Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Threatened With 44 Felony Charges Escapes With Misdemeanor
An anonymous reader writes: It's no secret that prosecutors usually throw every charge they can at an alleged criminal, but the case of Aaron Swartz brought to light how poorly-written computer abuse laws lend themselves to this practice. Now, another perfect example has resolved itself: a hacker with ties to Anonymous was recently threatened with 44 felony counts of computer fraud and cyberstalking, each with its own 10-year maximum sentence. If the charges stuck, the man was facing multiple lifetimes worth of imprisonment.
But, of course, they didn't. Prosecutors struck a deal to get him to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge, which carried only a $10,000 fine. The man's attorney, Tor Eklund, said, "The more I looked at this, the more it seemed like an archetypal example of the Department of Justice's prosecutorial abuse when it comes to computer crime. It shows how aggressive they are, and how they seek to destroy your reputation in the press even when the charges are complete, fricking garbage."
But, of course, they didn't. Prosecutors struck a deal to get him to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge, which carried only a $10,000 fine. The man's attorney, Tor Eklund, said, "The more I looked at this, the more it seemed like an archetypal example of the Department of Justice's prosecutorial abuse when it comes to computer crime. It shows how aggressive they are, and how they seek to destroy your reputation in the press even when the charges are complete, fricking garbage."
But he still need to pay ten thousand dollars?
So the prosecutors 'won' in the end...
*sigh* as always, we have this and that said, no citation. Anyone got a LINK to what he actually DID (excuse me, what he was accused of specifically)
Also, this was TEXAS. You know, file a troll lawsuit/get out of murder charges for being a rich drunk kid/get skewered for being a racist that's not white by the courts . . . who's surprised?
Prosecutors are no longer interested in evenly applying the law in a sane manner.
They're interested in high profile retribution which is intended to send a message which says "don't mess with us, or we'll do this to you".
And, somehow, at the CEO level when there's massive fraud and malfeasance ... absolutely nothing happens.
Because the justice system is dependent on how much money is in your bank account, and who your friends are.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
They wouldn't be doing it, if they — the prosecuting agency(ies) — faced non-trivial monetary loss for every charge, that did not hold up in court...
To keep it harder for entities — both private and governmental — with large legal budgets to initiate frivolous proceedings, the loser must pay winner. There is no such thing currently and even winning a suit can leave one with thousands of dollars in debt. It must become automatic and not require a separate lawsuit by the winner to recoup his legal costs.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Prosecutors struck a deal to get him to plead guilty
So, it did work. No trial, just plead guilty and all the charges will go away.
I'll be the first to admit that they throw everything they think will stick at a defendant. Read through any criminal proceeding and you'll see that most of the trial is about the prosecution getting a little bit out of control and being rebuked by the judge. It's actually funny.
Remember, haxx0rz rule at Wired.
This is from rt.com (English-language Russian news); it explains where the $10,000 figure came from, and sheds light on what the Wired story claimed was Salinas merely logging in an filling in a couple online forms with garbage text:
According to Special Agent Nguyen, authorities narrowed in on their target that January after investigators linked an attempt to breach the site of Hidalgo County with a computer within a residence where Salinas was staying. Salinas “made over 14,000 attempts to log into their website server,” Nguyen charged, in turn slowing down the system for administrators and visitors alike and eventually requiring the county to hire tech specialists. In all, the hack is alleged to have cost Hidalgo County $10,620.32, according to the Sept. 2013 complaint.
Nguyen said the IP address of the computer used by Salinas was responsible for those thousands of attempted intrusions, and a search warrant executed a week after the hack occurred ended with the FBI seizing his laptops and recovering forensic evidence that linked him to the attacks.
Salinas was interviewed by FBI Special Agent Christopher Wallingsford several months later in September 2012 and admitted during that meeting and at a later one that he used a program on his computer to attempt to gain administrative access to the site, but that his efforts were to test the network’s security.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry
Then again, you need the judge and prosecutor to allow you to bring the case, so this is not going to happen unless you're well connected and well heeled.
Remember and never forget or it will be YOU!
Sounds like the prosecution using a winning strategy. They got him to plead guilty to what they wanted him for anyways.
Prosecution apparently knew he could have won in court, so they charged him with a ludicrous number of felonies so that he would be too scared risk taking it before a judge and jury. Which is bullshit, and difficult to call justice. They just, de facto, broke the sixth amendment by intimidating him into declining a fair trial.
Of course they're going to say he could have gone to court, but no sane person would risk many decades to possibly life in prison when they could get off with a fine.
But would YOU want to have a judge who can't operate his cellphone without an accident judge you on the base of laws written by people who don't have much more of a clue concerning the matter in a case where exactly these things play a key role? Supported by 12 douches whose primary concern is to get out of the whole mess as quickly as possible, no matter how.
You sure as hell take the deal, knowing that you have NO chance in hell to a fair trial.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Looks to me they got themselves a mole/stoolie
Jack of all trades,master of none
Throw a bunch of stuff on the wall and hope something sticks. Prosecutors don't really care what that is as long as it's something and they "win".
