Slashdot Mirror


Kentucky Anonymous Member Indicted Three Years After FBI Raid (arstechnica.com)

A federal grand jury has indicted "KYAnonymous" -- more than three years after FBI agents raided and searched his home -- and charged him under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes an article from Ars Technica: After The New York Times published an account [late in 2012] of a horrific rape against a teenage girl in Steubenville, Ohio, an online vigilante campaign was started...the campaign targeted local officials who the vigilantes felt weren't prosecuting the rape investigation seriously because the alleged perpetrators were high school football players... Two teenage boys ended up being charged, and when the case went to trial in March 2013, the two were convicted of rape and sentenced to one to two years in prison.
The indictment says Deric Lostutter "knowingly and intentionally joined and voluntarily participated in a conspiracy" to "harass and intimidate and to gain publicity for their online identities," according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. "If convicted in the Kentucky case, Lostutter could face a maximum penalty of 16 years in prison (no more than five years on each of three counts, and one year on a fourth)..."

"The federal search warrant of Lostutter's home listed 'Guy Fawkes masks' among the items agents were looking for."

176 comments

  1. Time to bring up the due process motions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    3 years after collecting evidence?

    What, was the Grand Jury out for coffee?

    The sad thing is they're going for more time than the real offenders.

    I say we tell the Kentucky US Attorney about more serious crimes that could be occurring in her jurisdiction. Ones that would be a better use of taxpayer monies.

    1. Re:Time to bring up the due process motions by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 2

      Well, it's certainly not Hilary.

      It's clear some people are above the law.

    2. Re:Time to bring up the due process motions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Evil hacker arrested for outing rapists" does not make a good headline.
      Gotta let everyone forget.

      Just look at the claims against them, a nice, conveniently 'clean' charge of conspiracy to harass and intimidate all for personal publicity.

    3. Re:Time to bring up the due process motions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank gawd that he's getting more time than the people
      who actually committed the crime _collectively_ are getting... ...considering he didn't actualy do _anything_.

      CAP === 'celery'

    4. Re:Time to bring up the due process motions by guises · · Score: 0

      You're comparing a maximum sentence to an actual sentence, he is not getting more time than the other offenders. And they are all real offenders (provided that he is found guilty): vigilantism is a real crime and it is right and just that it be prosecuted. Yes the maximum penalties are excessive, there are many problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but it's minimum sentences, not maximum ones, which tend to be the real affront to justice.

    5. Re:Time to bring up the due process motions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was complicated by the fact that this guy is no angel: www.dericlostutter.org has the nasty details.

  2. Rape is worth 1-2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But trying to get people to investigate it is 15 years?

    1. Re:Rape is worth 1-2? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      He wasn't on the football team.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Rape is worth 1-2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they see it as rape only has 1 victim, while computer attacks affect many victims?

    3. Re:Rape is worth 1-2? by Barny · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is sad I laughed at this, almost as sad as the question ye olde grandparent asked.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    4. Re:Rape is worth 1-2? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      At my high school, a bus to take the Physical Olympics team an hour away to a competition was "not a worthwhile academic pursuit". Sending the FBLA to the other end of the state for a *typing contest* was. The school has a multi-thousand seat football stadium, and when knuckledraggers announce which bogus scholarship they're going to accept, choppers come in from the regional large city's TV stations. When I received 3 academic scholarships, they did not.

  3. I would bet my life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even one item listed on the Warrant was found, But case was made from the fishing.

  4. U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...

    1. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gang rape doesn't pose a threat to our corporate overlords, but hacking and cybercrime does. The system punishes people who threaten the status quo more severely, it doesn't care about teenage girls getting gang raped because that is the status quo and it only affects the little people.

    2. Re: U.S. Legal system by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why so many of us are voting for outsider candidates this year.

    3. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teenage rape only affects little people... well played.

    4. Re: U.S. Legal system by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      The problem here is that this has more of a kid throwing a vase on the floor in a tantrum. Basically saying "I want to be heard, even if that means they scold me, but at least they stop ignoring me."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: U.S. Legal system by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that this has more of a kid throwing a vase on the floor in a tantrum. Basically saying "I want to be heard, even if that means they scold me, but at least they stop ignoring me."

      Be glad another box is being added to the system (the shit box? the penalty box? going to have to work on that one) instead of ammo boxes being opened up... whoops, too late!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: U.S. Legal system by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They're just shooting the wrong democratic pillar.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: U.S. Legal system by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      They're just shooting the wrong democratic pillar.

      I honestly think it doesn't matter. I'm as scared of Republicans as the next guy, and I find Trump as odious as the next guy, but I think that if you could look into both universes you'd find that his appointments would be about equally monetarily-motivated as Hillary's.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a main party (Republicrat) candidate - he is the very definition of a mainstream candidate. Outsider is going to be Libertarian, write-in (Mike Rowe, Bernie or lizard people), or Ralph Nader.

    9. Re: U.S. Legal system by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like what Gary Johnson has to say. Unfortunately, he's not saying it to very many people.

    10. Re:U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to gain publicity for their online identities

      Crime with a punishment of one year. Watch out Facebookers and Twitterers!

