LulzSec's Sabu To Be Sentenced In New York

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LulzSec's Sabu To Be Sentenced In New York

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 13, 2014 @03:23AM from the paying-the-discount-price dept.

DavidGilbert99 writes "Two and a half years after he was arrested at his New York apartment by the FBI, LulzSEc member-turned-FBI informant Hector Monsegur (aka Sabu) is set to be sentenced in the South District of New York court at 4pm local time on Monday where he could face up to 124 years in jail. However, following his cooperation with the US authorities, Monsegur is likely to get a much reduced sentence and could avoid jail completely. His sentencing has been adjourned numerous times for unknown reasons, and if the FBI have any more use for him, then we could see it delayed again."

135 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

People that hide behind the internet to commit crimes need to be severely punished - it is dangerous precedent and only encourages their fantasies to do otherwise. Online crime = twice the time.
1. Re:We need to make an example of him. by gmuslera · 2014-01-13 03:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Meanwhile getting drunk, driving a car and actually killing 4 people doing that gets no jail time at all. US law needs justice like a fish needs a bycicle.
2. Re:We need to make an example of him. by jellomizer · 2014-01-13 03:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Justice isn't revenge.
  That part is often confused. There is difference between doing a crime by accident or via neglect, then doing it with intent.
  Now I am not saying I agree with the judgment for the the drunk driving. As Drunk Driving is major neglect on part of the driver, and should deserve jail time, to pinpoint the seriousness of what he did. That said, those hackers went out to cause harm on a large scale, and they did.
  Now just because we personally don't like the guys they harmed, doesn't make it right.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:We need to make an example of him. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-13 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  Precedence has no bearing on sentencing
  --anonymous coward, legal expert
4. Re:We need to make an example of him. by isorox · 2014-01-13 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile getting drunk, driving a car and actually killing 4 people doing that gets no jail time at all. US law needs justice like a fish needs a bycicle.
  This goes with pretty much every other aspect of life in america, I don't see why you're shocked.
5. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Sarten-X · 2014-01-13 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yes... what a shame it is that we choose not to condemn our children for their mistakes, but rather sentence them to probation for a decade instead.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
6. Re:We need to make an example of him. by RivenAleem · 2014-01-13 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen. Why should you punish someone for something what, when you really thing about it, was just an accident.
  The amount of planning and execution that went into the lulzsec attacks shows that it was planned meticulously. It is impossible to ignore how this vicious criminal had clear intent to embarrass high ranked people.
  This cannot go unpunished.
  (do I need sarcasm tags?)
7. Re:We need to make an example of him. by DeathToBill · 2014-01-13 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Neither does precedent.
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
8. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Viol8 · 2014-01-13 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  "The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen. Why should you punish someone for something what, when you really thing about it, was just an accident."
  Sorry, I've got to disagree here - someone who gets drunk then gets behind the wheel of a car does not just have an "accident". The drink almost certainly contributed to what happened and unless they're complete fools they knew perfectly well what can happen when you drink and drive. I have zero sympathy - if someone runs down someone when driving drunk they should be locked up and the key thrown away. There Is No Excuse.
9. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Except it wasn't "just an accident", he was drunk, he was speeding, he recklessly endangered his own life and the lives of others and 4 innocent people died. Even if he didn't mean to kill people, his irresponsible and dangerous actions were the direct cause of their deaths, not an accident.
10. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Making an example of some one defies the very principle of fairness. If Justice is blind, it would be to strive for the greatest fairness of all. Court room justice is done too appease society, not the victims. The victims should come first.
  I support the stance of any crime that does not deprive life or liberty (kidnapping, rape, stalking, etc.), should have a maximum of 5 years of prison, and if judged beyond that a fine based on personal wealth or mandatory volunteering (not some easy high schooler volunteering either) where they can work to pay off victims.
11. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes... what a shame it is that we choose not to condemn our children for their mistakes, but rather sentence them to probation for a decade instead.
  Sorry, but "affluenza" as a defense screams of complete bullshit and expensive lawyers to me.
  Waaa, I'm rich and coddled and don't know right from wrong so I can't be held accountable for my actions.
  Unless there's a corresponding "poorfluenza" defense, it's just a rich get getting off without any real consequences, using a made up medical condition, which a poor kid in the same situation would never get.
  That you've never been held accountable for your actions and learned that they have consequences doesn't excuse you from the law.
  Because a poor black kid who hasn't grown up with the benefit of a good education and rich parents will in no way be given any concession for the fact that they couldn't possibly know better.
  This is rich kids getting a different look at justice than everybody else.
12. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen.
  If he didn't have the intent, why didn't he leave his car keys at home?
13. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Immerman · 2014-01-13 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  >Justice isn't revenge.
  Actually it kind of is. The point of our justice system is manifold:
  - deter future criminal acts with the threat of punishment (though we could argue as to how successful it actually is at that)
  - prevent (or at least postpone) repeat offenses by restraining the perpetrators (again, actual success rates may vary)
  - prevent vigilante justice by punishing the perpetrators harshly enough to satisfy those that might otherwise decide to exact revenge themselves
  Really that last one is the only one that seems to fairly consistently work as intended, and it's quite important as the alternative tends to be long-standing cycles of revenge and retribution that can last for generations.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
14. Re:We need to make an example of him. by gmuslera · 2014-01-13 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Getting drunk and driving, meaning it or not, lead to a lot of innocent people killed, in fact, twice as much as in boston bombing in this particular case. The lulzsec attacks, in the other hand, had no life victims, falls more into the definition of pranks, or if you want, graffitting, than on the definition of crimes (unless you are in a country where the national intelligence sector wants the monopoly on that kind of crimes, and actually does orders of magnitude worse crimes).
15. Re: We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed wholeheartedly. This guy probably use that terrorist Linsux operating system to commit these crimes, too.
  This is no time for leniency, DOJ!
16. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Sarten-X · 2014-01-13 04:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I see no sarcasm. I see a valid argument.
  The teenager who got drunk wasn't mature enough to be aware of the severity of his actions. That's why we have a juvenile system in the first place. Even if, while sober, he intended to get drunk and drive recklessly, he probably couldn't understand the risk involved. That's why his sentence is only 10 years' probation rather that jail time. It's a sentence that fits reasonably well with several counts of accidental manslaughter and a DWI.
  On the other hand, Sabu indeed clearly set out to cause harm to others. Granted he may have considered it a noble cause, but that's beside the point. Crimes committed in the name of vigilantism are still crimes, and Sabu was mature enough to know the ramifications of his actions.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
17. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Immerman · 2014-01-13 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, somebody knowingly chooses to incapacitate themselves and then operate a deadly weapon in a public space? Right, no reason to punish them, it's not like they've ever done it before, or will ever do it again.
  Okay, *maybe* they'll be "scared straight" by the fact that they killed someone, but they still willfully chose to pursue their own amusement over the safety of everyone around them, and that was no accident, in fact they have almost certainly made that choice time and time again before the odds caught up with them. Let them escape unscathed and what are you saying about the values of society?
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
18. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  I think the fact the defendant was a minor combined with lack of intent to harm has most to do with it...
19. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Sarten-X · 2014-01-13 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  A high school student I know got drunk, drove, and killed a fellow student when he decided that a living room would make a good parking spot. His public defender worked him to a five-year probation sentence and a few hundred hours of community service, as I recall.
  "Affluenza" is indeed a problem, but despite the claims of the grieving father, I don't see it being a major factor in this case. Penalties for juveniles are lighter out of mercy, regardless of socioeconomic status. Where this kid's family may have helped is in convincing the judge that a trip to a rehab center (on their half-million-dollar dime) is better for society than a trip to jail.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
20. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  It always amazes me that you as a country allow children to drive and then wonder why things go wrong. Presumably there's some logic behind not allowing them to drink legally until 21 yet they can drive at sixteen? Seriously?
21. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  He had the intent to drive (reckless when drunk, no question about it), but not the intent to have an accident and kill someone. Is that not obvious?
22. Re:We need to make an example of him. by gl4ss · 2014-01-13 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  look man that's exactly the fucking problem with your fucking legal and moral system.
  shooting someone in the face on your porch == accident ??
  drinking 12 beers and driving?? a fucking accident??? are you fucking kidding me. that's like saying that shooting at a choir is an accident because you didn't know if it was going to kill someone.
  now sabus crimes.. what was the end result? some people needed to do a bit more of work they were hired to do anyways.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
23. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Penalties for juveniles are lighter out of mercy, regardless of socioeconomic status.
  
