Slashdot Mirror
Prison Is For Dangerous Criminals, Not Hacktivists
In late 2011, defense contractor Stratfor suffered a cybersecurity breach that resulted in a leak of millions of internal emails. A few months later, the FBI arrested hacktivist Jeremy Hammond and several others for actions related to the breach. Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of violating the CFAA, and today his sentence was handed down: 10 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He said, [The prosecutors] have made it clear they are trying to send a message to others who come after me. A lot of it is because they got slapped around, they were embarrassed by Anonymous and they feel that they need to save face." Reader DavidGilbert99 adds,
"Former LulzSec and Anonymous member Jake Davis argues that U.S. lawmakers need to take a leaf out of the U.K.'s legal system and not put Jeremy Hammond behind bars for his part in the hack of Stratfor. 'Jeremy Hammond has a lot to give society too. Prisons are for dangerous people that need to be segmented from the general population. Hackers are not dangerous, they are misunderstood, and while disciplinary action is of course necessary, there is nothing disciplined about locking the door on a young man's life for 10 years.'"
Here we have prison to punish people. It doesn't exist as a means to control risk by controlling dangerous people. We've collectively decided that we should put people in cells(and let them be raped) like it's telling 5 year olds to stand in the corner.
Why just limit that label to hackers?
"It's just a misunderstanding that makes you think she is dead, sure you have a body that lacks a pulse..."
"Why yes, I did burn down that orphanage... but you misunderstand why."
"No officer, I did have a lot to drink tonight, but you don't understand that my driving abilities get better when I'm wasted!"
We are not talking about an accidently committed crime here... my understanding is he deliberately did what he did... so should be punished hard as a reminder.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
If only he was a bank VP. Then all crimes are forgiven with a sizable bonus.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Hackers are not dangerous, they are misunderstood,
You steal my personal data, sell it to someone else who uses that data to commit crimes, you are a dangerous person.
Stop trying to make excuses when people commit crimes. They're a criminal, pure and simple.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
a) Nonviolent crimes get stiffer sentences than violent crimes "to send a message". That hard crime pays?
b) If there's any political motivation by the prosecution or court, expect to fare worse than a child rapist in sentencing.
c) I thought LulzSec and Anonymous were opposing gangs with the occasional common goal?
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
There are so many problems with prisons in this country it's not funny.
Lets see...
I'm sure there's more....
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
An individual embarrasses a business? 10 years in jail.
A business financially ruins thousands of lives? Fined a small portion of their profit.
We have here the kind of person that was thrilled when they through Nelson Mandela in jail.
This country has no respect for people. Largest population on earth is in jails. Security forces everywhere. Prosecutors care about "justice" only in front of TV cameras.
People get real, it's U.S.A, soviet style run country.
"Misunderstood"? Wow, that's a mantra for the far, far, left. "Society is just so mean, he's misunderstood"..
I have no issue stating that prisons are over populated with people who are not physically dangerous, and/or shouldn't be there (guys busted for pot for example) but saying they're "misunderstood" is akin to saying they're just children who didn't know any better. Um, a little personal responsibility please? There still must be some repercussions, commensurate to the hacking/stealing/damage they perpetrated.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Name a banker that's actually gone to jail.
And no, Madoff doesn't count. He wasn't a banker, AND he turned himself in -- chances are; had he waited a bit more, he could have only paid a small fine and walked away.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This is why people should stick to more conventional terrorism, like bombs and murder. Then the ROI is far better.
Last time I checked nobody of the criminals that caused the 2008 depression are in prison. So your point is?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If we make it too costly for American hacktivists to do their work here, then someone's just going to offshore the job of breaking into important industrial military complex computers to China.
Murder: A lawyer can say "this was justifiable homicide" or "he was standing his ground" or "it was temporary insanity" or "he had too much sugar in his diet." You get a suspended sentence in Club Med.
Hactivisim: You don't get those defenses. You get 10-25 in federal PMITA prison.