    11. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. People say they'll vote for outsider candidates, but in the end they'll vote for Clinton and won't admit it.

    12. Re: U.S. Legal system by houghi · · Score: 0

      And the choice will be going between a 1%-er and a 1%-er. Or as Bart Sim,pson said: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The founding fathers were 1%ers. So was FDR, Kennedy, actually quite a lot of presidents. Some good, some bad (Dubya). Voting for a 1%er is a coin toss, not a shot in the dark.

    14. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Shrug) Whatever. Who wants to live in a country run by bums? Go to Venezuela if that's your thing.

    15. Re:U.S. Legal system by jandersen · · Score: 1

      15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...

      Lots of thing in criminal justice make little sense. In order to make sense, criminal law would have to be the product of pragmatic considerations of what benefits society, and balanced with considerations of individual freedoms etc., rather than vindictiveness, petty moralism and fear of the unknown. A sensible, criminal law would not send people to jail for using a realtively harmless, recreational drug like cannabis, while allowing a widespread trade in more harmful drugs like alcohol and nicotine; that just doesn't make sense. Whther cybercrime should be punished harder than rape, I don't know; it is too wide a category - it covers everything from a silly prank on your school's network, to breaking in to important infrastructure and cause death and mayhem. In my view, a rapist should probably get quite a lot more than 2 years.

    16. Re: U.S. Legal system by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      You have to be a one-percenter just to run, or curry favor with one-percenters. Given this choice, I would rather have an independent rich individual be the candidate. As nerds, can we dream of an Elon Musk administration?

    17. Re: U.S. Legal system by ausekilis · · Score: 0

      Here's hoping at least one outsider gets enough votes to be officially recognized as a political party. I'd much rather we have a 3 or 4 way monkey shit fight during election years than the toddler-level "he pulled my hair on the playground" BS we see today.

    18. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be a one-percenter just to run, or curry favor with one-percenters. Given this choice, I would rather have an independent rich individual be the candidate. As nerds, can we dream of an Elon Musk administration?

      Being South African born disqualifies Musk. Jeff Bezos maybe, but his superficial resemblance to Lex Luthor isn't gonna help.

    19. Re: U.S. Legal system by houghi · · Score: 1

      That is the problem "the give choice". It feels as if you have to choose between being shot in the left or in the right knee.
      To me it feels as if the choice is extremely limited.

      One could also argue that a loner will not have enough power to achieve anything. And even then it is doubtful they are interested in what you want.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re: U.S. Legal system by swb · · Score: 0

      Isn't Trump imbued with the same "hope" that Sanders' small-donor machine had? That a candidate could be elected with some kind of funding base that wasn't the usual collection of rich donors demanding influence?

      I don't know actually true this would be for Trump, but much as been written about his low levels of funding and how little his campaign has spent, indicating that he's taken less money from the usual suspects.

      Of course, I'm not personally investing in the idea that even should he manage to get elected he wouldn't be influenced by the usual rich types, but at least the standard narrative is that he's "using his own money" and "not being bought".

    21. Re: U.S. Legal system by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not personally investing in the idea that even should he manage to get elected he wouldn't be influenced by the usual rich types, but at least the standard narrative is that he's "using his own money" and "not being bought".

      I feel like your summary sentence is a good summary of the situation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting is a tantrum now? Is there a reason other than "you're voting for someone I don't like" or "you're voting for someone who's not popular"? Because at no point during the citizenship test did I answer "yes, but only if it's for one of the two top parties' hand-selected candidates". The obligation starts and ends with voting. It does not obligate someone to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If that puts the country in grave danger, you need to choose a better voting system. Many are available.

    23. Re: U.S. Legal system by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      If you're not scared of BOTH Hillary and Trump, you're not paying attention. IF You are voting for Hillary, because Trump scares you, you're just stupid. BOTH Hillary and Trump are equally scary. However, I would suggest to you that Hillary is much scarier, because of the Sycophantic press that is actively supporting her, that wouldn't lift a finger to support anything Donald does.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    24. Re: U.S. Legal system by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      http://www.foundingfathers.com...

      Nice story, that they were "1%". Unlike the progressive %1 that are pure hypocrites (do as I say, not as I do) who love to tell ME what I need to do, only to do the opposite.

      Sorry, I don't listen to hypocrites.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    25. Re: U.S. Legal system by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      false dichotomy electoral system built around illegal "party" affiliations.

      Imagine a system where Primary elections are to pick the top two candidates from ALL sources, and parties had to nominate their one candidate without the help of publicly funded elections.

      Or, to put it another way, WHY should the public fund the campaigns of party candidate elections.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    26. Re: U.S. Legal system by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Personally, I believe that the people who *should* be in power are too intelligent to run for a federal office. Local, maybe, but you have to compromise too many ideals to run for a federal position.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    27. Re: U.S. Legal system by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you're not scared of BOTH Hillary and Trump, you're not paying attention.

      Don't worry, I am both alert and frightened.

      IF You are voting for Hillary, because Trump scares you, you're just stupid.

