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."
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.
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.
This. The "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks so we can negotiate a plea bargain to avoid a real trial" methods of prosecutors in what passes for the modern criminal justice system is just sickening.
*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)
Not sure of full details, but I got this much:
18 counts of cyberstalking: filling out a public contact form on the "victim's" website with junk text.
15 counts violating Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: scanning sites for vulnerabilities using commercial available scanning tools.
Not sure what the other 11 counts were.
The only charge he pled guilty to was a violation of the CFAA, downgraded to a misdemeanor, for trying to log in to the Hidalgo County website server 14,000 times, causing a slowdown that prompted them to hire specialists.
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.
So, systemically, how do you combat that? I'm on board with supporting reform, but complaining isn't the same as reform.
Keep in mind actively punish prosecutors for procedural violations won't happen for political reasons.
Remind me to stay the hell out of that area. I'm a serial criminal according to that fucked up legal system.
A career criminal and a member (actually one of the kingpins) of an international professional crime syndicate.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know if I buy that prosecutors throw *everything* they can at you. I was charged with shoplifting once, and I didn't even get a public defender. Instead had to argue my case with the prosecutor directly, and she herself filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge approved. She said her goal was justice.
Just prior to that (I had to sit in the court room and watch her and other prosecutors argue their case against other defendants until it was my turn) I watched her tell the judge that she wasn't offering any kind of plea deal against the previous defendant and that she wanted to go to trial with him, which I'm guessing in his case she had some pretty clear cut evidence for conviction.
(I went home very relieved that day as I had just gotten done watching the BOOK getting THROWN at people by the judge for similar crimes just prior to the judge smiling at me and telling me my case had been dismissed and I may leave.)
Not just modern. This isn't anything new. Prosecutors don't want justice, they're evaluated based on % of convictions, not the % of accused people receiving fair treatment.
That's the whole point in throwing the boko at someone and then extracting a plea deal.
To get you to admit guilt, even if there is none, to aoid the possibility of spending a lifetime behind bars if you should lose an actual court case.
Our jails arent overstuffed because of trials and convictions, but because of plea deals.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You gotta elect people who will rewrite the law. Or you can call a constitutional convention. Either way, it's pretty straight up. If you vote for garbage, don't complain when you get garbage, and especially when you all reuse the same garbage for 20-30 years in some cases. And please, save me all the bullshit about money. Just tune it out.
Now, since we are dealing with a vast majority(98% at present) who will dance to anything, maybe it's time to consider alternatives to majority rule. Some sort of lottery system that would make political campaigns and party affiliations obsolete, and put an end to the career in public service. Everybody over 35 or 40 is subject to being conscripted in. Give them some time to experience life first. Make it like the military, do your three years, and then GTFO, with a small severance, of say six months pay, which would also be reduced to a less obscene level.. You'll still get the occasional Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, Pelosi, and Cruz, but they won't have the powerful financial alliances and the time to cause any irreparable damage. Regardless of what system you use, if you don't apply proper oversight, you are farting into the wind..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
How about not allowing prosecutors to change the charge depending on the plea bargain?
If the prosecutor thinks a person is guilty of X, don't allow them to accept a plea for Y. The most they should be able to offer is a recommendation to the judge of non-maximum sentence.
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.
This is the kind of thing I like to get out of these conversations. This could work at solving the problem, now all we need is a large political apparatus to push it.
I don't know if I buy that prosecutors throw *everything* they can at you. I was charged with shoplifting once, and I didn't even get a public defender. Instead had to argue my case with the prosecutor directly, and she herself filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge approved. She said her goal was justice.
Just prior to that (I had to sit in the court room and watch her and other prosecutors argue their case against other defendants until it was my turn) I watched her tell the judge that she wasn't offering any kind of plea deal against the previous defendant and that she wanted to go to trial with him, which I'm guessing in his case she had some pretty clear cut evidence for conviction.
(I went home very relieved that day as I had just gotten done watching the BOOK getting THROWN at people by the judge for similar crimes just prior to the judge smiling at me and telling me my case had been dismissed and I may leave.)