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So, how does it feel, you pathetic computer nerds? Feel so smug and superior now? Look at you, whenever threatened in the real world (the one that matters) you big v-for-vendetta matrix heroes shit your pants and beg for mercy like the little bitches you are, when you're not ratting out on your butt buddies or offing yourself like jerkoff boy aaron swartz, your big crap hero. Some heroes you are, hunh?
Swartz had obvious mental issues and his case has no relevance to this one whatsoever. If you can't do the time you don't do the crime.
Yes, we have bankers who almost broke the world economy with their criminal behavior who don't get prosecuted and guys like this that potentially get the book thrown at them. There must be a revolving door between federal prosecutors and banks. If the prosecutors leave the banks alone or just fine them a couple of months profits, they will have a lucrative job waiting for them when they leave the government.
Occupy. Ferguson. Aaron.
Anyone else see the pattern of popular outcry over injustices?
Frederick Douglass once said (from a soapbox) "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."
The soapbox isn't cutting it, too many people choosing to ignore what is in front of them.
The ballot box has failed to fix things, too much money at the top trying to keep the status quo.
The jury box has failed, the office of prosecutor has become so perverted that the public no longer trusts them to do the right thing (and with reason)
We either need to massively change the system, or people will start picking up that last box in greater numbers than already are.
Tor Eklund, a hacker's best friend.
When the word plea bargain is spoken all I hear is "forced confession" in keeping with traditions of the worlds leading jailor the United States of North Korea.
People should simply be charged with whatever the crime they are accused of committing... It just isn't the act of using coercion to force a desired outcome alone it is all the second order effects this practice asserts on the whole system turning everything to shit.
Maximum sentences are allowed to pierce the stratosphere because nobody notices when insane sentences are merely threatened but not actually handed out.
Laws are intentionally written in broad terms to be used as a weapon yet again nobody cares because it does not happen.
And before you know it in all ways that matter we are back to kings jailing the peasant fools they happen to dislike.
BRING BACK THE FUCKING TAGLINE: NEWS FOR NERDS, STUFF THAT MATTERS.
Also, FUCK BETA.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
AND FUCK FILTER ERRORS.
The consequences which follow from a $10,000 fine and a guilty plea to a federal misdemeanor hacking charge are not trivial.
His usefulness to Anonymous is at an end --- the collective will be wondering about how much he had to offer in exchange for a plea bargain.
Pleading down to a misdemeanor is common enough for a first offender. But that is a card you can play only once.
It counts as a "win" and his percentage goes up.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
97 percent of the people in federal prisons never had a trial--their cases were settled through plea bargaining. Like this one was, except this guy was lucky enough not to end up behind bars.
Really? Am I the only one that chuckled over the lawyer's name for this case?
I work with a small group called Take Back the Law. One of the proposals we are working on is a ballot initiative that would do just this in specific cases.
Ballot Question:
When someone is accused of a serious crime, and then found innocent of the crime (state withdraws a complaint or the defendant is found not guilty of the serious crimes at trial), should the state be required to reimburse the accused innocent citizen for their expenses and losses, and should the innocent persons record be automatically cleared of everything relating to the underlying crime?
A yes vote will enact the following legislation:
Any citizen of the Commonwealth that is accused of a major felony crime by way of an incitement or probable cause hearing by the State, and in which the state subsequently withdraws the complaint (or portion thereof) before trial, the case is dismissed by the court prior to trial OR the citizen is found not guilty of the major felony crime at trial shall be entitled to claim all costs and expenses related to or extending from the trial (including lost income) against the general fund of the commonwealth.
In any case where the District Attorney’s office moves for, and is granted pre-trial conditions that result in the curtailment of the defendants legitimate employment, the state shall make payments to the accused equal to the amounts the accused would have received had their legitimate work not been curtailed. These payments shall begin on the day such an order goes into effect, and shall be assessed against the general fund of the commonwealth.
In some cases, the effect of a trial may irreparably damage the ability of the innocent defendant to work in a given field once the trial is over. In such cases, the state shall pay for the costs of retraining the innocent defendant for a comparable position in another field. An innocent defendant that is being retrained shall continue to receive the financial payments from the state for the curtailed work while they are retrained and until they are gainfully employed in a position about equivalent to the one they had before the trial. These payments shall be assessed against the general fund of the Commonwealth.
Where the accused is a business owner or principal of a business, the business shall be permitted to sue the state to recover any business losses reasonably attributable to the prosecution of the business owner or principal. This section shall serve as a waiver of immunity from such civil suits.
In any case where prosecutorial misconduct is present, or where the District Attorney’s office had proof of innocence at the time of arraignment, the innocent defendant shall be permitted to sue the District Attorney’s office, the District Attorney and any individual Assistant District Attorney involved in prosecuting or supervising the case for treble damages. This section shall act as a specific waiver of immunity from such civil suits.
In any case where the District Attorney’s office moves for, and is granted pre-trial conditions at arraignment that result in the accused having to vacate their residence or stop working prior to trial, an evidentiary dangerousness hearing must be held within 30 days to determine if a true and substantial risk (not just a theoretical risk) is actually present. This finding shall be binding on all state agencies, both civilly and criminally.