  Except, of course, that's completely untrue in practice, and kids from lower income locations are over-represented in the justice system.
  I don't buy for a minute that this isn't just a matter of who can afford the best lawyers or get off because they can afford their own rehab.
  A poor black kid would be serving a life sentence. A rich white kid gets probation.
24. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  This doesn't apply to pretend fairness, which is the goal in the US system.
25. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  You inserted color in a place it really doesn't belong. The outcome would be the same for a poor white kid, a poor chinese kid, or a poor hispanic kid. Notice what the common thread is there? Rich kids with rich parents hire rich lawyers who play golf with rich PAs and judges. That's really the bottom line. It doesn't hurt that their affluence allows them to offer an alternative (expensive rehab center) that a poor kid would not have.
26. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Ravaldy · 2014-01-13 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Although I'm sure that drunk car driving case is not the only one I'm sure it accounts for a tiny fraction of what actually happens to drunk drivers. Thousands more drunk drivers are caught everyday and prosecuted as expected. I think picking the one stained case out of the bucket makes the justice system look far worst than it really is.
27. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Ravaldy · 2014-01-13 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the definition of revenge in your argument.
  - I don't speed because I don't want the fine that comes with it - That's not revenge, it's control
  - I don't drink before driving because I don't want to lose my driver's license - That's not revenge, it's control
  - I don't kill people because I find it morally wrong and I would not live with myself - That's just morals I was though by my parents and surroundings
  The justice system is about control, not revenge. Revenge is you slap me I slap you and that's not what the justice system is about. If it fails in some areas I can assure you is succeeds in many others.
28. Re:We need to make an example of him. by kylemonger · 2014-01-13 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  A wrinkle in your argument is that alcohol is a disinhibitor, affecting judgment. A sober person knows better than to get behind the wheel drunk, but a drunk person may no longer have that inhibition. You want to punish the drunk, but the sober person is the one that ends up in prison.
29. Re:We need to make an example of him. by xelah · 2014-01-13 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that is that it imposes huge costs (on the driver, on the drivers family, friends, employer, etc, and on the state) whilst being totally ineffective. Nobody except a handful of murderers (who should be prosecuted as such) drives a car if they believe they're likely to or going to kill someone. Adding a criminal sentence on top doesn't change that.
  If you actually want to achieve something instead of just spreading the misery then you need to make sure that drink-driving is punished with as high a probability as possible, whether anyone is harmed or not. Pouring your tax revenue in to that instead of large-scale imprisonment is a much better idea.
30. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, just wow. You're such a complete idiot.
31. Re:We need to make an example of him. by serviscope_minor · 2014-01-13 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the definition of revenge in your argument.
  His third point: the one about preventing vigilante justice.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
32. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  It is STILL virtual harm!
  There is a HUUUUGE difference between killing people and pissing off some companies sysadmins trying to fix some servers. At least they are still alive, unless a silly DDoS burned down the damn mainframe and them with it!
  If they had attacked hospital systems, you'd maybe have a point, but even they weren't that shitty, they had access to some NHS stuff and told them about it instead of doing anything. (apparently)
33. Re:We need to make an example of him. by easyTree · 2014-01-13 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  The teenager who got drunk wasn't mature enough to be aware of the severity of his actions.
  *Buzzer sound* Thanks for playing.
  If this teenager is deemed fit to drive a deadly weapon and thus assume the responsibility for all the split-second choices he's expected to make wisely, he's fit to be held accountable for choosing to drink before driving.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
34. Re:We need to make an example of him. by jellomizer · 2014-01-13 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well lets look at an other way.
  Person who does malicious (It is wrong, they knew it was wrong, that choose to do the wrong) attacks, brings harm to society, and if they get off too easy they will just keep doing it again.
  Person who is negligent (It was wrong, they didn't really think about), brings harm to society, however often they will learn their lesson with a smaller punishment, and be more productive in the future.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
35. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Joce640k · 2014-01-13 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  It should really be the other way around. Drink at sixteen/eighteen and not drive until they've got over the initial "wow I'm drinking!" phase (two or three years later).
  
