by getting caught manipulating an election is a serious matter.

    6. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by interval1066 · · Score: 0

      Serious...? Uh, this is a student election. He got this sentence because he used "hacker" tactics. Had this been simple ballot stuffing I doubt he'd have gotten such a sentence. The solution to everything in this country appears to be prison time. Unless you can afford a lawyer of course. He was probably accused ot terrist threats too.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    7. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The title is wrong, he got put in prison for infecting school computer and assuming the identities of other students. He broke federal law.

      I would assume if he murdered all the other students to win the election, slashdot editors might actually get the title correct.

    8. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Libertarians. Duh.

    9. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by WindBourne · · Score: 0
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re: This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      RTFA. He tried to blame others by creating fake facebookprofiles of real students after he was caught and would have earned 8000 Dollars from it.

    11. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Serious...? Uh, this is a student election. He got this sentence because he used "hacker" tactics. .

      RTFA. He got sentenced for identity theft and computer fraud. Either you think this guy did not commit identity theft and computer fraud, or you think these two acts should not be punishable by federal law, or you simply do not know WTF is going on.

    12. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by bdwebb · · Score: 2

      I wish I could mod you up with exponents.

    13. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, this is a student election. He got this sentence because he used "hacker" tactics. Had this been simple ballot stuffing I doubt he'd have gotten such a sentence.

      The winner of the election receives an $8000 stipend. That makes it grand larceny by fraud (CA Code 484(a) ) no matter what method he used. In this case, he not only committed the larceny, he also attempted to frame other people for it. A year in prison doesn't seem inappropriate.

    14. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. He got sentenced for identity theft and computer fraud. Either you think this guy did not commit identity theft and computer fraud, or you think these two acts should not be punishable by federal law, or you simply do not know WTF is going on.

      It's Slashdot. Lots of people here think using someone's identity for personal gain is okay and shouldn't be punished. Look at the guy who faked AT&T ID's to get personal information from Apple. Lots of people are still defending him here.

    15. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a Democrat... after all, you jumped to a completely erronious conclusion. Classic logic problem... (Plato is dead, my dog is named Plato, therefore my dog is dead)... Some guy name Matthew Weaver busted for rigging an election in college... oh, look some guy name Matthew Weaver hosts a right leaning website... Ergo the kid in college was a Republican. Only... the Mathew Weaver whose website you linked to... is a middle aged man living in Virginia...

      So... Prejudge the individual... find what you think is evidence to support it... but in the end prove yourself to be an idiot... Did you vote for Obama too?

    16. Re:This guy has got a bright future ahead of him by tibit · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  2. Job Offer by overlook77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He did receive a job offer from the NSA afterwards however.

    1. Re:Job Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlikely, they want the ones who don't get cought

    2. Re:Job Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would the NSA want the ones stupid enough to be caught?

    3. Re:Job Offer by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      The ones that cough are diseased.

    4. Re:Job Offer by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      why would the NSA want the ones stupid enough to be caught?

      Yeah, they can just hire them as contractors.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Job Offer by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know why, he was sloppy. Well, I guess they could train him in the details but his heart was in the right place.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re: Job Offer by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the news lately? You are implying an lot when suggesting they have standards.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re:Job Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      caught.

    8. Re:Job Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and job offers from the DNC and RNC as well.

    9. Re:Job Offer by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      They want the ones with no sense of ethics or morality.

    10. Re:Job Offer by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah he should of set up a virtual server and had the key logger report to it then ssh'ed into it from a out of country proxy to get the credentials then cheat. oh look three black suv's pulled up and i hear a helicopter got to go.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    11. Re:Job Offer by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the ones that get caught do feel dis-ease.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Job Offer by TheTerseOne · · Score: 1

      cot.

      --
      "Newspapers: A tiny little part of the internet, printed out yesterday, and delivered to your house"
    13. Re:Job Offer by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They want the ones with no sense of ethics or morality.

      Actually, they probably want ones with a strong sense of ethics that can be bent in a direction of their choosing. You don't get nearly as hard work out of someone ethically unmoored as you do out of someone who is acting for a "greater good," and you get even more work out of someone who doesn't even see the lesser evil. Worse for the former, you may get junk data since they don't care enough.

      No, no greater evil is committed than by those who believe they are doing a great good. There are plenty of people in this country that passionately believe the principle that only those who do wrong have something to hide and that privacy is nothing but a shield for criminals. That's a form of strong ethics, though it's one I'd disagree with.

      Hire those people, and you're golden.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    14. Re:Job Offer by bdwebb · · Score: 1

      AHHHH. That's not punny dude.

    15. Re:Job Offer by dkf · · Score: 1

      They want the ones with no sense of ethics or morality.

      Wrong. They don't want the ones who'll sell the data to the highest bidder while skipping town, which is a real risk with the truly amoral. They want the ones who'll actually keep their secrets because they believe that this is the right thing to do, which is a form of moral action. (Of course, they also want the people they hire to be persuadable as to who the arbiter of what is moral is, but true amorality won't do at all.)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  3. Wow! by jasnw · · Score: 1

    A year in prison for the crime of fixing a vote while not being a professional political operative. At least the kid knows he's got a shot at a good job when he gets out. Better prospects than if he had finished his program at Cal State San Marcos.

    1. Re:Wow! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see all the carefully organized evidence you have of professional political operatives engaging in vote fixing. Oh right, this is just a cynicism race-to-the-bottom, driven by paranoid conspiracy theories.

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      How about the mayor in Florida that lost voting machines that were later shown to contain many more votes for the Ds than those for R. The mayor is a stanch R supporter, and when questioned how the fuck did these voting machines get lost, she replied "it happens, voting is a complex business". Yup, so complex, they were deliberately disconnected, moved to another room, and covered in a pile of boxes to disguise they were there.

      That's just one example of the Bush / Fox / FL stolen election.

    3. Re:Wow! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Oh right, this is just a cynicism race-to-the-bottom, driven by paranoid conspiracy theories.

      Sadly, I have found that both of those tend to be surprisingly accurate in the long run.

      Assuming the worst of politicians (and, really, everyone else) proves right more than by simple chance. Assuming you can trust them just leads to more problems than assuming you can't and keeping a close eye on them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Wow! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      or in washington two gubernatorial elections ago where the judge said yup there was evidence of cheating and dismissed the case anyway, did i mention the judge was former classmates with the "winner"

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    5. Re:Wow! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2
      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's just one example of the Bush / Fox / FL stolen election.

      No one who was objectively observing the 2000 election could possibly come to any conclusion other than that the Dems were attempting to steal the election in FL.

      After having twice recounted the votes in 3 heavily Dem-leaning precincts in FL, the Dems demanded a manual recount in those 3 precincts. During the recount in Miami, the Dem election observers locked the Repub election observers out of the recount room. They only let the Repub election observers into the room after the Repubs gathered a bunch of tv news cameras and stood outside the room chanting, "Let us in! Let us in!" There were also media reports that the Dems had taken stacks of unused ballots into the room with them.

      I defy you to come up with an innocent reason why the Dems would lock the Repub election observers out of the room during a manual recount.

    7. Re:Wow! by Meeni · · Score: 1

      The problem is that often, cynicism is not about having a close eye on them, but taking that sheep stance of "yeah, everybody does it, meh". And the, just because nobody cares, indeed, everybody starts doing it.

    8. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I defy you to come up with an innocent reason why the Dems would lock the Repub election observers out of the room during a manual recount.

      That was just the Forces of Righteousness trying to undo the damage that GOP had done already.

    9. Re:Wow! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Read Greg Palast's book 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy'. It should be available at your library (probably even as ebook or PDF). Vote fraud doesn't mean paying winos to pretend to be dead people to cast a ballot any more, it's big business. Sometimes they don't even bother to manipulate the vote, they just take away the voting rights of people most likely to vote a certain way through methods that include knowingly fraudulent procedures.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re:Wow! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's not often that we see lies that blatant on SlashDot. Rather inspiring, actually.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    11. Re:Wow! by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure, I remember Franken vs. Coleman. Probably better than you do.

      On election night, the preliminary returns showed a very slight lead for Coleman, and the collated returns somewhat later showed an even slighter lead. As it happens, differences of a thousand votes or so are common from election-night return, and Coleman's lead was a lot smaller than that.

      Minnesota law mandates a recount when the margin of victory is that small, and that is done by going to the actual paper ballots. The tabulation machines are good but not perfect. Once that count was done, Franken had a slight lead. This was perfectly normal variation. The fact is that the election was so close that the state hadn't actually established a preference in any statistically valid manner, so from a statistical point of view they were equal.

      That being done, the Coleman campaign kept pushing for more iffy ballots to be counted, since they were behind. The Franken campaign never had reason to do so. Each batch of increasingly iffier ballots pushed Franken's lead a teeny bit higher. It would appear that, in that election, Democrats were more likely to come up with slightly unclear ballots than Republicans. The system for absentee ballots turned out to have a few issues (the instructions that went with them were incomplete), and this was remedied for the next election. (FWIW, I don't think Mom's ballot was counted.)

      The details were overseen by a panel of three judges, who examined the questionable ballots. It isn't necessarily easy to discern voter intent unambiguously, and it's arguable whether an individual ballot is unambiguous or not (illogical though that seems). Finally, the counting was over, and the state Supreme Court spent about a month reviewing the process. At the end, they concluded it was as fair as it was going to get, and Franken won.

      Of the eight judges and justices involved, four were nominated by Republicans, two by Democrats, and two by Jesse Ventura when he served a term as Governor as an independent. The final certification was signed by the Republican governor. If there was partisan influence, it wasn't from the Democrats.

      There were some questions left about ballots. One precinct had apparently lost the ballots from one machine, and in one precinct there were doubts about whether spoiled ballots were properly disposed of (tearing them in half works). Franken's final lead was significantly larger than any questions about them.

      Overall, it looked like a very careful nonpartisan recount. If somebody has actual evidence against that, I'd like to see it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. simple fix by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    all he needed to do was use a keystroke logger to work his keystroke logger.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    1. Re:simple fix by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      all he needed to do was use a keystroke logger to work his keystroke logger.

      I see you made a typo, then corrected it. Well done. (c:

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:simple fix by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      all he needed to do was use a keystroke logger to work his keystroke logger.

      Yo dawg, I heard you like keystroke loggers ... ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Settings examples by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's small time, he cheated, he got caught and made an example of. If only we could have this sort of efficiency and insight into real politicians.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    1. Re:Settings examples by Kookus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If someone steals my credentials, I'd expect that kind of punishment. I don't think he's being made an example, he's actually getting off light.
      There's a lot of other things that he could potentially do, or has exposed those students to by capturing their passwords. It's not that he was caught trying to rig an election, it's that he was impersonating other individuals, stealing their identities.

    2. Re:Settings examples by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      He's small time, he cheated, he got caught and made an example of. If only we could have this sort of efficiency and insight into real politicians.

      I hope you're joking. This is simply publicity that will jump start his public political career. There is no such thing as bad press anymore. Morals were thrown out the window a couple of decades ago.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    3. Re:Settings examples by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      The jail time in an of itself is nothing. What we are doing is f'd up. It ensure more criminal activity will occur because this person will never be able to succeed in any other way now (other than as a criminal).

      But he may have had political ambitions too. Nothing like a formal charge of election fraud to end a political career. Agreed that what a conviction does to a persons future is far too excessive - in fact, it should theoretically have zero effect since the jail term is allegedly the punishment.