1. This hearing shall require the District Attorney’s office to present substantial evidence of risk to the occupants of the residence or those the accused works with.
2. Hearsay and anonymous reports shall not be admissible in such a hearing.
3. In cases where the victim and the accused are resident in the same house, the testimony of the victim alone can be the basis to support such an order.
4. In any case where the victim does not reside in the same house as the accused, the burden of proof required to support such an order shall be far greater.
5. Accusations alone, or accusations suppor
If the charges stuck, the man was facing multiple lifetimes worth of imprisonment.
Bull****. Federal sentencing guidelines almost never ask for "fully stacked" sentences. Instead, you wind up with X months for the "top count" and a significant "discount" of additional time for each additional count that is either proven or conceded. For a single count, the maximum sentence is almost never handed out unless there are other factors in play. So let's say this guy did admit to all 44 charges and accept a guilty plea on all 44 counts, and that there were no other factors that counted for or against him under the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines would probably recommend that he get a few years for the first count, a year or two more for each of counts 2 and 3, and a month or two for each additional count, likely resulting in a sentence in the 10-15 year range.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
People should simply be charged with whatever the crime they are accused of committing.
I agree, in that prosecutors shouldn't be able to threaten charges of more grievous crimes as a bargaining chip. But one problem is that even the truly applicable charges can compound just as quickly; even given a reasonable prosecutor, the law allows and sometimes requires that they file multiple charges for the same crime.
I'll give an example. About 10 years ago, I was called for jury duty and selected for a case. I was dismissed during voir dire after expressing favorable opinions about firearms, but I was around long enough that I got to learn a bit about the case, the defendant, and the charges. In a nutshell, some guy got pulled over for a traffic violation and the cop subsequently found a gun and a blunt in his car. It was his bad luck that the traffic stop took place near a school.
For this, there was a laundry list of charges; something like:
Everything he did, he was charged for again because the event took place near a school. Having some weed got him 4 misdemeanor charges (the cigar portion of the blunt was "paraphernalia" so they charged for that in addition to the weed). Having one handgun on him got him 4 separate felony charges. And here's the one that blew my mind, there was another charge worded something like "going armed during the commission of a felony." The felony he committed was being armed; it's a felony for a convicted felon to have a gun. So because he was armed while he committed that crime - yeah, seriously! - they tacked on another charge.
Wrap your head around that one:
Because you were carrying a gun while you were carrying a gun, we're going to charge you again.
It's like people who get arrested for resisting arrest; the circular logic is a complete perversion of justice. IIRC, it was that "going armed during the commission of a felony" charge that threatened the longest possible sentence out of all the infractions, and it was a completely bullshit charge to begin with.
Anyway, my point here is that the problem runs deeper than the prosecutors. The problem begins with the laws themselves. There are a lot of prosecutors out there who don't go overboard and reach for the stars, charging a jaywalker with murder or what have you. They don't need to, most of the time; the "legitimate" charges will stack up to enormous sentences all by themselves. We aren't going to get away from that until we revisit the vast corpus of shitty laws out there, especially the ones that require mandatory charges and leave no discretion to the prosecutor.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
As long as the defense allows prosecutors and courts and law makers and law enforcers to get away with it, the practices will continue. You all need to go after them so hard, they would wish they were on the front line of a war.
As a public servant, I often get perplexed at how some people in government forget who is their real boss. They think they work for government, instead of the common man.
And many do that out of fear, because the system will punish them harshly, if they fail to comply with the laws -- even when the laws mean imprisoning (or murdering!) an innocent like we just have seen in the news.
It all stems from the fact that the government never actually is held responsible for its mistakes. We probably should have some kind of ombudsman who could defy government institutions and propose their restructuring (or even extinction), sending the Legislative a new task of proposing better ones. It's not enough to punish people (though it may be necessary)... the system will laugh and get another puppet to manipulate with fear.
But... enough with dreams. :-(
That's the whole point in throwing the book at someone and then extracting a plea deal.
Without plea deals the system would grind to a halt.
Without criminalizing forms of speech the system would be freer to deal with actual crime. The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
You think? So you haven't had the appropriate discussion with a tax professional familiar with expatriate situations, then. You're in for one seriously depressing conversation. Some locations are worse than others due to local issues in the country of desired residence (the UK is one of these, for instance... your in-country tax load would be very high, starting with VAT and petrol and employment of UK+US tax specialists and going downhill from there -- read this and weep), but you will soon find out just how hard Uncle Sam has worked to make your choice to reside elsewhere a very, very difficult one to follow through on after just a short taste of the many US tax-related downsides, never mind what your ultimate destination country has in store for you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So lets forget the courts. The prosecutors only prosecute guilty people, and can always get a plea deal conviction. So stop the nonsense and just let them decide who is guilty of what by themselves.
BUT, give the prosecutors a budget. And charge them for the cost of keeping people in jails. Of course, any fines they impose become revenue to offset that. That way charging a fat corporate becomes much more worthwhile than attacking poor black men. Better yet, why not just privatize the prosecutors, what could possibly go wrong?
Plea bargains are becoming more popular here in Australia, but still nothing like the US.