  --
  No sig today...
36. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Ravaldy · 2014-01-13 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  I understand the 3rd point but it's not revenge, its still control AKA justice.
  See this scenario: Man murders neighbour's family. Revenge would be for the justice system to murder his family. Instead we punish him to avoid further damages to society. Am I wrong in still thinking there's a clear line between revenge and justice?
37. Re:We need to make an example of him. by dryeo · 2014-01-13 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  The justice system satisfies the revenge urge good enough that the neighbours don't kill the murderers family.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
38. Re:We need to make an example of him. by citizenr · 2014-01-13 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen.
  Yes, I run around with scissors all the time, I didnt mean to pierce someones belly with it!
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
39. Re:We need to make an example of him. by LordLimecat · 2014-01-13 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of forgot the namesake reason behind the justice system:
  * To render a punishment because it is deserved
  I think theres a word beginning with the letter J which describes this facet.
40. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Ravaldy · 2014-01-13 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  So the line here is that no extra people die. Doesn't sound like revenge any more. Revenge avoided.
41. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  >>>Justice isn't revenge.
  >>Actually it kind of is.
  >I don't see the definition of revenge in your argument.
  I don't think he said that justice is the exact definition of revenge. He seems to have been saying that justice can act as a surrogate for revenge.
42. Re:We need to make an example of him. by MarkvW · 2014-01-13 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Semantics.
  Society aims for retribution. Revenge is a kind of retribution.
43. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  yup, you really did need the Sarcasm tags
44. Re:We need to make an example of him. by TapeCutter · 2014-01-13 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  A sober person knows better than to get behind the wheel drunk, but a drunk person may no longer have that inhibition.
  Irrelevant - It was the sober person who made the choice to get drunk to the point where they no longer care.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
45. Re:We need to make an example of him. by JamieIanMacgregor · 2014-01-13 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  sorry, it is now called 'Mantrol' http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad/32738/NZTA-Mantrol
46. Re:We need to make an example of him. by LoRdTAW · 2014-01-13 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yup 124 years for mischief sounds fair.
  I would argue that the maximum for computer crimes should be no more than 5 years for a first time offender. I have never been to prison but I have heard first hand accounts and believe me, 5 years in a state or federal penitentiary sounds like it will inflict enough suffering for most.
47. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  Online crime = twice the time.
  Are you daft? The United States already has the highest incarceration rate on the planet, 754 per 100,000 in 2009 and with some of the longest sentences, and you want to increase the penalties still more? It costs $40,000 per year to keep somebody locked up. Who do you think pays for that? I'll give you a hint, it's not the corporations, they pay almost no taxes. You sir need to rethink your position before hauling off and saying something so patently stupid and uninformed.
48. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Viol8 · 2014-01-13 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Are you trolling. are you really this stupid or are you just making pathetic excuses for your own shameful behaviour? I wonder...
49. Re:We need to make an example of him. by Xest · 2014-01-13 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  "That said, those hackers went out to cause harm on a large scale, and they did."
  Did they? or did they set out to deal with companies that were themselves causing harm through corruption and subversion of democracy because the authorities weren't dealing with the problem?
  In this respect it's not unreasonable they were actually preventing these companies causing further harm. Even the attacks against Sony - it's not as if Sony isn't a leading RIAA figure that's been responsible for bribing for laws against the will of democratic opinion that destroy freedom and undo long established rights such as the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
  In this respect is was more like vigilantism in the face of inaction by the authorities. Still wrong, but not exactly as clear cut as pure destruction without justification, which is what causing death by drink driving ultimately is.
50. Re:We need to make an example of him. by kylemonger · 2014-01-14 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  We make allowances for mental deficiency in our justice system, be it from congenital mental retardation or sudden psychotic break from reality by other means. I'm arguing that alcohol is one of those other means. We know that there is a segment of the population who cannot control their drinking once they start, cannot function rationally while intoxicated, and often cannot even remember their actions while intoxicated. Yet, alcohol remains legal for adults to consume, while other drugs with this profile are banned from casual use.
  Having seen psychotic breaks from hard drinking up close, I can't make the direct link from someone starting drinking and ending up drunk driving and say that it absolutely isn't an accident. I've seen drunk people doing things far more unlikely than driving a car. I wouldn't hold them blameless, but neither would I claim clear intent, either.
The cost. And the cost! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:34 · Score: 1