    4. Re:Settings examples by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, fuck his political career. He cheated by committing voter fraud. If anything, we need fewer politicians who try to pull shit like this.

      --
      Crimey
    5. Re:Settings examples by lart2150 · · Score: 2

      Slashdot and threatpost both have it wrong. The original article(linked threatpost) from says "his arrest on suspicion of wire fraud, access device fraud and unauthorized access to a computer" http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/07/Former-student-arrested-after-probe/

    6. Re:Settings examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want someone like this running government? Jesus christ what is wrong with you chucklefucks.

    7. Re:Settings examples by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Honestly, do you want this person to "succeed" (as a politician)?

    8. Re:Settings examples by Nyder · · Score: 1

      He's small time, he cheated, he got caught and made an example of. If only we could have this sort of efficiency and insight into real politicians.

      A year in jail is not being made an example from. This person set out to cheat the school, then installed keyloggers to get access to people login info.

      They want to set an example? Give him 5 years in jail.

      What I see is a slap on the wrist for something that is serious.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    9. Re:Settings examples by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Pretty much nothing in the publically available information on this guy suggests that he was anything close to a 'decent person'...

    10. Re:Settings examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how easy identity theft is in your country, by design I might add, I'd say they're extra hard on him for no good reason.

      Let me tell you how I see his future turn up. He had a good idea and the brains to almost pull it off. His legal means of support will be all but gone by the time he gets out of jail, and spending his best years there won't turn him into a paragon of goodness. When he does get out, he'll go for higher payouts and will be that much better at it.

    11. Re:Settings examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually a very bad example.

      It scares away people with right qualifications train in politics to become future politicians. Do you want untrained, unskilled and under qualified people to be politicians?

  6. True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I did something similar at "Canada's Premiere Undergraduate Experience"

    Long story short, one of the people running for Student Union President won my House election the year before. He did so by getting the competition kicked out on technicalities. No, I wasn't running, and No, I wasn't friends with anyone who did. Since every day a poster is up is a "violation" they racked up fast. This guy was going out with the person who's job it is to notify people of potential violations, and they were never warned.

    Fast forward two years, and I logged in as every. single. student. from a MacDonalds down the road. Didn't actually vote, just logged in, logged right back out. Then repeated 8k times. Once a student logged in, they had an hour to finish. Since everyone's hour was up at 9AM, almost no one voted.

    Somehow, there was still a landslide win. Not only did he have 90% of the votes, he had more votes than there were students in the entire university.

    The whole election should have been thrown out. People complained on official forums, topics were deleted as fast as they went up.

    It pays to play dirty apparently.

    1. Re:True Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      No..it pays to not get caught.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:True Story by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I did something similar at "Canada's Premiere Undergraduate Experience"

      Long story short, one of the people running for Student Union President won my House election the year before. He did so by getting the competition kicked out on technicalities. No, I wasn't running, and No, I wasn't friends with anyone who did. Since every day a poster is up is a "violation" they racked up fast. This guy was going out with the person who's job it is to notify people of potential violations, and they were never warned.

      Fast forward two years, and I logged in as every. single. student. from a MacDonalds down the road. Didn't actually vote, just logged in, logged right back out. Then repeated 8k times. Once a student logged in, they had an hour to finish. Since everyone's hour was up at 9AM, almost no one voted.

      Somehow, there was still a landslide win. Not only did he have 90% of the votes, he had more votes than there were students in the entire university.

      The whole election should have been thrown out. People complained on official forums, topics were deleted as fast as they went up.

      It pays to play dirty apparently.

      Have to be careful when playing dirty. In my elementary school was a fellow running for class president and he was well liked and popular. One of his competitors for the honor (as there really wasn't much to the office) found he had been born outside the US (he was an Aussie by birth) and this revelation -- why it was even considered by the faculty baffled me -- meant the popular student was ineligible. It really broke his heart and seemed incredibly unfair, particularly to classmates. Keep in mind most of us were 12 or younger, but we already had a pretty well developed sense of what is fair and how you deal with weasels who succeed in removing competition by devious means, the weasel was soundly defeated in the vote. So the lesson here isn't that you cannot have your competitor diminished by technicalities or smearing, but you should always have a surrogate do it on the side so you don't get caught for the 'Swiftboating'.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In my elementary school, there was this really bright student running for class president. He was going to win by just one vote, but then the opposing candidate's famous Aunt got involved and demanded a recount. Lawyers got involved and the election seemed to drag on forever. Luckily, the opposing candidate conceded after realizing how stupid this all was. Just another day in my quiet mountain town.

    4. Re:True Story by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      No..it pays to not get caught.

      Which, in American politics, usually translates to "pin it on some low-level minion and let them take the fall"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:True Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      lol just American politics?? Give me a break, no government has clean hands..none. European politics has a few thousand year head start over the US if were getting picky :}

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    6. Re:True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite quote at my university from the school paper was "Person X was voted as student government president yesterday, however we don't have any numbers on the percentage of votes for each candidate due to a technical error in the voting system."

    7. Re:True Story by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      lol just American politics?? Give me a break, no government has clean hands..none. European politics has a few thousand year head start over the US if were getting picky :}

      As a USA-ian who has never traveled outside the national borders, I can only speak for the government I know.

      YMMV and all that jazz.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:True Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Didn't take history classes? Watch international news?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    9. Re:True Story by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Didn't take history classes?

      Heh, you think they teach about foreign governments in American history classes, let alone modern ones? Hell, they barely teach about domestic government, and even then only what's required by state law. The last history book I was assigned still had Reagan as the current president... and this was in 2000, if that tells you anything about the state of public education here.

      Of course, what the hell history has to do with what's going on right now, today, escapes me.

      Watch international news?

      I've learned better than to watch news period, for the most part - every outlet, even international ones, seem to insist on putting spin on every story they report, instead of imparting the facts and letting the viewer make their own decision. I will admit, though, I recently found out that I can stream RT through my Roku, and they seem pretty unbiased for the most part (plus, their human interest stories are actually interesting), so I am getting back into the habit.

      But, I think you've missed my premise entirely - point being, I don't pretend to be an expert on systems and situations I have never myself experienced;
      would you ask a bird what it's like to live beneath the waves?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy was going out with the person who's job it is to notify people of potential violations

      Bullshit, you never went to college.

    11. Re:True Story by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      So the moral of this story is you should have been better than the competition when you committed voter fraud???

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    12. Re: True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh whatever. It was an autocorrection.

    13. Re:True Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      um you do know some fish have wings and do in fact fly right? Or did you miss that class too?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    14. Re:True Story by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      um you do know some fish have wings and do in fact fly right? Or did you miss that class too?

      Yea, I knew some jackass would latch onto the fringe case of flying fish (which you should know don't actually fly, they glide short distances). Hence the reason I went the opposite direction of asking a bird what it's like under water.

      Of course, it matters not, as it has fuck-all to do with the conversation at hand.

      Kriminy, some people will come up with any old excuse to argue...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...would you ask a bird what it's like to live beneath the waves?

      Quite a few birds spend time underwater, including the... um, you don't claim to be a Linux user, I trust? :)

    16. Re:True Story by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      You're an American. USA-ian is a made up term.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  7. Mixed feelings by istartedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the one hand, fraud is bad. On the other, student government is usually a joke that deserves to be pranked. At the college level it is, AFAIK, not much better than HS. Our Class President gave a friggin' 15 minute speech at commencement. Holy Crap! That was the only real debacle at graduation. I'll never forget it. That's all I remember about the class president.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Mixed feelings by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the problem is that this job comes with a stipend. Once you actually make money from this sort of thing (even a relatively small amount), it's financial fraud and taken a lot more seriously.

    2. Re:Mixed feelings by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, fraud is bad. On the other, student government is usually a joke that deserves to be pranked. At the college level it is, AFAIK, not much better than HS. Our Class President gave a friggin' 15 minute speech at commencement. Holy Crap! That was the only real debacle at graduation. I'll never forget it. That's all I remember about the class president.

      Student government is seldom more than a popularity contest.

      It can be good training (relatively speaking and tongue firmly in cheek) for figuring out social engineering skills - what are the hot buttons for people, what people are likely to remember of your (ha) promises after you've been elected and practice in keeping skeletons from accumulating in your closet.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Mixed feelings by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Stealing an election at my college (back in the day) would've been a lot easier than this. I should know: I was in charge of running them one year, and I could've simply picked who I wanted to win (but I didn't).

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      School don't have money to pay teachers to teach but they have money to give to "politicians" who want a career as a liar and a cheat?

    5. Re:Mixed feelings by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      On the one hand, fraud is bad. On the other, student government is usually a joke that deserves to be pranked.

      Yeah but "prank" and "stealing credentials from 750 people and then using their identities without consent" don't really go hand in hand. Bad judgement on an epic scale..

    6. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the university. Some student governments handle several hundredth thousand dollar of mandatory fees a year for social activities. Quite often the book keeping of the expenses is very shoddy and embezzlement has to be suspected.

    7. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that this job comes with a stipend. Once you actually make money from this sort of thing (even a relatively small amount), it's financial fraud and taken a lot more seriously.
       
      Which is only okay if you are a "real" politician.

    8. Re:Mixed feelings by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nobody really cares about the election itself, it's the $32K stipend the winner gets, the computer tampering, and accessing the computer systems with 630 other student's credentials plus his impersonations of other students with fake facebook accounts after the fact attempting to cover it up.

      That's why he's going to jail.

    9. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like the makings for 750 lawsuits. :-)

      But no worries, being a Republican he has plenty of money. And even if he doesn't right now, once he gets out of prison, he can just go out and find a high-paying job. Those are also easy to find if you're willing to actually work. Or so the Republicans keep telling me.

    10. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being a Republican

      [Citation Needed]

  8. Re:I think he's ready by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I think this kid's ready for the big time! Future statesman, you heard about him first on Slashdot!

    I'm not sure mentioned on slashdot is any kind of endorsement. You don't see Wil Wheaton in the DC, do you?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. Ohio and Florida by Blugenes · · Score: 1

    He could work for either voting board and do well!

  10. this is why verification is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why everyone needs to be able to verify that their vote was counted the way they voted. They got lucky and caught the guy this time, but I'm sure this has been done before at larger scales by people with more resources.

    1. Re:this is why verification is needed by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      Allowing vote verification also allows vote selling and voter coercion.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  11. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumbfuck ... talentless dumbfuck

  12. ...you will absorb the culture by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    Choose wisely where you go to school

  13. Not exactly the best and brightest... by Yaddoshi · · Score: 1

    When I was in college my roommate and friends successfully ran a campaign to get Gumby elected student President, highlighting how useless student government really is.

    Aside from his 15 minutes of fame, I don't really see how the reward justified the risks he took, although encore proved a significant lack of common sense.

    1. Re:Not exactly the best and brightest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's more or less useless to the school and student population, but it matters when you're 22 and looking for a job and you can use to support a "leadership" role.

      Also, being from San Diego, this guy has a bright future ahead of him in San Diego politics, that's for sure!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Cunningham
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Filner
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hedgecock
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_pension_scandal

    2. Re:Not exactly the best and brightest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps i should provide some reference:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Cunningham - Congressman from North San Diego, in prison for accepting bribes from Defense contractors. The longest prison sentence in American history for a serving politician.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Filner - Current mayor, accused of numerous sexual harrassment issues, has basically admitted guilt, and refuses to resign. The lack of confidence from voters has pitted him against the city council and the city is at a standstill.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hedgecock - Convicted of perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury when he was accused of campaign donor fraud on a second trial; the first he apparently got the bailiff to serve the jury alcohol and pressure the jury to acquittal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_pension_scandal - City has consistently underfunded the pension for city employees while numerous and bogus pension claims have been racking up by city employees and their families. The pension is underfunded by $2.1 billion. THe previous CIty Attorney Mike Aguirre prolonged the problem, the current Jan Goldsmith is doing a good job at chipping away at it.