And quickly the morally wrong answer looks better than the socially right answer.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
The difference, of course, is dangerous to who?
Being dangerous to authority is much worse than being dangerous to the public, and is treated accordingly.
Justice doesn't play into the authoritarian mindset. Right is being the "good guys."
1. Rape carries an average sentence of just shy of 12 years while Second Degree Murder (in most states) carries a minimum sentence of 10 years.
2. So, releasing information about a private company contracted to spy on individuals (the majority of whom are US citizens) by our own government gives you a sentence of... 10 years.
3. But, if you're the NSA or associated with it or any other organization you can freely violate all the rights of the entire population with a sentence of... 0 years and a great job with excellent benefits.
Somehow the scales of justice really don't seem to be balanced... at all. On the other hand, they do appear to be completely blind.
I think there's an argument to be made that people who commit assaults or other acts of violence against others are an entirely different class of individual than people who run pyramid schemes, hack web sites, etc.
There -is- an aspect of prison that says "we're going to keep this person out of society for a while as a way to protect society". Taking phones/internet away from a cracker is more than sufficient to protect society, and arguably is a significant punitive action against someone with the time/skills/interests to be successful.
People who commit mail fraud or steal long distance shouldn't share cell space with sex predators, murderers, etc. It's not in the interests of society, the individuals in question, or any efforts at reforming criminals prior to re-introduction to society.
What's going to happen to a nerd in prison is that they'll do anything possible to survive. Historically, hackers have joined up with mafia or gangs for _physical_ protection, and in exchange, provide black-hat services to the groups providing them with protection.
This is NOT how you reform geeks. This plunges them deeper into the realm of criminal enterprise, with higher stakes, and more damage to everyone.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Prison is for dangerous people, but I suspect many are adding a few caveats.
Let me alter it so that it's more accurate:
"Prison is for people who are dangerous, or don't represent my political views and break into computers. i.e. If someone breaks into the Tea Party's computers, they don't deserve jail. That would be just vengeance and totally unjust. But if a person broke into the computers of Occupy and damaged them to stop coordinating of a protest that should be punished with jail time."
I see this attitude with abortion protestors that I've met, too. They think those arrested for damaging abortion clinics or blocking access shouldn't be jailed because it's a good cause. They often also think that anyone who uses similar tactics against them should be jailed.
It's all in the definition of "activism" as opposed to "vandalism". One person's vandal is another persons activist. It gets to be a political line drawing game.
Frankly, I'll worry more about some poor gleek stuck in jail for a lengthy stay after getting caught smoking pot.
Impeccable logic from someone who, from the sounds of it, never stepped into a court room. Sure "criminals" as you think of them need to be punished and punished hard. The problem is that the definition of criminal in your mind does not match the truth: someone who broke a law - any law. If you sit in a court room for any length of time, you will see a representative sampling of these criminals - human beings as you or I - accused of such things as "assaults" resulting from bar fights, domestic violence, drunken disorderly conduct, marijuana possession, speeding, resisting arrest on charges that were never brought, prostitution, and a thousand other trivial banalities. Chances are in a typical day you wont see anyone you'd call a real criminal.
With so many trivial occurrences being classified as criminal, the word loses a lot of meaning. It is no longer accurate to associate criminal with just murderers, rapists, burglars, and arsonists. Worse yet, some of the worst offenses in modern history are not even considered crimes - think NSA and Federal Reserve/Wall Street/Politicians. As a result, people end up ignoring the word criminal because it's not meaningful. Instead they develop a scale on which to place offenders. When a hacker gets a sentence that most first time murders would not get, then it's easy to see why people like me consider the "justice" system to broken. After all, how can justice be blind if it's being used to "send a message"?
When Google and Facebook do this for a profit, hide the data collection behind an EULA, and then sell your personal data to third parties, they are called geniuses and made billionaires.
Furthermore, the individual in question did not seek to make a profit. You can disagree with his methods, but back when the scales of justice were still capable of measuring anything at all, these sort of considerations were commonly implemented.