While I can't speak to Sabus conscience, I have to wonder if he now think cooperating was the best course of action. The FBI pretty much owns him. For all intents and purposes, he is their slave. And he still has yet to be sentenced. I don't know what a fitting punishment would have been for exposing HB Gary Federal and the other ilk, but like most other tech 'crimes', it would have been wholly unproportional.
That said, just how long can the FBI do this to someone? If they have him dead to rights, legally, open and shut case, can they legally just keep postponing sentencing like this? At what point does this become close, or even violations of the 4th and 14th amendments?
I have no love for the FBI, Sabu, or HB Gary Federal and those other scumbags out there, but what originally looked like tech caper lesson on what not to do as a 'hacker', is turning into a pristine example of how the Feds will strip away your life if you're, and use whatever there is left of you as an indentured servant.
1. Re:The cost. And the cost! by dugancent · 2014-01-13 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  The legally can since he agreed to be an informant. If he told them to piss off, the case would have been over months ago.
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
2. Re:The cost. And the cost! by DeathToBill · 2014-01-13 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  He has a choice; he can spend 124 years in prison now, if he wants.
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
3. Re:The cost. And the cost! by DeathToBill · 2014-01-13 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, it's not like they're saying, "Help us or we'll lock you up for not helping us." They're saying, "You committed a crime and the punishment for that crime is 124 years in prison. But help us and we'll see if we can shorten that a bit."
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
4. Re:The cost. And the cost! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, I hope this is ironic.
  That's what *they* are saying. *They* make the rules in *their* interests and apply them similarly.
5. Re:The cost. And the cost! by LordLimecat · 2014-01-13 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  They can say lots of things, that doesnt make them remotely true.
  Pretty sure thats why everyone has always said "get a lawyer before saying anything". 124 years sounds farfetched, regardless of what reporters / the prosecution were saying.
6. Re:The cost. And the cost! by DeathToBill · 2014-01-15 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, do we have a problem with the third person plural pronoun now?
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
More use for him? by aviators99 · 2014-01-13 03:34 · Score: 1

If he's already helped enough to get from 124 years down to possibly "avoid jail completely", what will happen if they have "more use for him"? They should start paying him. A lot.
1. Re:More use for him? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  They should start paying him. A lot.
  I think that would be the lulziest outcome for this whole saga!
2. Re:More use for him? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  If he's already helped enough to get from 124 years down to possibly "avoid jail completely", what will happen if they have "more use for him"?
  
