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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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!
Maybe, maybe not. As mentioned in a previous comment, prison is primarily used as a punishment here not as much for protection of general society. In a country founded on the principal of various innate freedoms taking away someone's freedom seems the ultimate punishment. Fines = Taking your means to buy what you want = Taking your freedom to acquire. Revocation of licenses (drivers, professional) take away your freedom to legally perform certain activities. Prison, and the associated probation/parole system, go steps farther by explicitly removing all, or almost all, but your barest freedoms. Execution takes your final freedom (Life) away.
Personally I think a 10 year sentence is pretty excessive. Your average privileged American is pretty shell shocked by even small amounts of time behind bars. Months to a couple years is enough of a penalty to reform the vast majority. Those that don't fit that mold become repeat offenders where the penalties deservedly go up. Extreme example: I could walk out of my office right now and gun down someone in cold blood and I wouldn't end up with 10 years. I don't disagree at all with Prison being the style of punishment but I find the duration to be excessive and honestly for first offense pending aggravating circumstances a friendly prosecutor would probably be happy with a number of years of probation in-lieu of. The whole concept of "Trying to send a message" is an abortion of our legal system and should be weeded out with appropriate diligence.
PS: The whole misunderstood argument is similarly BS. I break laws all the time and when I get caught I pay the price. I am truly understood by only myself but that is no argument that I shouldn't be judged based on the same laws my fellow citizens are. I instead work to change those laws I disagree with so I can spread my own understanding.
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.
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