      Here's another:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Zucchet - after the mayor resigned due to incompetence, he acted as Deputy Mayor until a special election could be held. Three days later he resigns under corruption and wire fraud charges from local strip clubs to repeal anti-prostitution laws.

      I love San Diego.

    3. Re:Not exactly the best and brightest... by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

      I just read some of these. I don't know about the rest, but the Roger Hedgecock article states that the bailiff gave the jury alcohol and pushed for a conviction. After much wrangling and seeming judicial misconduct (judge stating he thought Hedgecock was guilty, and therefore would not release interview transcripts to the defense) the State Supreme Court ruled in Hedgecock's favor. He then plead to a misdemeanor, with *no* retrial.

      Thanks for the links, though. Interesting reading.

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    4. Re:Not exactly the best and brightest... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Student government is useful, but only on a resume. It's a complete joke in all other respects.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    5. Re:Not exactly the best and brightest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more or less useless to the school and student population.

      I used to think that student government positions in college were silly and then I found out the student government where I went to school controlled the disbursement of 25 million dollars derived mostly from compulsory student activity fees. There is a reason why officers in student government when asked what they want to do after they graduate typically say that they want to be "political activists". The people who are most anxious to become student body president are motivated by a desire to funnel money to leftist causes on campus.

    6. Re:Not exactly the best and brightest... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Aside from his 15 minutes of fame, I don't really see how the reward justified the risks he took, although encore proved a significant lack of common sense.

      The encore probably solidifies him as the kind of person the prosecutor called an "immensely entitled young man." His actions were arrogant and selfish, and he clearly thought himself far smarter and far more capable than he actually was if he thought he could get away with it.

      I doubt very seriously that he had the capacity to intelligently assess the risks involved. I think there's a reasonable chance he may suffer from narcissistic personality disorder or at least has inclinations in that direction. I mean, for crying out loud, he even googled "jailtime for keylogger" and did it anyway, clearly being aware of the risks but overestimating his cleverness to get away with it. And again that encore after being caught red-handed at it.

      Though maybe I just inherently distrust anyone who would make a PowerPoint presentation to convince his buddies to run for office for cash rather than just trying to convince them in person by speech. There's a certain sort of grandiose posturing and relentless corporate mediocrity involved in that. :-)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  14. Re:I think he's ready by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    What's wrong with Hwil Hweaton?

  15. Re:I think he's ready by SirGeek · · Score: 1

    I think this kid's ready for the big time! Future statesman, you heard about him first on Slashdot!

    I'm not sure mentioned on slashdot is any kind of endorsement. You don't see Wil Wheaton in the DC, do you?

    Nope. Because Wil Wheaton :

    1. Is NOT a lawyer (and he doesn't play one on TV either)
    2. He HAS A SOUL
  16. Stooopid stooopid stoopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad he played his ace card now, when he could have waited for US presidential (digital) election and rig that instead... even though, NSA is well placed to do that.

  17. Re:When he gets out by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he'll be a perfect candidate for a Republican or Democrat governor, congressman, or even Presidential candidate. His future looks very bright indeed!

    FTFY

  18. fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    prove it

    1. Re:fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Use your brain. Any effort to require voters to prove their identity in even the most minimal way is fervently opposed by the Dems. The only reason to oppose requiring something as minimal as say, requiring a driver's license to vote is if you are trying to make it easy to commit election fraud.

      The Democrat Party is firmly committed ideologically to promoting Statism. Anyone who promotes the creation of an all-powerful government sees politics as a winner-takes-all game and readily adopts a win-by-any-means-necessary attitude toward elections. The Republican Party, in contrast, doesn't have a firm ideology atm although the people who control the RP are trying to change it into a completely Statist party - which is why the RP is losing its base.

  19. Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he had gotten away with it, then yes, he would have had a successful future in politics. However, he got caught. That makes him useless to all politically-interested parties.

    1. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that he rigged an election, it's that he stole and impersonated many students identities.

    2. Re:Ah, no... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      and did it like a raving N00b. Even hackers want this idiot to go to jail

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Ah, no... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can see them being punished by the school, but WTF...Federal Prison?!?!?

      No matter where he did this, he stole people's credentials (illegally), and used it to access system (illegally).

      CFAA is a federal statute, so he broke federal law -- and therefore gets federal prison.

      I have no sympathy for him. None at all.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Ah, no... by slick7 · · Score: 2

      I have no sympathy for him. None at all.

      My sentiments exactly, I have no sympathy for any crooked politician. Corruption in politics should carry a 50 year sentence and the corrupting influence 100 years.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    5. Re:Ah, no... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Well, as others have pointed out, it was the identity theft that did him in.

      However, keep in mind that depending on the school, significant amounts of money flow through the office. When I was in college we had a scandal where the president and vp embezzled tens of thousands of dollars from student government.

    6. Re:Ah, no... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      This is a freaking school election...not a federal / city/state election..it is college, it means NOTHING....

      I can see them being punished by the school, but WTF...Federal Prison?!?!?

      Well you would have a point if all he did was rig a school election by distributing flyers telling people the election date has been changed or something of that nature.

      However you seem to have missed the part of TFS that says he put keyloggers on other people's computers and stole their id/password. That's illegal and a jail-able offense. Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?

    7. Re:Ah, no... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I only have crappy teen dramas to go by but isn't being college president some kind of big career boosting deal as well? Something you can put on your CV. It sounds like there may have been financial gain too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Ah, no... by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      if you RTFA, it states that the fake facebook profiles he created AFTER he was caught to blame other students irrated the judge so much that he didn't get probation.

      While I agree that the punishments in the U.S. are getting out of hands, one year seems appropriate in this case. What a stupid asshole tries to turn others in for his own crime and hopes for probation? One year is harsh, but not inappropriate - he and his collegues would have gained 8000 or 7000 Dollars.

    9. Re:Ah, no... by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      I can understand him getting kicked out of school, but freaking federal prison for a year for just messing with a STUDENT school election?!?!

      Typically student presidents are paid a salary from the student union (it's usually a role for people once they've graduated). This isn't just some 'student election', it's an attempt to defraud the university students of $20,000+. Jail is the right punishment for this crime.

    10. Re:Ah, no... by Meeni · · Score: 2

      Election tempering is one of the vilest crime one can commit.

      Stealing credentials and installing keyloggers is illegal, also.

    11. Re:Ah, no... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      Wow...just wow.

      I can understand him getting kicked out of school, but freaking federal prison for a year for just messing with a STUDENT school election?!?!

      Geez, we're getting out of hand here...I've been hearing of small school children getting kicked out of school and having the cops called just for playing in the school play ground using their hands and fingers as 'guns' yelling bang bang at each other.

      This is a freaking school election...not a federal / city/state election..it is college, it means NOTHING....

      I can see them being punished by the school, but WTF...Federal Prison?!?!?

      You are one gynormous ignoramus of the law. He stole people's credentials and broke into a system. These two are federal felonies. Do you live in some alternate universe version of the US where federal law doesn't include computer fraud and identity theft? Or are you simply being obtuse, seeking an opportunity to cry about the abuse of powah!!!!?

    12. Re: Ah, no... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      And we need to consider more than the financial motive. Imagine the damage that could have been done to the reputations of the students whose identities he stole if even a single media outlet had picked up on his "news tips".

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    13. Re:Ah, no... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      He didn't go to jail because somebody gives a damn about the class president, he went to jail because he compromized hundreds of access credentials and used them to gain unauthorized access to systems(and, unless the school's IT office is fairly conservative, the odds are increasingly good that you can hardly touch their system without crossing state lines).

      His pitiful attempts at hiding probably didn't endear him to anybody, either.

    14. Re:Ah, no... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder what the anomaly was.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    15. Re:Ah, no... by proslack · · Score: 1

      Student Presidents of large public universities draw salary, typically between $15,000 and $30,000 annually. They are employed by the state. The payroll check comes from the state of California. That makes this crime more than "nothing".

      --


      Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
    16. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.

      I think breaking into my house and tampering with my computer should be illegal.

      I realize this is not the way the law works now, but this is how I think it *should* work.

    17. Re:Ah, no... by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?

      Just because someone thinks the punishment is excessive, doesn't mean they think that the crime should be legal.

      Likewise, just because someone thinks the punishment was excessive in one scenario, doesn't mean they'd think it excessive in other scenarios. You wouldn't punish someone for stealing a snickers bar as harshly as you would if they'd stolen an iPad, would you?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    18. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can see them being punished by the school, but WTF...Federal Prison?!?!?

      No matter where he did this, he stole people's credentials (illegally), and used it to access system (illegally).

      CFAA is a federal statute, so he broke federal law -- and therefore gets federal prison.

      I have no sympathy for him. None at all.

      I think it is important to note that the position also came with and $8,000 dollar stipend. So, not only did he steal identities of people, he also used the stolen identities to steal $8,000 from the school. If there was no money involved, I think the school may, and I stress may, not have referred the matter to the police.

      AlphaA

    19. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was down to me, people targetting me with ads would be targetted for drone strikes (especially PPI lawyers). However, its not down to me.

    20. Re:Ah, no... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.

      I think breaking into my house and tampering with my computer should be illegal.

      Then why would it be illegal to break into your house? Shouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your locks, doors, windows, and walls are all impervious to any kind of attack?

    21. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      50 years isn't enough! He should be drawn and quartered for cheating in his school election! Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Why are my tax dollars going to imprison this cheater?

    22. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I look at it 2 different ways:

      1. Locks on doors and windows are not sufficient to keep out a burglar. Even alarm systems frequently just minimize damage and theft rather than preventing it. You're operating system has the ability to simply refuse to grant unwanted requests for access. Any time it doesn't is because of misconfigured security settings or actual security holes. "breaking in" to a computer system is more like tricking a housekeeper into giving you all the owners jewelry voluntarily. Yes this would still be fraud, but it seems like a better solution than fraud laws, is having housekeepers that don't give away your possessions to strangers.

      2. Even with computer hacking illegal, it is rampant. It is rare to catch people who do it. When people do get caught it is bright and socially awkward kids living in their mom's basement, not the Russian mafia guys, or Chinese intelligence, (i.e. we throw the book at the easy targets). We spend our money on litigation rather than innovation. If the only way to combat hacking was better security, then that's that much more money spent on better security innovations. When these innovations happen in open source software, it is beneficial to everyone.

      Obviously hacking is bad. The question is whether laws are the best way to remedy the situation. I see the only solution to hacking that works is better security. Are we better off if we put the few people we catch in jail? I don't know, maybe. But we must also look at the cost of resources we put into trying to catch hackers and the benefit of the catching x% of them and see if it's worth it.

      On a more emotional level, there are a lot of really smart and successful people who started out hacking as teenagers, and I don't think society would be better off had they been imprisoned rather than allowed to form companies like apple.