  Then I'd guess they'll suddenly remember a few reasons why his previous help wasn't helpful enough. They've got absolutely no incentive not to milk the guy dry now that they have him.
3. Re:More use for him? by TWiTfan · 2014-01-13 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  A pimp doesn't pay his bitches.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
4. Re:More use for him? by gl4ss · 2014-01-13 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  well, that there is even debate that the possible sentence is between _zero_ years and 1.5 lifetimes should be enough to tell that something is quite fucked up in the legal system.
  you shouldn't be forced to provide evidence for your prosecution and this pretty much is it - and if the crime really is so horrible as to require 124 years then one shouldn't be able to snitch out of it in the first place. fucked up on so many levels.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:More use for him? by SethJohnson · 2014-01-13 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  They should start paying him. A lot.
  Just because he was involved in some petty computer mischief with some other hooligans does not mean he has top-of-the-job-market skills. In fact, because he got caught by the FBI by accidentally exposing his IP address would indicate he isn't an elite player. The dudes out there operating out of the FBI's reach are the ones deserving to be 'paid a lot.' They likely are being paid a lot, too.
  
  --
  $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
6. Re:More use for him? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'm just saying that if whatever he gave them is worth over 100 years it must have some incredible value. Somewhat tongue in cheek.
7. Re:More use for him? by aviators99 · 2014-01-13 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just saying that if whatever he gave them is worth over 100 years it must have some incredible value. Somewhat tongue in cheek.
  (Oops...on a different computer and forgot to login).
8. Re:More use for him? by Redmancometh · 2014-01-13 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  You think that is bad? Look up Sammy Gravano...admitted to killing quite a few people for the mob..probably killed a lot more...around a year in prison for snitching on gotti.
9. Re:More use for him? by Redmancometh · 2014-01-13 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  So tempted to mod up the AC just to troll you.
10. Re:More use for him? by aviators99 · 2014-01-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I would mod *you* up if I could, but I guess we're in the same boat now (having mod points but having posted) :-)
11. Re:More use for him? by LordLimecat · 2014-01-13 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  well, that there is even debate that the possible sentence is between _zero_ years and 1.5 lifetimes should be enough to tell that something is quite fucked up in the legal system.
  Not at all.
  You rob 800 convenience stores. Lets say the maximum sentence for one act of burglary is 2 years. Thats between 0 and 1600 years, right? Except it very rarely works that way, and while the prosecution / media may throw that number around to scare said burglar into bargaining, its not even remotely realistic.
  I would recommend that folks who are neither lawyers nor acquainted with how sentencing works refrain from commenting on how sentencing works.
12. Re:More use for him? by gl4ss · 2014-01-14 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  "You rob 800 convenience stores. Lets say the maximum sentence for one act of burglary is 2 years. Thats between 0 and 1600 years, right? "
  in usa it is. that's exactly the point, that there is debate ranging from ridiculously over the top for the crime punishment to zero. that's not how laws work in most of the "civilized" world - not at all - a crime has it's punishment and it's decided by the lawmakers in advance, not by whoever happens to hold the executive branch seats at the time.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
He needs to get a good reduction... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:35 · Score: 0

...with a good reduction of sentence law enforcement will be sending a strong message to hackers breaking the law. Rat out everyone and everybody wins.
1. Re:He needs to get a good reduction... by mcgrew · 2014-01-13 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's the way the US "justice" system works. Half of my ex-wife's high school graduating class had prison sentences for "conspiracy to distribute cocaine" after Cahokia, IL's biggest dope dealer (who had been in that class) got busted. Most of them had never had anything to do with cocaine at all, some not drugs at all. The prosecution makes a deal and you get innocent people busted and spend half the time in the slammer.
  What they did was have him call everyone he knew asking to borrow a thousand dollars for his bail and he'd pay it in a week with 100% interest -- but everyone knows he was a dealer. So everyone who loaned him that money went to prison twice as long as he did.
  Everybody wins, my ass. It's disgusting.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
stupid sentences by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:36 · Score: 0

At least if you kill a bunch of people you only get a couple of years in prison.
You just have to convince them it was a spur of the moment thing.
Aaron Swartz.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:49 · Score: 0

Aaron Swartz was nailed to the cross of Big Brother. He was going to prison for over two decades and this guy got nothing?!?!?! Shows you where justice is really at.