In 1750: "Stop making excuses for those who commit treason against the King. They are criminals, pure and simple."
In 1850: "Stop making excuses for those people who steal slaves under the guise of making them free. They are criminals, pure and simple."
In 1950: "Stop making excuses for those people who participate in race riots. They are criminals, pure and simple."
Legitimate power and systems of law do not justify themselves without some reasoning. So can you tell me why people who commit physical assaults, armed robberies, and sexual assaults should see less jail time that someone who made a copy of an email archive to try and expose overreach of our privatized military economy?
How is putting this individual in prison going to
1) repair the damage they are accused of
2) improve society at large
3) cost effectively return them to society
Questions 1-3 are routinely ignored because the American incarceration system is not designed to help American society. It causes more harm than good, has shoved millions of people into a cycle of poverty and violence that few escape from, and the costs (upwards of 60-100k per prisoner per year) to perpetuate the broken system are far more than simpler, more humane justice systems found throughout the industrialized world.
This is not 1600. America is not a puritan state. Keep your dead ideas about corporal punishment in the distant past where they belong.
I can allow that certain cases of hacking are vastly over-sentenced by the justice system. However, you've got to be more specific by what you consider a hacktivist before I consider them not a criminal. If you break into a system, steal data, and then flaunt the data as proof that the system's owner is incompetent, corrupt, insecure, whatever, then okay. If you also use some of that data (i.e. credit cards) to charge innocent / unsuspecting / unrelated people $700,000, even if it goes to charity, that's criminal behavior. You're not just a hacktivist anymore, sorry.
Okay, I happen to be VERY familiar with Jeremy Hammond (for someone who isn't part of his butt-kissing crew). I associated with him for a couple years in hacking circles in the mid-2000's. My opinion of him isn't very high. And I can't tell you what I think of his ethics, as he has none. He's someone who's constantly looking for an enemy to somehow oppress him and fight against.
This argument MIGHT hold water if this was Hammond's first offense. It isn't.
He was expelled from college for a hacking incident. Not for the hack itself, but for installing back doors into the systems and then failing to disclose them when he came forward to "teach the admins" about the methods he'd used to get into the systems in the first place.
He assaulted a Chicago city cop during a gay pride parade in 2004 while trying to confront a heckler.
He was fired from his job at a Mac consultancy in the Chicago area after teaching people how to hack into systems using the consultancy's servers as guinea pigs (machines that held LIVE CUSTOMER DATA).
He and a cohort looted the coffers of the Chicago Communist Party after a failed attempt to take control.
He's had multiple arrests as a public nuisance.
He and a group of his erstwhile friends hacked a site called Protest Warrior and stole credit cards. And he left such a bad taste in these friends' mouths that one of them rolled on him to the FBI. He was caught, prosecuted and sent to jail for 3 years (got out after 2 on good behavior).
After getting out he was busted for assaulting a holocaust denier in a public establishment.
He was busted for theft and destruction of property during the Chicago bid to host the Olympics.
And, what did he do? He hacked Stratfor and stole credit card numbers (with intent to use) AGAIN.
So what are we supposed to do? Impose a "no computers, no cell phones" sentence on him? In this day and age it's practically impossible to enforce.
There's also the fact that he's a repeat offender.
Is he really and truly PHYSICALLY dangerous? No. But prison isn't about simply physical protection of society. It's also about deterring those who abuse society on a constant basis.
And Jeremy Hammond is one such abusive element. He's a thug with a martyr complex. He wants to feel important, authoritative and in control. He wants to be seen as a "rebel". The fact is, he's a script kiddie, using the work of others and trying to make it appear as if he's some vastly knowledgeable authority. He has only a thin veneer of social skills to get by on, and basically defaults to "smash and grab" when he doesn't get his way.