      Obviously if you steal a bunch of money with hacking, that money should be returned because it doesn't belong to you, but I think the responsibility should be placed on institutions to have better security rather than on people not to explore/exploit weaknesses in security. It's not because I think the don't deserve responsibility, it is because I think we will be better off as a society if we have a strong immune system rather than if we try to eradicate diseases by making spreading them illegal.

    23. Re:Ah, no... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Because the US didn't implement the death penalty correctly so court appeals can drag on for decades.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    24. Re:Ah, no... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.

      Can I beat you up? It's your responsibility, after all, to ensure that you're in proper shape and well-enough trained or armed to defend yourself.

      I think breaking into my house and tampering with my computer should be illegal.

      Okay, so I can't break into your house and beat you up, what if I beat you up in the streets instead of breaking in first? After all, you did voluntarily step into public away from the safety of your own four walls.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    25. Re:Ah, no... by cusco · · Score: 1

      I think anything you try to do to my computer via the internet should be legal. It is my responsibility to ensure that the software on my computer is secure.

      So it should be legal to hack into the computer of every non-IT professional? Because they're the only people who are going to be competent to adequately secure their systems, and even then only a minority of them would do it completely. And have you never heard of that little thing called a "zero-day exploit"? It should be legal to crack your computer simply because there isn't a fix yet for a security hole?

      I don't believe you've really thought that through. I personally don't think that my mom's PC should be available to every script kiddie out there just because I haven't been by to patch that obscure security hole in Photoshop.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    26. Re: Ah, no... by cusco · · Score: 1

      If he had gotten away with it it's almost certain that his next step would have involved bank or securities fraud with the credentials he had already stolen. It's fortunate for the other students that he was stupid enough to get caught right away.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    27. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Matt Weaver. He certainly does have a face that you just want to punch.

    28. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no sympathy for him. None at all.

      Now I'll agree with you, on the condition that this response, or stronger, is enacted on past, current and future politicians IRL.

    29. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I see why you might try to extend my position on one particular area to every other area where it might not make sense, but I don't advocate taking this view or any other view to this kind of extreme. I'm not an ideologue. I believe in treating different situations differently.

    30. Re:Ah, no... by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      That is my question too...
      What did they detect? Who was watching the network so closely as to notice this? Why? Is there an ongoing privacy violation going on by schools to keep their networks clean? It just kinda leads to more questions... Who's watching the watchers?

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    31. Re:Ah, no... by Valdrax · · Score: 0

      The notion that the law should not protect the weak from those who deliberately seek to do them harm because it's their fault for being weak is morally repugnant regardless of the situation.

      It is the same as the "she was asking for it because of her outfit" argument in rape cases. It's the same as telling a kid that it's their fault for not standing up to a bully. It's the same as telling someone "caveat emptor" when someone scams them out of their home or their retirement savings.

      You call them different situations, but the real difference is that you are confident of your ability to defend yourself in the realm of computers, and you see everyone else's lack of similar expertise and diligence indefensible. You only call for rule of the strong in computing because you see yourself as strong.

      Personally, I think laws against malicious hacking are good and necessary. I don't think the CFAA is narrowly enough tailored to that task, but it's better than the wild west.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    32. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So it should be legal to hack into the computer of every non-IT professional? Because they're the only people who are going to be competent to adequately secure their systems, and even then only a minority of them would do it completely. And have you never heard of that little thing called a "zero-day exploit"? It should be legal to crack your computer simply because there isn't a fix yet for a security hole?

      1. Not even IT professionals can always adequately secure their systems. Every corporation that gets hacked has an IT department.

      2. It is not that I think hacking is bad. I just don't think the cost of enforcing anti hacking laws by government agencies that know every little about computer security is worth the benefit of capturing and punishing the handful of people who actually get caught.

      Imagine a world where there are millions of beatings by bullies every year. Every year we spend billions of dollars trying to catch bullies, and we only catch a few on average. In this situation, I would say it is probably a better strategy to start investing in self defense courses. This is a matter of practicality not principle. We as a society would be better off if everyone could defend themselves than if 1 or 2 bullies are brought to justice.

      Obviously the problem of bullying or assault is not like how I described in my hypothetical example, which is why I don't think my solution to hacking applies to bullying.

      I don't believe you've really thought that through. I personally don't think that my mom's PC should be available to every script kiddie out there just because I haven't been by to patch that obscure security hole in Photoshop.

      If your mom's computer has a security hole in it, it will be hacked by script kiddies or more likely viruses whether hacking is illegal or not. Even if you lived at your mom's house you are not going to know about every newly found security hole in the thousands of bits of software running on an average computer.

      100% of the emphasis of stopping hacking should be on improving security. This means finding security holes sooner, pushing out patches sooner, doing a better job of getting people actually do their security updates or get them to turn on automatic updates. We need to educate people on how to stay safe on the internet.

      The internet is not a civil society. The internet is worse than the wild west. You can make whatever you want illegal, but you'd be far better off getting a gun and knowing how to defend yourself. This is the only reasonable course of action when the law is not capable of defending you.

    33. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1
      You have inferred to much about the reasons for my position.

      Personally, I think laws against malicious hacking are good and necessary. I don't think the CFAA is narrowly enough tailored to that task, but it's better than the wild west.

      They are not good, and they are worse than unnecessary. They are 99.99999% ineffectual. The internet is already the wild west. Every single dollar or man hour of effort spent trying to catch a hacker, is infinitely better spent improving security to make hacking more difficult.

      You only call for rule of the strong in computing because you see yourself as strong.

      I am not confident in my ability to secure my computer at all. Numerous experts in the private sector and in the government have said that in their opinion we are powerless to stop an advanced persistent threat.

      Nobody is string. Everybody is getting hacked from threats all over the globe. Our only hope is to make security better. You don't need to be a computer expert to benefit from better security. The same grandmas that have a windows 7 computer have an order of magnitude more secure computer than when they had a windows xp computer. Unfortunately the hacks are also getting more sophisticated. It's an arms race.

      Legislators, law enforcement, lawyers and courts are expensive. Rather than putting a few hackers in jail, we could use that money to research security holes and fix them for billions of people.

    34. Re:Ah, no... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Interesting to see the difference in reaction between this incident and Aaron Swartz...

    35. Re:Ah, no... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Locks on doors and windows are not sufficient to keep out a burglar. Even alarm systems frequently just minimize damage and theft rather than preventing it. You're operating system has the ability to simply refuse to grant unwanted requests for access. Any time it doesn't is because of misconfigured security settings or actual security holes

      Unfortunately they're not sufficient to keep out a lot of things including mother-in-laws, but that's what vacations are for :). The purpose of laws is deterrence; and security is defense. Even kings of old recognized the wisdom of a layered defense. While not infallible encrypting all the stuff you don't want accessed and securing things in a safe and/or offsite are within the reach of the common man. Ultimately there needs to be trust involved at some layer, this is how business occurs over the internet. What do you do when you are unable to trust your system? A prime example is Microsoft (and I'm sure there are others) sitting on 0days for the NSA. Absolutely disgusting.

      Even with computer hacking illegal, it is rampant. It is rare to catch people who do it.

      So is filesharing, littering, j-walking, failure to signal, texting while driving (as an aside, during my morning commute I encountered someone entering my lane on the way to work this morning, head down, eyes transfixed on her steering wheel where the phone was, instead of on the road) in some places talking on a phone whilst driving is illegal. All of these are rampant and some can result in death. I hack things and contrary to your earlier implication that the mere act wrong, it is not immoral or unethical. What do I hack? Things I own ;). It's work/fun when you've isolated a pointer for a particular feature and can modify it at will. Or I extend something by adding some new functionality to it (10 years ago it was XBMC, today it's an embedded voip server) just because I can.

      We spend our money on litigation rather than innovation. If the only way to combat hacking was better security, then that's that much more money spent on better security innovations. When these innovations happen in open source software, it is beneficial to everyone.

      You're sadly right about the litigation vs innovation. Seems systemic does it not? Combating hacking is as much a social issue as technical since behind most systems there is a fallible human being. Even if more money is spent on security than features, wouldn't that be a wise move if it contains sensitive information Conversely hacking things also results in better stuff, look at the DVDs with all that garbage unskippable stuff now able to be bypassed because of dvdjon. Beyond that, look at all the cool things done with unofficial mods to products. Who are they to tell you what you can do with something you purchased, would you tolerate this with your car? Can you imagine food coming with approved uses? "This orange may only be used to garnish approved plates in a private setting, absolutely no public performance or juicing! You may not take pictures of this orange. Any pictures are owned by ACME, Inc. Also, trace elements known to the state of Elbonia to cause cancer are present in this fruit. You do not own this fruit, but have one (1) single seat home limited license to consume this fruit. You must call a number to register, activate, and authorize the fruit prior to garnishing. Obtaining this fruit is acceptance of ACME, Inc's license."

      Obviously hacking is bad. The question is whether laws are the best way to remedy the situation. I see the only solution to hacking that works is better security....On a more emotional level, there are a lot of really smart and successful people who started out hacking as teenagers, and I don't think society would be better off had they been imprisoned rather than allowed to form companies like apple.

      I don't usually chime in on these things but you must

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    36. Re:Ah, no... by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      That is my question too... What did they detect? Who was watching the network so closely as to notice this? Why? Is there an ongoing privacy violation going on by schools to keep their networks clean? It just kinda leads to more questions... Who's watching the watchers?

      Don't be so dense. Some people probably complained when they went to vote but the computer said they already voted. A few more of those complaints and it would not be difficult to figure out what's going on. At this point they only needed to see which IP address is casting all the votes generating the complaints.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    37. Re:Ah, no... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't punish someone for stealing a snickers bar as harshly as you would if they'd stolen an iPad, would you?

      Stealing an iPad is like bigamy; the crime contains its own punishment.

      George Bernard Shaw, I think.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:Ah, no... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      But again...this is a college level prank...

      Geez, if they had zero tolerance when I was growing up a kid, I guess I'd have been branded a terrorist long, long ago.

      This doesn't deserve a federal prison sentence....and record.

      College isn't the real world.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:Ah, no... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      However you seem to have missed the part of TFS that says he put keyloggers on other people's computers and stole their id/password. That's illegal and a jail-able offense. Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?

      College isn't the real world, this did no real world harm.

      No, I don't see this essentially college prank, warranting punishment of federal prison, and record to follow him through life.

      The punishment is way overblown for the crime.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    40. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The purpose of laws is deterrence; and security is defense. Even kings of old recognized the wisdom of a layered defense.

      Layers are good when they are cost effective. Everything has a cost in resources (e.g. time, money, etc). Some kings probably spent resources on hiring wizards to cast magic spells to protect their castles and curse their enemies. To say the least, this was probably not cost effective.

      What do you do when you are unable to trust your system? A prime example is Microsoft (and I'm sure there are others) sitting on 0days for the NSA. Absolutely disgusting.

      Well one thing you can do is use an open source operating system. It isn't going to be 100% secure (nothing is), but at least the source code has millions of eyes on it looking for holes, and you aren't reliant on some central authority to make fixes available after the NSA is done exploiting them.

      So is filesharing, littering, j-walking, failure to signal, texting while driving (as an aside, during my morning commute I encountered someone entering my lane on the way to work this morning, head down, eyes transfixed on her steering wheel where the phone was, instead of on the road) in some places talking on a phone whilst driving is illegal. All of these are rampant and some can result in death.

      While all these things and hacking are all rapant, the difference is that filesharing littering and jaywalking are easy to catch. If you want to catch someone breaking the law on the road, just go out there and watch any random person for 5 minutes and they will have probably broken 10 laws.