RIP Aaron~!!1
1. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-13 05:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Aaron Swartz was offered a plea deal to serve 3 months.
2. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by gnasher719 · 2014-01-13 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Aaron Swartz was offered a plea deal to serve 3 months.
  For admitting having committed a crime when he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime, with the alternative offer being tens of years in jail if he dared fighting a career obsessed prosecutor. And while three months in jail isn't too bad, the consequences for your life when you come out are quite devastating.
3. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-13 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  The consequences for normal people going to jail are bad. Aaron Swartz would have been hailed as a hero and had his pick of jobs.
  My point is that writing "he was going to prison for over two decades" is misleading at best. He was going to trial by choice. Even if he had gone to trial, realistically he would have gotten at most a year or two.
4. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Aaron Swartz was offered a plea deal to serve 3 months.
  For admitting having committed a crime when he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime,
  And when Mohammed Jihad Ikeeliu slit his sister's throat for going on a date with a guy she liked, he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime. Yet a career-obsessed prosecutor tried to put him in jail for twenty years...
5. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by PRMan · 2014-01-13 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  For admitting to a felony, a lifetime sentence of not being hired by anyone ever.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
6. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly! Just like Kevin Mitnick and Kevin Poulsen!
  
  Oh, wait...
7. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by Pope · 2014-01-13 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't do the crime if you don't wanna do the time.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
8. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by LordLimecat · 2014-01-13 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  For admitting having committed a crime when he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime,
  The state does consider it a crime, and as theyre the ones who make that call...
  
  And while three months in jail isn't too bad, the consequences for your life when you come out are quite devastating.
  This is going to be super unpopular, but he probably shouldnt have broken the law then.
9. Re:Aaron Swartz.... by Jakeula · 2014-01-13 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I am happy with the way everything ended with Swartz, this is very true. He did something that was clearly against the law. It shouldn't have been, but factually it was. He would have been greeted with open arms once released, his pick of careers purely for the publicity.
Update: Sabu's Sentencing Delayed by DavidGilbert99 · 2014-01-13 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Just in from New York - Sabu's sentencing has been delayed once again without explanation http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lulzsecs-sabu-be-sentenced-new-york-1432049
1. Re:Update: Sabu's Sentencing Delayed by arisvega · 2014-01-13 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Disgusting and repulsive manipulation of the legal and penal system, that borders on being plain corrupt. Consider the precedent and the example it sets.
  Yet another dissapointing fail for this country.
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
2. Re:Update: Sabu's Sentencing Delayed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Precedent? It is an everyday activity to delay and delay as much as possible. Frequently people spend months in prison with no sign of sentencing or release in sight. People may be presumed innocent, but that wont stop the legal system from treating them like they are guilty from the start.
3. Re:Update: Sabu's Sentencing Delayed by Vitriol+Angst · 2014-01-13 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  So of this Sabu character had no skills, but had cooperated, they'd be a free man right now. Good thing he can't spin straw into gold;
  this sentence; His sentencing has been adjourned numerous times for unknown reasons, and if the FBI have any more use for him, then we could see it delayed again. Kind of is the evidence of "carrot and stick".
  When law enforcement continuously puts people in jeopardy and withholds rights or selectively prosecutes -- that is not justice. And when Prosecutors load up charges in order to scare someone into plea bargaining because they might get 120 years for some crime that may have caused no harm but we've made "hacking something evil" -- well that's a miscarriage of justice.
  I'm not TRYING to lose all respect for our judicial system, but it appears more and more just to be an enforcement arm of corporate interests. Not long before people will "work off their sentences." It will be completely legal because people CHOOSE to either do 120 years for downloading a song file, or repair garments for 10 years with little compensation.
  I'm not sure if that is worse or better than a debtors prison, but it's sad that someone gets more time because they are more useful.
  
  --
  >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
4. Re:Update: Sabu's Sentencing Delayed by mythosaz · 2014-01-13 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Delays may be on the part of the defense as well, as often the longer you wait, the more the other side shows its hand.
  Even though he might be sitting in custody, since that time will likely count against any sentence he actually receives, it may be a strategy employed by either side.
  As a young man, I was one of two people who ended up in court for a crime. We chose to go to battle separately. We did everything we could go make sure we went second.
5. Re:Update: Sabu's Sentencing Delayed by Dabido · 2014-01-15 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  They delayed it just for the LULZ.
  