In short, he's a boil on the butt of society. And prison is about the only place for him.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The punishment is not the imprisonment, because most hackers spend their waking hours confined to a room, cut off from physical contact with other humans. The punishment is isolation from the Internet, which leaves hackers with nothing to do but ponder their sorry, childish selves. That is what hackers truly and deeply fear.
How about posting the real reason he was given such a stiff penalty!
This isn't his first hacking charge nor his first run in with police.
His rap sheet is as long as my arm, with charges ranging from hacking and using stolen credit cards to assault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond#Arrests_and_criminal_history
My guess is this harsh sentence stems from the Stratfor hack as well.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that if they were caught, they'd be found guilty of treason and executed. Nathan Hale met exactly that fate a few months later. Much of the civil rights movement was fought in courtrooms, with people being used as pawns just to get an argument in front of a judge. Activists today are routinely arrested for minor crimes during protests to get better media coverage.
America idolizes its heroes for their courage. Today's hacktivists are noisy, but their anonymous message carries no conviction.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
One-third of prisoners in federal prisons are illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico. To fix the prisons, first secure the border.
It is for non-violent drug offenders. And a whole slew of other generally victimless crimes. Otherwise who would support the prison/industrial complex?
Fuck you!
Do the crime, serve the time! I'm totally down with that.
That is quite insightful. I've never heard that before.
Now that I've heard that, I can finally move on and forget about the fact that the US has such an absurdly high incarceration rate, disproportionate prosecution of minorities, crazy sentencing schemes, so many people arrested that our courts can't even handle them all without plea bargains (which are accomplished by stacking so many charges against a person that it can be rational for even the innocent to take the plea in order to avoid losing a gamble that destroys their entire life), for-profit organizations running prisons that lobby to create more prisoners and prison time, and...
There's no reason to go on, because you solved it all. Nothing to see here. We should move on.
I'm certainly no expert in the history of South Africa, but didn't Mandela consistently deny ever being a part of the organization involved in those bombing and violent acts? Of course, I'm sure the 1960s South African government would never have dreamed of fabricating evidence.
So I guess our founding fathers should have just surrendered to British law and "paid the price".
No, but the signers of the Declaration of Independence all knew that they risked death to forward their cause and accepted that fact. Many of them *did* get caught and as far as I know, none of them started crying about how unfair and misunderstood they where in an effort to get out of being punished or sway public opinion. They lost their fortunes, families and lives for their cause.
They where well aware of the possible consequences of their "crime" and where prepared to pay the price for doing what they felt had to be done. This story is about some guy complaining about how harsh the 10 year sentence is. I'm not impressed.
So, yes, if you are unwilling to do the time, don't do the crime...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Our revolutionary fore fathers here the USA were criminals...but they weren't necessarily wrong. ...I could go on and on...
Kavorkian was a criminal for his assisted suicides, but now everyone is starting to do it.
Getting a blow job in a dozen states in the USA makes you a criminal, pure and simple. don't try to make excuses for your crimes.
Until 1969, letting a black man into a white establishment was a crime, pure and simple.
Drinking alcohol made you a criminal in the US for awhile. In many parts of the world, it still does.
Smoking up used to be totally fine in the US, but for the past 70-80 yrs suddenly you were a criminal for doing it.
Being a criminal as defined by your society and your actions doesn't mean you should be locked away forever
Your black and white, unwavering statements showcase your limited ability to empathize or see the larger way in which the world works. It's just childish.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Here we have prison to punish people. It doesn't exist as a means to control risk by controlling dangerous people. We've collectively decided that we should put people in cells(and let them be raped) like it's telling 5 year olds to stand in the corner.
Prison is not primarily to punish. I know when someone is a victim of a crime, they like to believe it exists to punish criminals. That's not what is intended.
The intent of any punitive action by a court is to discourage an activity in such a way that the rest of society doesn't engage in the behaviour.
Think about it: do the police arrive before a crime and prevent it, or do they show up afterwards? Do we penalize manslaughter to a lesser degree because we think the victim is any less dead than if it had been second or first degree murder instead? Punishment is clearly intended to send a message to the rest of society, not make the victim or the victims families feel better about themselves.