      If you want to catch a file sharer, join one torrent for game of thrones and you've got thousands of IP addresses of guilty people.

      I hack things and contrary to your earlier implication that the mere act wrong, it is not immoral or unethical.

      I didn't mean to imply that I think all hacking is inherently ethical. I meant to imply that not all hacking is necessarily unethical, even when hacking someone else.

      The amount spent on these things is a fraction of what is spent elsewhere. There are companies which exist solely to distribute 0days and profit massively from them. As a byproduct of three letter agencies and our communications network overlords all of the relevant information transmitted can be/is logged and aggregated. For them to say that its expensive, is it really so? The tax payer already paid for it and HD space is cheap and becoming cheaper.

      Yes it is expensive. To say the tax payer already paid for it is a cop out. Even if the NSA has proof that a guy hacked into a computer to become student president of a state college, they aren;t going to allow this info to be used in a trial. They are only supposed to be finding terrorists, and even if they are going beyond their scope, they aren't going to expose their program on small fish like 2bit hackers.

      I think we should be buying info from these companies that sell 0 day exploits, and use this info to create security fixes. If we actually do a really good job, they will find that they can't make any money selling 0 day exploits because the don;t stay good for long enough to be marketable. I think a world where 0 day exploits are rampant is preferable to one where all these holes exist but are yet to be discovered. The more holes we find the better. Even if the bad guys find them first, the good guys can usually know shortly after.

    41. Re:Ah, no... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Some kings probably spent resources on hiring wizards to cast magic spells to protect their castles and curse their enemies. To say the least, this was probably not cost effective.

      Modern spells like "Authorized Use Only" and curses like "Full extent of the law" are nearly as effective, especially when obtained from and managed by a lowest bidder wizard. Not all wizards are created equal ;)

      Well one thing you can do is use an open source operating system. It isn't going to be 100% secure (nothing is), but at least the source code has millions of eyes on it looking for holes, and you aren't reliant on some central authority to make fixes available after the NSA is done exploiting them.

      Yes, this is an excellent suggestion and one of the most reasonable responses to the attack we're under. A thing about these millions of eyes is they are millions of unqualified and non-programmer eyes. The domain specific talent required is supplied mainly by commercial companies, each with their own agendas. I understand the sentiment and even with opensource you're still running it on someone else's hardware, even if you paid for it and possess it you do not own it.

      Even if the NSA has proof that a guy hacked into a computer to become student president of a state college, they aren;t going to allow this info to be used in a trial.

      Initially you mentioned cost, that it's "expensive" and my point was that the system is already in place and is paid for (by us, also those fees that get tacked on to cellphone bills) and seeing use. Compared to the cost of the network, the $20 million USD annually, it's cheap just like storage space. I'll give you another comparison, Youtube (estimated) costs $2 million USD to operate daily. Location information with handsets specifically is a byproduct of the system; see the value of accurate billing information. The way this guy "hacked things" was done locally with keyloggers negating the need to snoop on traffic. No need for the NSA, just simple admin work.

      I think a world where 0 day exploits are rampant is preferable to one where all these holes exist but are yet to be discovered. Even if the bad guys find them first, the good guys can usually know shortly after.

      "Bad" guys finding them first would be hackers, no? Is it only bad when hackers sell them to others? Or is it when they don't tell people about them? Or is it only when they're exploited? Wouldn't supporting one of these companies where you buy 0days make you complicit in supporting the "bad" people thus making you one of the "bad" even if you're doing it for the perceived greater good?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    42. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      "Bad" guys finding them first would be hackers, no? Is it only bad when hackers sell them to others? Or is it when they don't tell people about them? Or is it only when they're exploited?

      I would say that it is bad when you unjustly harm someone. If you hack into someone's google account and steal their naughty cell phone pictures and post them on the internet, that's bad. If you penetrate a company's security but don't use your access to do any further direct harm, and the harm that is done to this company's reputation is just considering that it is based on truth, then I wouldn't say that is bad, but the law would.

      You claim that your hacking is ethical because you only hack your own property. Many products these days (e.g. game consoles) are still owned by their manufacturer and you are only buying the license to use them if you read the fine print. Also by opening the packaging you are agreeing to the license. I personally do not agree that I can be bound to a contract by opening a box, so I choose to ignore these sorts of licenses, but this is technically illegal many would argue.

      Wouldn't supporting one of these companies where you buy 0days make you complicit in supporting the "bad" people thus making you one of the "bad" even if you're doing it for the perceived greater good?

      I am a utilitarian of sorts. I believe the ends justify the means.

    43. Re:Ah, no... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      I would say that it is bad when you unjustly harm someone.

      Such as selling exploits that affect a broad range of users for a hefty profit with the sole purpose of making them available to the highest bidder(s)? Or denying them use of their property after you've sold it to them?

      You claim that your hacking is ethical because you only hack your own property...Many products these days (e.g. game consoles) are still owned by their manufacturer and you are only buying the license to use them if you read the fine print.

      A good point, which I raised specifically because you implied that all hacking is "bad" and I illustrated my point with several examples, one of which was the console. By your own logic I am not harming anyone and unlike a remote system owned by a 3rd party, everything was in my possession and obtained via legal means. I think it's a dubious claim to suggest that a console manufacturer owns the device that they sold after the customer purchases it. Otherwise one would need their permission to sell (transfer the license, according to you) it, which isn't the case with the device itself. Modifying something in an unauthorized manner (typically) results in a voided warranty, and things only get hairy when you sell and/or distribute the modifications, and as with most legal issues intent matters. Let's take a look at the First Sale Doctrine which applies to physical things (the console in this case) and the DMCA for the modifications. If it were a phone, I'd be completely in the clear. Since it's a console, it's illegal. Wat.

      Laws do not dictate morality. I'm fully aware of the legalese and just because something is law doesn't make it right, see slavery for an example. It's a strange world where it's someone else's business what you do with your possessions in private. Could you imagine this being the case with cars? We have laws that allow this behavior for certain classes of devices but not others. Ultimately they're all computers, owned my someone.

      I am a utilitarian of sorts. I believe the ends justify the means.

      Results are hard to argue with, especially when you end up with something beautiful like a pyramid ;) but that didn't stop us from finding better methods to achieve greater things.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    44. Re:Ah, no... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Because the US didn't implement the death penalty correctly so court appeals can drag on for decades.

      Because the CONgressMEN already know they will be caught and be sent to Club Fed where they will live off of your taxes for life.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    45. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But again...this is a college level prank...

      Geez, if they had zero tolerance when I was growing up a kid, I guess I'd have been branded a terrorist long, long ago.

      This doesn't deserve a federal prison sentence....and record.

      College isn't the real world.

      And if he'd spiked some girl's drink at a frat party then dragged her upstairs and raped her, this would be perfectly okay, since it's "just college and not the real world". Right?

      Any attempt to whitewash this as a mere "prank" is little short of incredible.

      He stole real identities, accessed a real computer system without authorisation and with a demonstrable intent to defraud, AND there was enough money involved (the position pays 8K a year) to qualify as attempted grand larceny via fraud-by-wire.

      All of these happen to involve very real Federal charges, with very real Federal penalties on conviction thereof.

      ONE year? Shit, I'd have given him 10. I would, however, give him an option to cut it to 5 years if he'd be willing to spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in the stocks subject to public derision and ridicule (and perhaps the occasional rotten fruit) for, say, 6 months. (Too bad that the scarlet letter isn't an option.)

    46. Re:Ah, no... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I believe the ends justify the means.

      I foresee a brilliant future for this one.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    47. Re:Ah, no... by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      ACs aren't granted conditional agreements. Says so in the /. rulebook.

    48. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But again...this is a college level prank...

      ...and you are a college-level jackass.

    49. Re:Ah, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However you seem to have missed the part of TFS that says he put keyloggers on other people's computers and stole their id/password. That's illegal and a jail-able offense. Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?

      College isn't the real world, this did no real world harm.

      I'm glad you posted this. Now I know that I can ignore the rest of your posts and not have to worry about missing anything at all.

    50. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to give me an example where the ends don't justify the means.

    51. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to give me an example where the ends don't justify the means.

      or rather, a case where "the ends justify the means" is not true.

      There are obviously lots of cases where the ends don't justify the means, and therefore these are poor decisions.

    52. Re:Ah, no... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I invite you to read a little history, and see what invariably comes about when people start citing that as a justification for their actions.

      It's not pretty.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    53. Re:Ah, no... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to see that you have invoked consequentialism to disprove consequentialism.

      I said I believed that good end results dictate whether an action is good (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism). You implied that this results in bad end results throughout history. If you are trying to dissuade me from consequentialism, appealing to the bad end results of it's practitioners throughout history is not the way to do it. Why should I believe a cosequentialist argument for why consequentialism is wrong? If it's wrong, then so is your argument against it.

  20. Re:I think he's ready by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    DC is not a freeway, therefore you cannot call it "the DC".

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  21. This kid had to be jailed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upstart young activist punks like this with their improvised guerilla techniques run the risk of democratising vote rigging.

    1. Re:This kid had to be jailed by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You know, if he had been some independent student who fucked with the results as a means of protest, I might agree with that.

      But no - he was a candidate, and he rigged the election in his own favor. Thus, dude was not an activist making a point, he was an ego-maniacal douche-bag that wanted to secure power for himself and cheat his fellow students out of a free and fair election.

      Fucker deserves to be punished.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  22. Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 0

    Weaver, 22, of Huntington Beach was a third-year business student when he carried out the elaborate plan to win election as president of the schoolâ(TM)s student council in March 2012. He pleaded guilty this year to three federal charges, including wire fraud and unauthorized access to a computer.

    Yet another American deprived of his right to a trial. No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.

    A year in prison is probably a fair outcome if the story is as described. But he deserves to have a jury decide that, and not face absurd amounts of time in prison if he wants a jury trial.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Plea bargaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      750 students * 10 years in jail for hacking an account means he could have gotten out sometime in 2763.

    2. Re:Plea bargaining by Seranfall · · Score: 2

      Yet another American deprived of his right to a trial. No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.

      A year in prison is probably a fair outcome if the story is as described. But he deserves to have a jury decide that, and not face absurd amounts of time in prison if he wants a jury trial.

      He chose not to fight the charges. He was not deprived of his right to a trial. He could of plead not guilty. How about maybe he felt bad about what he did and actually plead guilty because he is in fact guilty. Maybe he decided to actually take personal responsibility for his actions and acknowledge in a court of law that what he did was wrong. Since your not his lawyer all you can do is speculate on his reasons for pleading guilty.

    3. Re:Plea bargaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you for real? Don't you read the stories on here & other places about prosecutors stacking charges in order to force the defendant to choose between:

      - A chance to win in court = 0 jail time.
      - A chance to lose in court = 10-20 years.
      - Plea bargain = 1-2 years.

      As opposed to the normal elitist view, most people are not dumber than the average bear, and _do_ have an instinctive grasp of game theory - they choose the plea, because the risk is simply too great that your defense will mess up, or the jury will dislike the cut of your suit ;-)

    4. Re:Plea bargaining by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      How is this informative?

      He pleaded guilty

      There was no trial, he plead guilty, probably part of a plea bargain. He wasn't deprived of anything. Pleading guilty avoids certain un-pleasantries.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Plea bargaining by MacTO · · Score: 1

      Yes, a year in prison is fair given the nature of his crime given that he pleaded guilty.