I have been arrested mainly times in my life. I was a no good junkie who supported my habit by shoplifting. During my stupid 15 year drug addiction, I've gotten in to a lot of scrapes legally, some of which I wasn't guilty of, just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Most the shit I was guilty of.
The problem? Because I could no afford to pay bail, or get a decent lawyer, I was always stuck with public defenders. During probably 20 court trials, I have had only 1 good public defender that actually tried to get shit done, rest the time, they didn't give a fuck. And because I didn't want to stay in jail till trial (which would of been at least 6 months of jail time), I'd take guilty pleas so I'd end up staying in jail a week or so.
TL;DR I did bad shit, I went to jail for it. Because I was poor and couldn't ever bail out, I would of spent years in jail waiting on trials for crimes that don't ever carry more then a month in jail. So I plea bargained because otherwise I'd spend more time in jail trying to prove my freedom, then actually taking the guilty plea and time served.
Fucked up system.
Be seeing you...
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.
Some prosecutors have ethics and follow the rules.
Whereas in the American system, the accused has an incentive to provide a false confession.
That systems exists in a lot of European courts. It is very bad because in that situation the defendant almost never has a reason to cooperate. At best they plead no contest. Since you never get a full confession you have no check on whether people did the crime.
But in the current US system you get confessions in about 10% of the cases where we know that people were actually innocent (the innocence project tracks this).
We don't have plea bargains in Sweden and on balance I can't say I look forward to having them. If they were ever introduced I think they should be capped at (say) max 10% or 15% or some such. I.e. none of that "I'm seeking 99 years in prison, but I'll settle for six months" as is currently not uncommon with US prosecutors. By stopping the prosecutor from lowering the sought penalty more than a reasonable percentage, you could balance the system to where it would be both worth to cooperate, but also not possible for the prosecutor to extort the defendant by skewing the risk/reward calculation to the extent that is common today.
P.S. And of course, in Sweden, if the state prosecutes you, they pay for your defence (i.e. the lawyer of your choice, reimbursed at a proper rate), and prosecutors are appointed, not elected. Last place I want a bloody politician...
Stefan Axelsson
The defendant should not have a reason at all to cooperate and should be allowed to remain silent. It's the duty of the prosecutors to prove the crime, and if they have no solid evidence to start with then the case should never have gone to court.
But there would still be a reason to cooperate. If the punishment for the crime is X to Y years, confessing would make it more likely that it would just be X. So in cases where evidence is strong, the public will likely be spared the cost of a trial and the criminal would still 'profit' by confessing. But a guilty person couldn't be forced into 'accepting' a sentence of X just to avoid being charged with crimes totaling 1000X.
Well, without a trial, how do you know they are guilty?
They admit guilt, because the punishment for the trumped up charges is so out of relation to the crime that happened for real. (Which does not mean that the defendant did the crime, or even a real crime happened, it's just the "visibile" thing) Now we've already concluded that many people take the plea deal to avoid that risk. (Hint: Because of minimum sentencing standards yet another safety valve has been disabled, e.g. the judge sentencing you for a dozen guilty counts to 40 hours social services, because he can see the real scope of the "crime").
So without that coerced admission of guilt how do you know that these guys are guilty? Just because the prosecutor (which risks nothing if he puts an innocent on death row, actually, getting the gulty verdicts even if they are turned over a decade later might be a career boost) says so?
One of the relevant outcomes of the American revolution was the right to a jury trial to avoid these kinds of abuses. The government has managed to void this right by putting an incredible high price (e.g. risk to spend your life in prison for something that might be a misdemeanour worth of a $500 fine. Or not even that.)
One last thing, yes, jury trials are a load for the system. But somebody is creating the load. Notice that many of these "small stuff" in most European countries would have been handled (as being dropped, converted to an "voluntary" reparation) much earlier, e.g. at the police level.
And before you cry, I live in big city, and I can walk the dog in the "worst" part of the city at night, don't carry, and the expected outcome is that I'll just get home, and the dog might be slightly tired. (Not the expected value for some US cities, where I was told by locals, no you cannot carry that expensive looking stuff in the subway). So while our mild justice system can be frustrating from time to time (because you often have the feeling that the perp is getting of easy), it seems to work better than the harsh system (walked the street with a red light, oops, it's 3rd strike, so it's mandatory life in prison).