  --
  Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Re:HEY! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 03:58 · Score: 0

Much more than people who care about Slashdot, that's fore sure.
the sentencing is meaningless. by nimbius · 2014-01-13 04:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

The sentencing is a formality, a boilerplate. It is to send a message to any other would-be ne'er do wells that should you cooperate and come quietly the government will absolve you of your sins. Lulzsec for all their antics were champions of the government transparency inherent in a democracy contrived by the people and for the people.

the lesson from this is that ideas never die. Next time if you want to be a hero, you need to take a good hard look at your life and decide "is it worth it?" in Sabus case his family and children were used as leverage against him by the government to help crush dissent. its something we americans are only accustomed to hearing when informed by our respective media channels of transgressions undertaken by this years "supreme evil dictatorship." Its also worth noting that what the government was threatening Sabu with was nothing short of torture; a lifetime of silence, discipline and remorse for a crime that took no lives.

Sabu gave us hope and he taught us lessons. Edward Snowden played a chessmasters game in his defection and for it our government is left to do nothing more but ensure negative propaganda against him is dissemenated appropriately to all media outlets and further steps taken to mitigate a repeat performance. The only difference between a soviet system, the one we feared for 20 years, and our system, is that every 4 years we're burdened with the task of shuffling off to a school or church to apply our endorsement for a party. there are normally only ever two however. Neither actually operates in the service of its citizenry.

the lesson the government misses is this: just because Lulzsec is gone doesnt mean a mission wasnt accomplished or a task wasnt set into motion. more disaffected citizens and netizens will take their place. Chelsea manning, Julian Assange, and countless others will have paved the road to the hill upon which the casket of imperialist fascism is laid to rest.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Makes you sick to your core, doesn't it. The victory of 'democracy' is that the it's great at maintaining the status quo. Nothing short of banning alcohol/pizza/stupidity will get your fellow citizen to mobilize and even then, their choice is limited to "would you like to be punched or kicked?"
  There's no way to get fairness within the system. The system needs to go. All appeals to change the system made within the system will fail therefore the system must be routed-around until another system is the de-facto system. Taxation seems to be a large barrier to this - we need some way to express our desire to opt-out. I guess this means outright 'criminal' tax-avoidance such that these resources can be re-allocated to the new system.
2. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  You complain that the government isn't what you want. But you don't offer any alternative other than destroy everything; sorry, that's not what I want.
3. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sabu did nothing, and he certainly didn't give anyone "hope" or teach anyone a lesson. He's just a first class piece of sh|t who turned on his "friends" and sold them out.......no honor whats so ever. I HOPE he's in a cell with a large well hung anal rapist for the next ten years.
  These "hackers" are just a blight and claim some kind of moral right to causing damage.
4. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  You complain that the government isn't what you want. But you don't offer any alternative other than destroy everything; sorry, that's not what I want.
  Where did he say to destroy anything other than "imperialist fascism"?
5. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Entropius · 2014-01-13 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Edward Snowden played a chessmasters game in his defection and for it our government is left to do nothing more but ensure negative propaganda against him is dissemenated appropriately to all media outlets and further steps taken to mitigate a repeat performance. The only difference between a soviet system, the one we feared for 20 years, and our system, is that every 4 years we're burdened with the task of shuffling off to a school or church to apply our endorsement for a party. there are normally only ever two however.
  You're naive if you believe this.
  I live in Washington DC. There are city buses with "Thank you Edward Snowden!" advertisements on the sides, so big you can read it from a city block away, paid for by his supporters. There's an advertisement in the Pentagon subway station that says "Snowden honored his oath -- honor yours. Report unethical actions." with a URL.
  Compare this to what happened in the Soviet Union -- you'd never see this in Moscow in the 1960's. Yes, there are things that aren't perfect in the US. Yes, our government does some scary, scummy, tyrannical things. But just because things aren't perfect doesn't mean that we're living in a totalitarian hell.
6. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Where did he say to destroy anything other than "imperialist fascism"?
  Depends on what the meaning of "imperialist fascism" is. Care to define it?
7. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-13 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sabu gave us hope and he taught us lessons.
  Yes, his posting fake stories on PBS.com and releasing the names of all X Factor contestants was truly an inspiration to us all.
8. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by csumpi · 2014-01-13 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  +1 (wish I had mod points)
9. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden is a government plant, and his purpose was to scare the public into believing the NSA has more capabilities than they really have. If he wasn't under cover, CNN would not have covered him so much, and he would have been silenced, just like so many other NSA whistle blowers were.
10. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by houghi · 2014-01-13 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia you were not allowed to say anything, because they feared you could change things.
  In the USofA they do not have that fear that you can cause change, so you can say anything you like.
  I think the false pretense of freedom and liberty is scarier.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
11. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  lol
  (A post as stupid and clueless as the parent isn't worth more of a response than that.)
12. Re:the sentencing is meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-14 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  “The dictatorship is” shut up “, democracy is” always concerned ” -- Woody Allen
Pow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 04:07 · Score: 2, Funny

