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."
in national politics. But who will get him, the Dems or the Republicans?
He did receive a job offer from the NSA afterwards however.
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.
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.
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"?
What's wrong with Hwil Hweaton?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
He's probably going to prison for accessing the students accounts, not for the election fraud itself.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
"The reason academic politics are so bitter is that so little is at stake." -- Henry Kissinger
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.
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.
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!
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's not that he rigged an election, it's that he stole and impersonated many students identities.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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!
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").
Dear AC... Sorry, don't listen to their drivel... Bigot? Sorry again... Legal immigrant from Peru... Ooops!
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").
Election tempering is one of the vilest crime one can commit.
Stealing credentials and installing keyloggers is illegal, also.
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!!!!?
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.
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
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)-
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
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?
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").
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