      Yet I wouldn't agree with that being a fair sentence if he decided to "exercise his rights". Exercising your rights is appropriate when your rights are being trampled, such as when you're being prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit, you are being charged under the wrong law, or when you're planning to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Exercising your rights because you hope to get off for a crime that you committed is an abuse of the courts and deserves to be punished more harshly.

    6. Re:Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pleading guilty avoids certain un-pleasantries.

      That's extortion. If someone were bullied by the government out of their right to criticize the government, would you say "Not criticizing the government avoids certain un-pleasantries"?

      The whole point of having rights is that the government cannot make your life more unpleasant for exercising them. Getting extra charges tacked on for exercising your right to a trial is no more just than getting extra attention from the IRS for exercising your right to criticize the government.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Plea bargaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what OP means is that he was given the choice between trumped up charges at trail and getting possibly 10+ years of prison time or plead guilty and get 1 year which means you would probably hedge your bets by getting the 1 year. Also, in CA one 1 year for non violent crime means he'll probably be out as soon as the jail can accept him and release him so like 4-20 hours of "jail time" depending on how busy the jail is that day. He will be release to a probation officer who will possible call him once a month at the best. The officer is too busy keeping tabs on actually dangerous criminals to care. So faced with that or a trail I think you'd plead guilty even if you didn't do it.

    8. Re:Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 0

      He chose not to fight the charges.

      What sort of choice is "exercise your rights and face decades in prison or forfeit your rights"?

      Would you say the same if the goverment extorted people out of other rights? e.g. "you're not deprived of your right to bear arms. But if you choose to exercise that right we will retaliate against you"? Is that OK?

      He could of plead not guilty.

      In which case, he almost certainly would have been facing charges over a decade. That's extortion.

      How about maybe he felt bad about what he did and actually plead guilty because he is in fact guilty. Maybe he decided to actually take personal responsibility for his actions and acknowledge in a court of law that what he did was wrong. Since your not his lawyer all you can do is speculate on his reasons for pleading guilty.

      97% of federal defendents plead guilty. How credulous do you have to be to believe that the government is right 97% of the time, AND that every one of those defendents suddenly develops a conscience?

      No, the only explanation for that kind of statistic is that people are being bullied out of their right to a trial.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Plea bargaining by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      By that token, everything the government does is "Extortion". Taxes included. In other words, you're opposed to this form or extortion, but probably happy about others. Or are you an Anarchist?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Plea bargaining by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Getting extra charges tacked on for exercising your right to a trial is no more just than getting extra attention from the IRS for exercising your right to criticize the government."

      Except for one little detail. One was optional, the other was not. IRS Scandal was not at the option of those being scandalized by the IRS, while this one was. He had a chance to go to trial, he chose against it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Exercising your rights is appropriate when your rights are being trampled

      Such as being denied a jury trial.

      such as when you're being prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit

      You don't know, in a legal sense, whether someone is being prosecuted for a crime they didn't commit until they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. If you can deny someone of a jury trial because you "know" they are guilty, what's the point of a jury trial at all?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 1

      One was optional, the other was not. IRS Scandal was not at the option of those being scandalized by the IRS, while this one was. He had a chance to go to trial, he chose against it.

      The tea party groups had a chance to avoid extra attention from the IRS, by forfeiting their right to free speech.

      This fellow had a chance to avoid extra charges from the DOJ, by forfeiting his right to a trial.

      The situations are exactly analogous.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Plea bargaining by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How is this informative?

      He pleaded guilty

      There was no trial, he plead guilty, probably part of a plea bargain. He wasn't deprived of anything. Pleading guilty avoids certain un-pleasantries.

      Unpleasantries such as having the book thrown at him for daring to exercise his right to a trial by his peers.

      Personally I think the douche got what he had coming, but let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that plea-bargaining is anything other than what we all know it to be.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 2

      By that token, everything the government does is "Extortion". Taxes included.

      Yes, everything the government does is extortion. The whole purpose of government is to apply force to encourage certain behaviors. The difference is that we have a constitution that limits what the government is allowed to extort us into. The right to a trial by jury is one of those limits.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Plea bargaining by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Or, you're actually guilty and you know the prosecution has enough evidence to prove it. Nah, that never happens, people only lose in court because the defense messed up or the jury doesn't like your suit.

    16. Re:Plea bargaining by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Why yes, yes I am an anarchist. Unless you think that all people who rule will rule well (and by extension, there will never be a bad ruler), then you too should be an anarchist.

      Let's start with monarchy. Monarchy is a great system, if the monarch is fair, just, not prone to being petty, etc. But actually, you still have to deal with the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy needs to be good, and the individuals within it need to either be good, or be prevented from being bad by rules that are enforced.

      But, what if the monarch is a bad person? The whole system is bad. End of story. That's why monarchy is not suggested as a good system, because monarchs can not be guaranteed as good.

      We can take this analysis and extend it to all forms of government. It doesn't work quite as well for "democracy" (where the people elect their rulers), but it still works. Especially, when the elections and the electoral system are absurd as they are in the USA (and the UK, and any place with first-past-the-post voting).

      I think you get my point (even if you don't agree).

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    17. Re:Plea bargaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jury trials are incredibly expensive. As in hundreds of thousands of dollars for the smallest of offenses.

      Should we pay huge amounts to give everyone a jury trial? Even those that don't care, know they are guilty, know there is a ton of evidence against them, and will plead guilty at the last second anyway?

      Not saying it is fair either way, just that you are ignoring important information.

    18. Re:Plea bargaining by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Civilization is expensive. If it's not worth paying for a trial, it's not worth imprisoning someone. The cost of a jury trial should be incentive for the state to imprison as few people as possible.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:Plea bargaining by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      - A chance to lose in court = up to 10-20 years.

      FTFY

      There is another option
      -A chance to lose in court = Jury still imposing 1-2 years.
      These long sentences are generally maximums run consecutively. Juries can decide to impose lesser sentences, in some cases a suspended sentence, and they can run concurrently. So that 10 years for 10 counts of a one year offense could turn out to be a suspended sentence, 1 year (10 one year terms run concurrently) or ten years (10 one year sentences run consecutively, The prosecutor does not decide that the jury does.

    20. Re:Plea bargaining by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Every charge does not deserve a jury trial. Obviously guilty people should plead guilty and be given reasonable sentences. Even you admit that a year was reasonable. This case is definitely not a poster child for proprietorial misconduct.

      No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.

      There may be no doubt in your mind but you have no proof to that effect.

    21. Re:Plea bargaining by dnavid · · Score: 1

      Civilization is expensive. If it's not worth paying for a trial, it's not worth imprisoning someone. The cost of a jury trial should be incentive for the state to imprison as few people as possible.

      So if the prosecution is willing to avoid a trial in exchange for a guilty plea on lesser charges, and the defendant is willing to avoid the risk of a trial in exchange for a guilty plea on lesser charges, and the courts are willing to accept the plea deal because it seems to be a fair and balanced compromise (courts have to approve plea deals generally), everyone involved wants something and you're the person that's going to deny them that thing, all because you have a warped sense of "rights?"

      It would be much simpler, actually, in your world, to simply make it a constitutional requirement that all criminal defendents plead innocent. The guilty plea itself eliminates the prosecutorial requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not force all defendants to plead innocent to all crimes, from parking tickets to murder?

    22. Re:Plea bargaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of a jury is charged to the defendant.

    23. Re:Plea bargaining by cusco · · Score: 1

      Worse, he's a Libertardian. The only function of government is to protect the 'haves' from the 'have nots', since if you're not rich it's your fault for having selected the wrong parents.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    24. Re:Plea bargaining by cusco · · Score: 1

      The Teabaggers could have avoided extra attention from the IRS by not violating the laws regarding the non-profit status they wanted until after it had been granted. MoveOn and the like at least waited until they had their status before openly politicking for candidates (prohibited by the laws regarding charitable non-profits), the Teabaggers were just too stupid to wait.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    25. Re:Plea bargaining by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The difference is that we had a constitution

      FTFY

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    26. Re:Plea bargaining by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Better than being extorted by thugs to give up hard earned wealth to people too lazy to work for it.

      Life isn't fair. Get over it. Trying to make it "fair" is not "fair" in and of itself. If you do no have the rights to the fruit of your own labor, you live in a totalitarian serf society. Which is exactly what you're advocating, you just don't realize it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    27. Re:Plea bargaining by cusco · · Score: 1

      What "labor" does Paris Hilton reap the fruits of?

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

      Life isn't fair. Get over it.

      No, life is very fair. Everybody is subject to the same laws of physics. Our bodies are made of the same molecules, and go through the same chemical reactions. It's all just math in the end, and math is as fair as you can get.

      Life, however, isn't just. Justice is a subjective human concept. One man's revolutionary is another's rebel.

      Which is why some people end up living in totalitarian societies, because life isn't just. The revolutionaries do not always win. "Bad" things happen to "good" people and vice versa. Freedom is not a right (there are no rights).

      All of this is usually too hard emotionally and psychologically, which is why we create things like religion and the whole rule of law thing, believing that there is justice. Then again, emotions and psychology may very well just be a bunch of chemical reactions and electric signals, so I wouldn't be surprised that in time, we'll discover how to ways to manipulate human emotions and beliefs. I'm thinking Matrix, taken up to eleven.

    29. Re:Plea bargaining by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      First off, Strawman. Second, she does "work" for a living, even after being wealthy by her rich parents/grandparents etc.

      THIRD, why do you care about how wealthy Paris Hilton is. What is it any of your business? Would you like it if a poor Delhi looked at you with envy because your parents were born in the US while they were born poor in the streets and point at you saying "YOU ARE THE 1%"? You know you are in the 1% ... right?

      Envy is such an ugly color. I don't envy Paris Hilton's wealth. I WANT to be wealthy like her, and my kids to be wealthy like her. Fuck you if you think wealth is wrong, seeing that you are "wealthy" compared to 99% of the world . So, whatever disdain you express, only makes you self loathing or hypocrite.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    30. Re:Plea bargaining by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding. Weaver was not "deprived" of anything; he was given a choice, and he made it.

      He was given a choice between

      1. Say X to the judge now, and the the judge will give you Y now (and Y is considerably less than 750 stolen identities * whatever the sentence is for ID theft, and you do realise that judges are generally free to order that multiple sentences be served consecutively rather than concurrently, right?).

      2. Take your chances with the jury, and you'll get who knows what (but very likely much worse than Y), after who knows how long.

      The case was a slam-dunk. He was caught red-handed, and he (and his attorneys) knew that no jury in the country was going to let him off from that.

      For the first and possibly only time in this whole episode, the kid actually made a smart choice.

      Weaver apparently wished to exercise his right to a *speedy* (and fair) trial and resolution, and that's exactly what he got.

      More than fair; 10 years would have been fair.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    31. Re:Plea bargaining by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Oh, and how I did forget to mention that some of his buddies could have faced conspiracy charges, since they apparently knew what he was planning well in advance of the election?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    32. Re:Plea bargaining by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I WANT to be wealthy like her...

      Why?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    33. Re:Plea bargaining by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Apparently the phrase "caught red-handed" means nothing to you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  23. Lesson Learned by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    You only go to jail for election fraud when the election officials do not get paid by the elected office of which you have just stolen.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  24. remember the mr cartmanez white people method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you cheat and lose you are a loser
    if you cheat and win you are savvy

    if there is a chance you might get caught you cheat twice as hard

    this guy got caught because he made the cardinal criminal mistake of laziness, for his laziness he will have his life ruined

  25. She said with a straight face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/cal-state-student-year-prison-rigging-campus-election/story?id=19682401

    In a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy said, "If privacy is to mean anything in a digital age, it has to be protected. A 12-month sentence adequately warns men and women like Weaver that they cannot hide from the consequences of their actions behind youth or privilege."