The message is clearly intended as "Don't do this; if you get caught, this is what will happen to you, and you should fear that penalty enough that you don't engage in the proscribed behaviour". We tend to lose sight of this because of cases that drag on for years, rather than having the penalty assessed immediately; delayed punishment = delayed threat. But until Tom Cruise starts showing up at your house to prevent murders which you are about to commit, in no way is the system about punishing criminals.
This "Oh the system is insecure so I should be allowed to hack it!" Really? Is that ok with your house too? Because it is insecure. You have shitty physical security, everyone does. Good physical security is expensive and a pain in the butt, and perfect physical security is impossible.
So I can break in to your house, without much trouble. Your lock is no good. Unless you have a high security lock (which costs like $200 per lock), I can just get a bump key and get in. You have an alarm? That's cute, it is just a circuit board in a metal box, a hammer will disable it permanently in short order. You have a "Neighbourhood watch association," that'll notice? No problem, I'll be there in a delivery truck, wearing a smart looking uniform, with an ID, paperwork, etc. You have a dog? A McDonalds hamburger will be sufficient to buy its life-long affection, and if not a 9mm round will be sufficient to deal with it.
But that's all ok, right? After all it is your fault your house is insecure, that is what's dangerous, not the criminal that breaks in and steals your shit... Ya, somehow, I don't think you'd see it that way.
So, unless you want to start to spend a lot of time, money, and inconvenience on upgraded physical security, and even then it is still imperfect and not that hard to bypass, then maybe you need to accept what the parent says: That people who break in are criminals. It is NOT ok.
This really goes back to basic kindergarten rules: "Don't take things that aren't yours," "Ask permission before playing with someone else's toys," and so on. The law aside, it really is just common courtesy/morals.
Mean "time served / Offense in the US
12yrs / Murder
6.5yrs / Sexual Assault
3.5yrs / Aggravated assault
1.75yrs / Burglary
So hacking is slightly worse than Rape but not quite murder. I wonder if George Friedman would trade?
Someone be sure to tell this to the prosecutors of the Aaron Swartz case before something really bad happens. Oh wait...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
'Making an example' of someone with an excessive, unusually long punishment, to me, sounds inherently unconstitutional.
It /should/ be easy ground for an appeal of the sentence if the judge allowed external factors like 'sending a message to others' to unduly influence his decisions.
Any time one of these guys say they're "trying to send a message", what they're really saying is "I'm punishing you for crimes other people committed". If courts are about justice, "trying to send a message" should result in an immediate, successful victory in appeals court.
Err.. No. They knew what they were doing, and what the consequences of their actions would be should they be captured by the British. They put it in the document, as a matter of fact: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Prison is for people who break laws that have been enacted by duly elected people and have a prison tern attached to those laws. There is an very of saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
So... A City of refuge didn't look like jail in any possible way?
It's pretty clear Biblical principle that governments have the right to detain or kill folks. Prisons exist as early as Genesis and clearly existed when John was exiled and wrote Revelation and no country is condemned for having prisons, even though they are for not being just. There may not have been a direct "Thou shalt have prisons" but their justified use is not condemned either. Then you have the City of Refuge thing, where an accidental killer could be confined until the High Priest changed. Looks something like a prison to me.
There are many things which are not directly commanded that we still justifiably do. I'm not told to inhale, but I do. Governments are not told to build roads, but they do that too. So your logic is flawed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Bad people don't get a pass just cause they like computers.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
After all, they supervised hacking and cracking on a much larger scale, organized crime in collusion with a large number of government officials.
If you are going to base the argument around who needs to be separated from society, there's MORE reason to put hackers in a prison than most other criminals there - because a hacker can easily affect tens of thousands of people, unlike a criminal who can only really affect a handful. Being in prison is the only sure way to control computer access for hackers.