"You are charged with being smarter than us and exposing our corruption."
1. Re:Pow by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-13 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  If Sabu is so much smarter than the FBI, why is he sitting in a prison cell?
2. Re:Pow by slashmojo · 2014-01-13 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Free rent, pizza and hot fbi chicks to interrogate him.. beats the proverbial parents basement.
3. Re:Pow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Smarter is one thing. There's still the issue of the resources, influence and power of those you face.
  Sometimes it works, your country is your own again and Britain goes packing home.
  Sometimes you're outnumbered and rot out in a cell.
4. Re:Pow by PRMan · 2014-01-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Dumb people have lots and lots of guns.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
5. Re:Pow by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-13 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  The FBI figured out who and where he was by using guns? Those are smart guns.
Just call it life! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 05:59 · Score: 0

Outrageous! And molesters can run with 7-10...
"His sentencing has been adjourned numerous times for unknown reasons, and if the FBI have any more use for him, then we could see it delayed again."
You explain the unknown reasons further down the line... Because the FBI had a use for him..
1. Re:Just call it life! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Last time I checked, neither the government nor incompetent contractors are in danger of being molested. When they are, these horrible crimes will be punished appropriately.
Re:Elephants never forget by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 06:16 · Score: 0

Wrong article?
up to 124 years by jmcvetta · 2014-01-13 06:27 · Score: 1

What crime - any crime - justly deserves 124 years in the gulag? The court apparatus has gotten badly out of control, to the point where it no longer seems interested in maintaining even the appearance of fairness or legitimacy.
1. Re:up to 124 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  What crime - any crime - justly deserves 124 years in the gulag? The court apparatus has gotten badly out of control, to the point where it no longer seems interested in maintaining even the appearance of fairness or legitimacy.
  They're just hoping he'll hang himself.
2. Re:up to 124 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, even though I believe he wont get it, life in prison does seem a bit harsh for something that wasn't more than a small annoyance to IT departments of large corporations.
3. Re:up to 124 years by Jakeula · 2014-01-13 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that any one crime yielded him 124 year sentence. He had a lot of stolen credit card data, so that's multiple counts of ID theft, add that to the multitude of private computer systems LulzSec compromised equals that long of a sentence. I still think that is a bit drastic. However, in some states you get an attempted murder charge for x pills of Ecstasy you have if you have enough to be considered "intent to distribute". Enough pills of E and you have a hefty max sentence in front of you. Many times you work this down to a much more manageable jail time. Sabu will likely face much less to no time served due to his involvement with LEA's.
4. Re:up to 124 years by jmcvetta · 2014-01-13 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Right... the threat of a comically-draconian sentence is used to coerce the defendant into a false confession ("plea bargain"). Thus we keep the gulags nice & full, and the citizens entombed therein are expected to show gratitude for being "let off" with a mere year or two in a Federal Torture and Rape Facility.
I Predict WitPro In His Future by DroneWhatever · 2014-01-13 07:11 · Score: 1

Guaranteed, there are people trying to figure out how to give him a dirt-nap, or figuring out who they can pay to do it. With the sentencing delayed, it appears he is not through making lifelong enemies. I see some witness protection in his future, if not already to some degree (the monitored phone, computer, etc...) ...I am sure the feds would know instantly if something happened or he was on the move.
Ha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 08:43 · Score: 0

The FBI have been stringing him along, to get as much out of him as they can, with no sense of relief for him in sight. and a reduction from 124 years would still be more than acceptable amount.
Anonymous, and Lulzsec were fighting against a tyranny for a reason. It's a TYRANNY DUH! They can't be trusted, you can't get justice, and you can only expect a punishment that does not fit the crime. Sabu betrayed that, and he deserves whatever happens to him.
Is he even a U.S. citizen?
Except by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 08:55 · Score: 0

Except from what I understand they didn't start out drunk. They got into a vehicle pretty sober, went and stole a bunch of alcohol from a convenience store, then got brick-faced and then mowed over a bunch of pedestrians.
say the by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 09:08 · Score: 0

anonymous coward, hiding on the internet
do as I say, not as I do
Let him fry. by Endloser · 2014-01-13 13:04 · Score: 1

When you do something like this you know the consequences. It is shameful that he turned on those he fought alongside. And if you don't agree with that, let him fry for breaking the law. Either way, neither side should consider him worthy of anything other than a long prison sentence for breaking the rules of their society.
blow up dolls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 19:13 · Score: 0

dancing
The US loves to lock em up... by pebear · 2014-01-14 06:56 · Score: 1

1 in 30 people in the US are under the supervision of the correctional system in the US. We really need to decriminalize being human. There are too many laws and to many ways for people to get arrested and end up at the bar of justice in this country. You can break laws that you never ever imagined ever existed. Hell I probably broke a dozen or so just posting this stupid post...

--
Paul E. Bahre