    But I guess you can hide from the consequences of your actions if they are hidden behind secret rulings on secret laws by a secret court.

  26. If only by JavaBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only they would take the real elections half as seriously, maybe then we'd regain a (small) measure of confidence in the election process.

  27. Prison by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's probably going to prison for accessing the students accounts, not for the election fraud itself.

    1. Re:Prison by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's probably going to prison for accessing the students accounts, not for the election fraud itself.

      That's why you don't do this, kids. You start with logging other people's strokes and you end up stroking other people's logs.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even then, the (ab)use was pretty damn simple at that.

      A year is way too much for something so childish as vote-fraud for a silly student election even if they did access accounts of others.
      6 months at the most would sort anyone out for something like that.

      But then I remember, this is America, gotta throw everyone in prison, that way you can control them legally.
      That kid is probably going to get wrecked in prison. Life ruined, he will turn to crime, back in to prison within 2 years, rinse and repeat.
      Well done America, you created another criminal. A smart one at that. Well, smart-ish. But this alone will drive him to learn more.

    3. Re:Prison by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 1

      Do you find any consolation in the fact that with good behavior, he could be out in six months or less?

      --
      Crimey
    4. Re:Prison by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      He shouldn't have gone to prison at all. The United States has slowly become the former USSR and nobody blinked.

    5. Re:Prison by cusco · · Score: 1

      He put keyloggers on hundreds of computers and stole the login credentials of 750 people. He broke two Federal laws 750 times. He and his buddies were going to get $15,000, plus the ability to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in student fee monies if they had gotten away with it. He attempted to frame innocent people for the crime using the stolen credentials. What exactly do you think should have happened?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:Prison by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      You should read TFA. One year is OK. He did not get probation because he tried to blame others by faking evidence against innocents. That is reasonable. Generally speaking, you are right about US sentences being out of hand. Their system is fucked up. But not in this case.

    7. Re:Prison by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I did not read TFA, I didn't know about the money and the attempted framing.

    8. Re:Prison by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      "Turn to" crime? He is *already* a criminal. He was the ringleader of a conspiracy to commit ID theft and fraud, AND to attempt a coverup after the fact.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  28. Re:When he gets out by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 0

    Not really, but many ignorant people who have been tricked by their own superstitions and insular worldview into voting Republican think so.

  29. Intellgence without wisdom. by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    What a waste.

    1. Re:Intellgence without wisdom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability to use google is intelligent?

      Stephen Hawking pls move the fuck over, kthx.

  30. A future leader of the US electorial commision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sheeple are allowed to choose between John Jackson (with his 2-cent tax that "goes too far") and Jack Johnson (with his 2-cent tax that "doesn't go far enough"). This is what the sheeple are taught in school that democracy means.

    Lower down, and the voting system MUST be rigged so no grass-root changes start to emerge that might eventually challenge the status quo. Therefore we see the increasing use of electronic voting machines whose main property is how easily they may be tampered with in essentially untraceable ways. Because each voter is fundamentally unaware of how others vote, those in charge of the voting system can trivially create the outcome they desire.

    Actually, there is a way to notice when vote-rigging occurs- by observing discrepancies between high quality sample polling of the voting population days before the election and the actual election result itself. However, polling organisations are now entirely bent (dishonest, crooked) in every nation they are found. The public never gets an independent, statistically correct sample poll (although such polls are constantly created in secret to monitor the likely voting patterns of the sheeple).

    In the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, Australia, France and many other nations, whoever seems to be elected to run the country continues and accelerates the same policies as their seeming political opponents that previously had control. For instance, whether Americans vote the second Clinton or the third Bush for president next time, America will continue and accelerate its war mongering across the planet, and will continue and accelerate the police state at home.

    Matthew Weaver is 'fried gold' for those that really control the USA. His attitude and mindset could not be more perfect. Amoral, win at all costs and identify the easily exploited weakness in the system.

  31. Sayre's Law by benjfowler · · Score: 3

    "The reason academic politics are so bitter is that so little is at stake." -- Henry Kissinger

    1. Re:Sayre's Law by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It takes serious hutzpah, or a very dry sense of humor, for America's go-to guy on fun projects like 'Operation Condor' to describe academic politics as 'bitter...

  32. Re:I think he's ready by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

    Stupid joke.

    If you're being serious "The District of Columbia" makes more sense with the "the."

  33. Lesson: use multiple computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did he think 750 people logging in from the same computer wouldn't be noticed?

    1. Re:Lesson: use multiple computers by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, for someone who "Spent months" planning this, he didn't think that IP Addresses and/or cookies would be logged...or the fact that he got too greedy and had too many students complain would not attract the attention of the engineers to his deed? How he isn't a computer science major.

      --
      ...in bed
  34. That makes no sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last couple of guys who did the election fraud thing... Got to be president.

    And this one goes to jail?

    Talk about double standards...

    I guess his mistake was he was smalltime.. You have to go HUGE if you're going into crime. Then you're too big to fail!

    1. Re:That makes no sense... by Seranfall · · Score: 1

      The last couple of guys who did the election fraud thing... Got to be president.

      And this one goes to jail?

      Talk about double standards...

      I guess his mistake was he was smalltime.. You have to go HUGE if you're going into crime. Then you're too big to fail!

      Where is your proof of that claim that there was election fraud in the last presidential election? Once again some AC spouting crap with nothing to back it up. Let me guess, you read it on Facebook so it must be true.

  35. I hope he learned a valuable lesson... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    that is to bribe the IT people first to look the other way.

  36. No counter-intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never underestimate the power of an IT nerd

  37. Re:I think he's ready by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    Then the original should say "the D.C."

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  38. Re:I think he's ready by AlecC · · Score: 1

    No, it is quite conventional to omit periods in full caps. Most people would accept "guns are common in the USA" and not require it to be "guns are common in the U.S.A." or "guns are common in USA".

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  39. Having a jury decide is not always a good thing by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that you have never served on a jury in the USA. I have twice and it just left me completely cynical about the entire US justice system and the use of juries in general. Literally anything can happen on a jury. A lot of ugly horse trading goes on like "OK, that guy over there wants a conviction on all counts, that woman over there wants him found innocent on all counts but she admits he may be guilty on one count... can we just agree on a guilty verdict on that one count and call it a day?" As the joke goes, juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of serving. The last time I served, I sat in stunned silence in the jury room before we went into court as 3 male members of the jury got onto a contest and tried to top each other as each insisted in turn that he was far stupider about technology than the other 2 and each provided examples to support his contention. The case we heard was a criminal case involving a black defendant and what I could basically describe as property damage and we had a black guy on the jury who was a reverse racist and was very strongly prejudiced against the defendant simply because he was black. It took some smooth talking and pleading by the white foreman to get this guy to agree to our verdict of guilty on 2 counts, innocent on 1 count, as I think the black guy would literally have voted for the death penalty if he could against the defendant. These are the kinds of people in the USA who serve on juries. Do you honestly think that any sane person would roll the dice on that when maybe facing 10+ years if the jury convicts? Plus, a lot of people in juries are obsessive about punishing "evil doers" as they see them and they want the most severe punishment possible given, sometimes arguing for punishment way beyond what the crime should involve, like 10 years for stealing $5 worth of merchandise. The only thing I took away from my service as a juror is that juries are made up mostly of idiots who aren't fit to judge whether the sun will come up tomorrow or not, let alone someone's life or freedom.

    1. Re:Having a jury decide is not always a good thing by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Do you honestly think that any sane person would roll the dice on that when maybe facing 10+ years if the jury convicts?

      That's exactly why plea bargains must be abolished. Because no sane person can exercise their right to a trial anymore.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Having a jury decide is not always a good thing by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that any sane person would roll the dice on that when maybe facing 10+ years if the jury convicts?

      That's exactly why plea bargains must be abolished. Because no sane person can exercise their right to a trial anymore.

      That is a total non-sequitur. His argument was that going to jury trial is an insane choice. You state that the option of not going to a jury trial must be removed so that a sane person can exercise their right to a trial.

      So, the only way to make sane people do so is to remove sane alternatives? Are you arguing that giving people a choice not to go to trial somehow prevents them from having a choice to go to trial? That's kind of madness.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  40. Another abuse by the feds. by keltickal · · Score: 1

    What! He used a computer to commit a crime and didn't get the death penalty? Seriously, a year in prison is gross overkill for this stunt. A hefty fine would be much more appropriate assuming that he only rigged a meaningless election. The feds have much more important things to do like run guns across the border, spy on citizens and close down marijuana dispensaries. . tiocfaidh ár lá

  41. Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and did it like a raving N00b. Even hackers want this idiot to go to jail

    LOL! They're taking points off for style!

  42. Stealing Identities by Ciege · · Score: 0

    Had he been an undocumented "illegal" immigrant that stole identities the government would have granted him amnesty... Just sayin...

    1. Re:Stealing Identities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had he been an undocumented "illegal" immigrant that stole identities the government would have granted him amnesty... Just sayin...

      Actually someone who commits identity theft (as opposed to using another's SSN just so that they can pay taxes) would not be considered for citizenship, under any currently considered immigration reform. But crank up your Limbaugh and your Hannity, you sure can learn a lot (of untrue bullshit) from that! As you were, bigot.

    2. Re:Stealing Identities by Ciege · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dear AC... Sorry, don't listen to their drivel... Bigot? Sorry again... Legal immigrant from Peru... Ooops!

    3. Re:Stealing Identities by cusco · · Score: 1

      You must be from Callao then. None of the provicianos that I know are stupid enough to make a statement like that.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  43. He deserved a longer sentence. by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    Yet another American deprived of his right to a trial. No doubt they would have tried to send him to prison for a decade or more if he decided to exercise his rights.

    A year in prison is probably a fair outcome if the story is as described. But he deserves to have a jury decide that, and not face absurd amounts of time in prison if he wants a jury trial.

    There was an $8000 stipend for the winner. This wasn't just a simple resume builder. He committed fraud to attempt to win a monetary prize due to the fair winner. Something he'd planned out the year before with four of his fraternity brothers running for the vice-president slot and it's $7000 stipend. This was planned for monetary benefit. Hell, his attorney's statement that wasn't even planning on staying at the school is even more damning in that light.

    Worse, after he was caught, he set up Facebook pages with the names of real students to manufacture evidence that they were conspiring to frame him and sent it to various news stations. This is what the judge referred to when he said, "Heâ(TM)s on fire for this crime, and then he pours gasoline on it to try to cover it up,â

    Frankly, a year in prison is a little light considering all the facts. Based on the facts, I wouldn't disagree with the prosecutor's description of him as being an "incredibly entitled" kid. The kid sounds like a budding narcissist to me. If it had just been rigging an election as a protest, maybe a year would be fair. But planning ahead with financial motivation and then attempting to frame others for his crime shows someone society needs to deal with more harshly. I'd have given him 5-10. God forbid this guy get a job where he could do some real damage to people.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:He deserved a longer sentence. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You might be right. In either case, it's wrong to deprive him of his right to a trial. If he actually deserves a decade in prison, charge him with that and let a jury decide. If he actually deserves a year in prison, charge him with that and let a jury decide. That's how an actual justice system works. Twisting his arm until you get a confession is just barbarism.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:He deserved a longer sentence. by cusco · · Score: 1

      He wasn't looking at ten years, he was looking at a possible 750-1500 years (750 counts with a penalty of 10-20 years). Because he's an entitled rich brat they gave him the opportunity to get off with almost nothing for a penalty. He wasn't "deprived of his right to a trial", he was deprived of the opportunity to spend the rest of his life in prison. It's very likely the next time you hear about him he'll be an investment banker whose pyramid scheme has collapsed.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  44. The Mistake he made... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Was doing it himself. No Politician today woudl do that, they woulrd hire someone else to do it and pay them under the table with tax payer money.