If you want to argue there needs to be a separate place to put hackers because they don't deserve to be at the mercy or violent hackers, well that's why we have white collar prisons is it not? There were "soft targets" going to prison long before hackers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This year alone: Hacking has cost the US over 500,000 jobs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/hackers-jobs_n_3652893.html) Personal details of US soldiers released (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/26/hackers-post-us-troops-personal-details-collateral/?page=all) Have proven hacking Infrastructure (power,water,etc) is easy (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/517731/hacking-industrial-systems-turns-out-to-be-easy/) Hackers have the capability to do everything from finanical destruction of a person, preventing them from ever even being able to rent a home, to hacking into personal vehicles and causing them to wreck while they drive. Should those people not be considered dangerous?
Having been a guest of the Arizona State and Maricopa County, I have some input here.
Consider the following:
- I was locked up on non-aggressive felony charges, so I was classified to do my time in the Graham unit @ Safford which is classed as a level 2 yard.
- There are level 1 yards which are even less intimidating than the one I was locked up at
- I was classified at Alhambra which is considered a 1-5 (Due to the fact all convicts get sorted through that facility, non- & aggressive inmates are all housed together, with the exception of chomo's and rapists who get private handling for obvious reasons)
- I am a thin, tall and relatively quiet individual with a good intellect and gentle demeanor
The Graham yard was a breeze. It's laid out like a military base, with barracks for inmate bunks, a gym, a music room, a library, two soccer fields and a baseball diamond. The bathrooms/showers are private and not open to the world, you had a modicum of privacy while you were washing your ass, and no, inmates don't follow you in expecting you to drop the soap.
When I first arrived, just like county, you're introduced to your race "Head" and "Second Head" which are the political heads who you handle grievances if ever there's a problem between you and another inmate. Individual races' are held accountable for their own group if the beef is internal or inter-racial. For instance, if a wood (caucasian) stole from another wood, the heads would deal out the punishment. If a wood stole from a paisa (Mexican national), the two race heads would convene and each race would deal out the punishment to their own based on what was agreed upon. This 'political' system exists in all jails, even if the race separation is different among regions of the US, but exists to handle the cases I mentioned above. During my intake and introduction to my race, it was obvious this system helps defend a new inmate from another inmate from taking advantage of them at first glance. However over time, the shitty individual who wants to steal and lie to their own heads, cause trouble and in general be a dick, will be blackballed and at that point you're on your own.
Alhambra was a different story while I was being classified. I stayed there for 12 days, and it was a 23h/1h lock down with 11 other inmates in the cell. The racial system exists, but as there are no inmates that stay permanently at that facility (unless you're a rehabilitated 20+ year sentence inmate, then you call Alhambra home), there are no heads or groups. Everyone is rogue and keeps to themselves unless you're being an asshole.
So for those out there that think all prisons are equal, or that by going to prison, you by default are the target of rape just because you showed up, could not be more incorrect. The things I talked about above hold true for most non-violent classified yards, levels 1-2, and even into 3 yards where some first time violent inmates end up. I know people that have done time in a higher security system, and all the same politics and protections from your race still exist. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if you're truly a shitty person, you don't learn from your mistakes, and you want to continue trying to play criminal in a criminal population, you get what you deserve.
Now back to the article. I do think there are too many people being locked up for things that people should no longer be locked up for. For example, weed and paraphernalia charges shouldn't put a person in the system. Dangerous drugs, yes, absolutely for repeat offenders. Hacktivists, and non-violent offenders, it's a stickier subject. There has to be recourse, and people have to be deterred from doing it, but if restitution is ruled against me for a million dollars, and I don't receive any prison time what good does that do? I'm never going to be able to pay off a restitution order like that in any reasonable amount of time, so I'll say f*ck it and just keep on doing what I did to get there in the first place
Hacking in itself should not be a crime. I would not put a person in prison for hacking unless theft was also involved such as bank accounts or credit card charges. But there are other nonviolent crimes for which prison may be good answer. for example using crack or heroin automatically is seen as advocating drug use by vulnerable people. One crack addict can easily create a dozen more before he dies or is stuck in rehab or prison or a mental facility. There are plenty of people that will break laws if they feel the punishment probably will either not happen or be severe in nature. It is rather like the IRS tactics. They catch some jerk cheating a little bit on his taxes and they drop him into a painful hole so bad that he wails and screams to all the people he knows just how brutal the IRS can be. The people that watch him being ruined by the IRS tend to report their incomes more truthfully. So in a way dropping a one time offender deep into the prison system for a burglary, stealing a car or bicycle or using illegal drugs is not wrong at all. That very 16 year old who gets popped one time for possession of crack and will be seen by the whole town in a pink, convict, jump suit, picking up trash by the road ways for the rest of his life can prevent more drug use than a huge rehab facility.
And if you are going to do the crime, for fuck's sake, make it a worthwhile crime. Especially if you are an "activist" and trying to draw attention to a cause.
What did this guy prove with his actions? That a company whose primary business is not computer security had weak security controls on their computer systems? Ooooo, there's a massive, game changing revelation that is worth 10 years of my life.
That a company who is in the business of providing detailed analysis of geopolitical events has a bunch of military and corporate subscribers? Funny, I figured that sort of thing appealed more to soccer moms and janitors.
I know some people who have been to prison or given probation and fines.
How the hell are they going to get money to pay those fines if they were engaged in criminal activity just to survive?
A convicted felon is not going to get a good paying job. They will be lucky to get minimum wage.
Their only option to pay those fines is to return to criminal activity. I have paid the fines for a couple of friends. Thousands of dollars. Had I not paid those fines for them I am sure they would be back in prison even though they wanted to go straight.
Now several years later, they are still free, still going straight and still at crappy jobs they will never be able to advance from. But they are still going straight.
It cost me a ton. I took it from my retirement savings. But at least I now know that they will not have to return to criminal activity to pay those fines.
I have no regrets about this.
Think about those fines will ya?
So because the system is broken, it's okay for people to go ahead and commit crimes?
In a twisted logic sort of way, it actually speaks to the effectiveness of the system to deter crime because it is so dysfunctional. An "intelligent" person might look at a "not broken" system and determine that they could "get away with it". Given the system in its current state, an intelligent person is going to do whatever they can to avoid having to deal with the system and suffer those consequences.
Hackers can be dangerous. I mean, a good hacker can take down telecom, power, etc. That would cause MAJOR problems and quite possibly some deaths. So in that respect yes. But if it's just corporate IP that's being taken the punishment does seem extreme.
Hey. You. Dumbass.
Hammond isn't a "good guy". He's a thug with a thin veneer of technical knowledge and barely enough charisma to make random idiots believe he's some sort of righteous social crusader.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If I hadn't already commented in this thread, I'd have modded you up.
Thank you for that informative post.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"Hackers are not dangerous people, they are misunderstood."
So are the serial killers.
He has a rap sheet as long as your arm, and is a recidivist. This punishment is well deserved.
with that said I can see 5-6 years being more appropriate followed by probation but I dont know the details... maybe it wasnt his first offense or there was something else involved.
outside of that I wont lose any sleep over it.
Don't forget the 8% "oops we've decided we wrongly convicted you, good thing we only sent you to death row instead of immediately executing you" rate. I'm not kidding - between 2001 and 2010 there were 551 state executions, and 48 exonerations on appeal, in the US. And that's the known rate - what's the unknown rate?
The twisted logic is wrong.
When crimes are responded to with such unreasonable and unthinking overkill, an intelligent lawful person will determine that they need to emigrate before they get caught up in the madness, an intelligent unlawful person will determine that they either need to emigrate or make sure some innocent patsy will go down for their crimes, and both will consider the logic of doing something that's actually deserving of a sentence they expect to receive.