  45. Read the full article. This is NOT harmless. by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow...just wow.
    I can understand him getting kicked out of school, but freaking federal prison for a year for just messing with a STUDENT school election?!?!
    [...]
    This is a freaking school election...not a federal / city/state election..it is college, it means NOTHING....

    Read the full article (especially the utsandiego.com link). He committed wire fraud -- the winner of the presidential election gets a $8000 stipend, and the vice-president gets $7000. He planned ahead (even putting together a PowerPoint presentation the year before for his frat brothers to run for the #2 slot) to "win" these prizes. Fraud over wire for financial gain is a serious federal crime with a maximum of 20 years in prison.

    He also attempted to cover up his crime once caught *red-handed* at the machine he was entering the votes from in a computer lab by later creating Facebook profiles in other real people's names and generating a lot of fake comments intended to make it look like those people had conspired to frame him, and he sent it to local media outlets. It was stupid in way that shows how much smarter he thinks he is than the people around him.

    This kid is a budding con artist. He was acting for financial motive to defraud the school, and he was willing to trash the lives of others to try to get out of paying the penalty for something he did. This kid has displayed blatant, selfish disregard for others and a willingness to hurt or exploit them for profit.

    This isn't a harmless prank. These are the actions of a malicious liar with an inflated sense of his own capabilities who doesn't seem to grasp the idea that consequences should apply to him for his actions. They should have thrown the book at him. Imagine the harm he could have done if he'd waited a few more years to "ripen" as a criminal and landed himself in management somewhere.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re: Read the full article. This is NOT harmless. by echnaton192 · · Score: 2

      +1. There are many cases where the penalties in the US are getting out of hand. This is not one of those cases.

  46. Re:When he gets out by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    If you took out the word "Republican" you probably would have gotten +5 Funny. But since you decided to make it partisan, it just looks sad because you think that only Republicans cheat.

  47. Re:Read the full article. This is NOT harmless. by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. This is hardly a case of a kid doing something stupid without thinking it through. This guy had plenty of time to examine his actions, he had plenty of opportunity to back out, and he was repeatedly shown that his actions had consequences. And yet, at every step of the way, he chose to proceed. Even after he was caught he chose to perpetrate a cover-up! These are not the actions of a silly kid, they are the actions of a criminal. This kid deserves the punishment he received.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  48. sentencing guide lines plea was in his favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its likely this they charge him with identify theft and fraud .then they tell him to plea out to like one count and he will serve a year and a day.
    Or he can plea not guilty and they charge his ass with 700+ counts and the fed work on a point system more counts enhance the time
    Google federal sentencing guide lines
    And find out what he was charge with and how many counts and you'll see it add up fast

    They force you to take the plea the DA gives or you suffer badly for it in sentencing
    Plus you get points off for cooperating with the government ,making apologies to the court, taking responsibility for your actions, these thing take point off which lower your points.

    This is the sentencing table.
    http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/5a_SenTab.htm

    This is the manual
    http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/index.cfm

    When I as charged and sentenced the guidelines were mandatory sentencing the judge did not have any leeway to interpret. the sentencing is now discretionary

    Wikipedia

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines

    BTW the year and a day is the only way they send you to jail unless you violate federal probation they don't really send you to jail for 6 month though they may send ya to a halfway house or maybe a boot camp

  49. When rigging an Internet Based Election by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

    Note to self: When rigging an Internet voting election stealing student ID's, use Tor...

    --
    ...in bed
  50. Interesting observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans and keep screaming that voter is so easy, but since making those claims they keep getting caught doing it.

    I can only guess that either they're making false claims about it being easy indicating that Democrats don't cheat the way they do.

    Or Democrats are just smarter.

  51. That figures by sjames · · Score: 1

    Weaver, 22, of Huntington Beach was a third-year business student ...

    Well, that explains it. I wonder if he'll sue the school for prosecuting him for using what it taught him?

  52. If he cannot even defraud ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    ... A Joke of a College Election.

    He stands no chance in a real election.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  53. Re:I think he's ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sparty is a ridiculous pedant, but 'the DC' does sound a little odd to my ears. DC just sounds better. Not calling it wrong, but ...

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Re:I think he's ready by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    He HAS A SOUL

    No he doesn't. He lied to Sheldon to win the Magic competition then manipulated Penny into leaving Leonard then used his stardom(?) to jump the line in front of everyone else who was waiting for the re-release of the movie.

    Sorry, that's just soulless on many levels and borders on sociopathic.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  57. Re:Read the full article. This is NOT harmless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's an idiot really. And because of that he screwed up his life. I think the school should be ashamed of itself, for producing such poor quality students. No, really!
    I mean, what he actually did, was to cast the votes of the other students. When they couldn't vote, they would have complained and checks would have been made.
    The single most important difference in his plan should have been to steal login data from someone very high up the hierarchy, the chances of getting caught would have been smaller, and if he was indeed caught, then the incident embarassing enough not to be publicized, or even turned over to the police.
    Third year in business and that's all he had? Damn, no wonder people start saying MBA's are worthless.

  58. RTFA by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    A hefty fine would be much more appropriate assuming that he only rigged a meaningless election.

    Then you assume much by not actually reading the fine article. The wire fraud charges are appropriate (since he stood to win an $8000 stipend), and he also tried (poorly) to frame others for his crimes after being caught red-handed. (That what the judge meant when he said, "He's on fire for this crime, and then he pours gasoline on it to try to cover it up.")

    If anything, he got off too lightly.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  59. Defensive aren't we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may have missed that be there the Felon in question happened to be a member of the Republican party.

    So of course he would be a Republican candidate,

    You've also apparently missed the bit where the Republicans have been making a lot of noise about how easy it is to get away with cheating in elections.

  60. Re:When he gets out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure he'll be a perfect candidate for a Republican or Democrat governor, congressman, or even Presidential candidate. His future looks very bright indeed!

    FTFY

    You seem to have missed the fact that the perp. was a Republican, not a Democrat; So he would be running as a Republican candidate.

  61. Re:Read the full article. This is NOT harmless. by dkf · · Score: 1

    This is hardly a case of a kid doing something stupid without thinking it through.

    Well, technically it was. Committing fraud is stupid (as is getting caught), whether or not you use a computer to do so, and he didn't seem to think through the consequences of getting caught. If his actions don't prove a certain level of stupidity, I don't know what does (did he think he'd be able to spend that money freely on whatever he wanted, no questions? Stupid! Stupid!). The only open question is whether you consider him a kid or not. To be pedantically correct about it all, of course.

    He certainly qualifies as scum though. It's not mutually exclusive with being stupid, a kid or an adult, or generally lacking in the ability to plan things through properly. I suppose we can hope that he will learn his lesson and become an upstanding member of the community in future. (Hey, I'm sometimes an optimist!)

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  62. In other news ... by pmikell · · Score: 1

    Kindergarten student sent to Hague Tribunal for pretending to use chemical weapons while playing soldiers.

  63. Yes by shiftless · · Score: 0

    But who will get him, the Dems or the Republicans?

    Yes.

  64. My bad. by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    Okay, it seems I really did misread the intent behind your words, and I apologize for that and for unfairly maligning your position.

    Every single dollar or man hour of effort spent trying to catch a hacker, is infinitely better spent improving security to make hacking more difficult. ...
    Legislators, law enforcement, lawyers and courts are expensive. Rather than putting a few hackers in jail, we could use that money to research security holes and fix them for billions of people.

    I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but I can't quite get up on my high horse about that one. :-)

    I don't think the legal costs of sending hackers to jail is more expensive than the costs of subsidizing security, nor do I think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the costs of fixing sloppy programming. Writing solid, secure code is hard and expensive. It seems like any such policy would be nothing more than a trough for companies to feed off the public dime without provably improving their products like so many other subsidies.

    And really, I do think the government should be in the business of discouraging bad actors; nothing makes computers all that special. Simply making the "game" more challenging without any penalties for failure would just encourage people to try harder when what we really want is for people *not* to break into systems with malicious intent.

    At risk of hyperbole due to dipping into analogies again, you could make the same argument that we shouldn't be penalizing burglars when we could instead be spending money on making houses more secure. At some point the economics and the incentives for good/bad behavior fall apart.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:My bad. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't think the legal costs of sending hackers to jail is more expensive than the costs of subsidizing security, nor do I think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the costs of fixing sloppy programming.

      The government doesn't necessarily need to subsidize it. It could directly commission contractors to find and fix security holes in critical software. In fact it already does this as a matter of national security because the government uses computers that contain sensitive information. The security fixes to open source software are given back to the community because they are governed by open source licenses. I think our government may hold some findings may be held back because they want to use them against others. The government could take in the same amount of money, but just spend it differently.

      Or if you are a person that doesn't believe the government should be in charge of anything, You could simply stop prosecuting hackers, and lower taxes by this amount.

      Writing solid, secure code is hard and expensive. It seems like any such policy would be nothing more than a trough for companies to feed off the public dime without provably improving their products like so many other subsidies.

      Yes writing secure code is very expensive, but once you do it, everyone benefits to the point that it is cheap per person. If you spend $1million finding and convicting a hacker, you have found 1 hacker. If you spend $1million to find a bunch of security holes, and a billion people use it, you have spent $0.001 per person to get $1million worth of security improvements.

      This wouldn't be a trough. Everyone uses computers from grandma to navigation systems on navy ships. If grandma can be hacked because of a windows vulnerability, then that means a navy ship's navigation system has the same vulnerability. Even if the government spent more money to secure only the software they used (which is ALOT), and these security fixes were available to the public this would do more to stop hackers than trying to deter them through prosecuting the unlucky few to get caught.

      At risk of hyperbole due to dipping into analogies again, you could make the same argument that we shouldn't be penalizing burglars when we could instead be spending money on making houses more secure. At some point the economics and the incentives for good/bad behavior fall apart.

      Imagine a world where 99.9999% of burglaries go unsolved, and to actually catch a burglar usually costs more than the value of what was stolen. At this point I think it makes much more sense to spend money securing houses than prosecuting burglars, especially if you can pay for one house to be made super secure and as a bonus get to secure every other house in the world for free. I know that in principle it is the hackers that should be held responsible, but it's just not a good practical decision.

  65. # put a hundred down and buy a car... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    DC is not a freeway

    LA is. A great big one, or so the say.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  66. OK and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So whats the problem, why is this news. I don't care why he did what he did,...he stole identities and now get gets to pay for what he did. Sounds like there is some justice left in the world after all.

  67. the man the republicans are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you lock him up

  68. There's a future for him by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    In the Ohio Republican Party Headquarters.

    (used to be Florida, but Florida is getting a tad to brown for the GOP.)

  69. Prison rape is not funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see subject line