There are thousands of people in the US who are serving "life without the possibility of parole" for nonviolent offenses.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
When a geek hears that one of his own has been sentenced to do hard time, what follows is a rant posted to Slashdot. The words and music never change.
The geek in court is full of himself, arrogant, self-righteous, and self-pitying. "You can't do this to someone like me! " The geek on court is barely in full flight before the jury of his peers is longing to hit him where it hurts.
FTFY: disciplinary, disciplinary. disciplined is the wrong word for this. It's like Jake Davis is saying that locking the door is a disciplined act. He means disciplinary act.
This was only a new crime politically, it was not breaking new ground in computer crime. If he did something non-political the results would be different.
Furthermore, it is unusual punishment - they openly admit it when they make the punishment severe to "set an example." If it is a new crime then they lack a reference point; but in the years following, other example sentences will exist in which case the punishment should be revised upon appeal to keep it in line with the new norm. There should be legal repercussions such that they never openly admit unusual special punishments that discriminate against creative new crimes... and especially politically motivated ones. It won't stop, they just won't openly admit it (just like racists wouldn't admit their unequal treatment.)
Finally, this culture is uncivilized (corruption is another issue.) Everything is about punishment, revenge, and dehumanization. A prison's only practical purpose is to keep society safe from people unable to live in society. Yes, that mature perspective means that some people would be locked up for life for minor crimes... If they can't conform to society's laws then they shouldn't be allowed in society - giving them a "time out period" is foolish. It is like giving a child time out and promptly letting them in on schedule without asking the child if they are going to behave first - no competent adult lets the child out if they refuse to correct the behavior simply because the timer ran out. Should they be abused and dehumanized when in prison? should we have only 1 kind of prison for all types? No. But we do.
Some prisons should be nice communities for dysfunctional people to live out their lives... similar to insane asylums (we hardly have those anymore- they are in prison carving their names into teenage foreheads of their "tried as adult" bitches.) People who contribute to society but LACK some necessary characteristic should be able to contribute in a controlled safe community outside of normal society. A technical mind should be put to constructive (but supervised or limited) use. If Einstein was convicted of statutory rape as a young man because his girl was 17 and he was 18-- we'd never have benefited. What does one do in such cases? Well, be creative; don't ruin his life and rob society of not only potential contributions but the COSTS involved in caging and dehumanization. Monetary fines make an impact in many situations; but only if they are relative.
Sure, dismiss me as some liberal or whatever - it won't change the harm you do to yourself and society for having such an empty head.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The dangerous criminals are part of the system to keep the regular people in line, preventing them from engaging in any sort of activism. If Rosa Park would have been facing years of torture at the hands of her cellmates instead of just some cooling-off time in jail, we'd probably still have Jim Crow.
Aaron Swartz understood this. He rolled the dice anyway, and lost.
It's like being a repeat trespasser or repeat speeder yet he got hit with the sort of time that gets handed out to people that physically harm others instead of the claimed property damage in this case.
If it wasn't done by computer, for instance it was someone breaking in and stealing the account records on paper, how long do you seriously think he would get for a repeat offence? One year? Two? Maybe three?
I see it as a medieval style vastly disproportionate response. It like putting heads on pikes to warn off other bandits.
US needs a justice system, it only appears to have an injustice system.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Jail = Banishment
There are rules in this country that forbid ejecting natural born citizens.
Moreover, simply dumping him in another country solves nothing (well, unless it's Siberia in the middle of winter and you drop him off 100 miles from anything, buck naked), as he can commit his electronic felonies from pretty much anyplace with an internet connection.
Worse, by dumping him outside your jurisdiction, you remove much of your ability to monitor and rehabilitate this person, while giving other unsavory people unfettered access to him.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
To quote Forrest Gump... Stupid is as Stupid does.
I'm still not impressed with some script kiddy that cries into his cheerios because he's getting more punishment than he thinks is fair. Such nonsense doesn't do anything for his cause and makes him look like a crybaby. Step up, pay the price...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101