      Nope. Don't worry. I may still be stupid, but not because of that. I'm going to write in Sanders (even though it's a protest action and nothing more) and let the chips fall where they may, because at this point I couldn't be arsed to care which turd sandwich we have to bite. Still going to go vote, though.

      However, I would suggest to you that Hillary is much scarier, because of the Sycophantic press that is actively supporting her, that wouldn't lift a finger to support anything Donald does.

      Possibly true. Probably, though, if Trump actually did somehow become president, he would do as necessary to get money, which would mean taking actions which would get support. I voted for Arnie for Cali gov on the basis that he would be ineffectual, and that came to pass. But I don't know if the same would apply to the office of the presidency.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re: U.S. Legal system by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Is it to late to drum up support for the lizard people?

      I actually meant that to be a joke, but I'm not so sure now that I think about it.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    29. Re: U.S. Legal system by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Tell me more about this Luthor fellow. Does he have a campaign website? There's a lot of interest in third-party candidates this time around.

    30. Re: U.S. Legal system by erapert · · Score: 1

      Considering that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo's responses to the Snowden revelations and to being hacked was to encrypt their stuff end-to-end and make an effort to demonstrate that they're on the consumers' side it seems more likely to me that the overlords you should be worried about are the political ones. Look at how Hillary is getting off scott free. Look at the government's reaction to Snowden. Think about who it is that actually makes and has the power to selectively enforce the laws.

    31. Re: U.S. Legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump lent money to his campaign, which has to pay it back + interest.

      This is purely a money seeking move for Drumpf.

      What is particularly sad about him, well one of the things, is that if he had put his trust fund in the S&P at birth and kept it there, he would be much richer than he is now.

      He is a bad businessman.

  5. Re:Why is hacking okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the best trolling I've seen in years! I really like the new Pastor Mich meme, look for it on other slashdot stories.

  6. State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative

    15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...

    Rape, like other violent crimes, is almost always prosecuted under state law. Don't like the sentence? Talk to your your state legislature. Risking a felony conviction under federal law? Never a good idea.

    1. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looking at it as a European, from the outside, I think there's something horrifically wrong that considers rape unimportant enough to leave it to local governments and give them right to punish it weakly (or not at all) but at the same time enforces draconian sentences for things like this on a national level. How did your priorities get so skewed?

    2. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at rape, then look at hacking, then ponder which of the two is more likely to happen to a politician, and which is more likely to be done by a politician.

      And then ponder again why one is punished harshly, and one is ... less so.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Most murders in the US also fall under state rather than federal jurisdiction.

    4. Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, thankfully the entire nation isn't yet fully under federal control.

      This is a very good thing. You EU folks are already finding out the hard way the problem with people far away making laws for you.

      Also who says Federal laws would be objectively better anyway? Why do you assume federal laws are always better than the local laws written by and for locals that the federal laws over ride?

      The EU slave mind is astonishing to me as someone who truly loves freedom.

    5. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that sentence is about ok, in line with killing, vehicular homicide and so forth.

      it's the "cybercrime" one that needs to be changed.

    6. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unimportant enough to leave it to local governments

      If you equate "federal-level" with "important" and "state-level" with "unimportant", you don't understand how the US is organized in the first place.

    7. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by tsotha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beyond that it's always a mistake to compare actual sentences with potential maximum sentences. This guy is unlikely to get anything like 16 years, assuming he's convicted.

    8. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Council of Europe produces guidelines for common criminal policy in some areas, even for sentences. Terrorism in particular was an example where the common policy suggested inordinately harsh sentence compared to the general sentence policy in my country. When federal or international norms replace the local traditions, values and criminological research, something fundamental is violated against in return of lofty ideals of common policy. There will be discontentment before acceptance sets in. This US example is in this sense already existing situation in Europe, at least partially, and increasingly so within the EU. A comforting thought is that these footballers should be in the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives.

    9. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Calydor · · Score: 0

      Hey American, as a European it seems completely insane that you have ONE COUNTRY with FIFTY different sets of laws depending on your current location.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Ramze · · Score: 2

      It's not left to local governments. Local governments in the USA are cities and counties. States are the equivalent of countries in the EU (or they would be if the EU had a stronger central government). Federal laws are only for dealing with borders between states or between countries -- or at least that's where they stem from. Commerce is where most of those border laws get their teeth. This was an internet crime, so it crosses borders and deals with interstate commerce. States deal with rape, murder, theft, etc... unless the crime crosses borders, and then often the State and the Fed can press charges (separately as they are considered separate offenses to separate sovereign governments.)

    11. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Ramze · · Score: 1

      Why? The USA is roughly the same size as Europe. Do all the countries in the EU have the exact same laws?

      The states in the USA are separate sovereign governments united by a federal constitution that mostly exists for mutual defense, protection of civil rights, and control of commerce across various borders. Think of the USA as the EU and the states as EU member countries. The USA just has a much stronger union than the EU... and unfortunately, no defined method for states to secede. (The South tried to leave, but we were too stupid to let them.... which is why the USA isn't as progressive as the EU... with Republicans blocking universal health care, etc. etc.)

    12. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But we don't call the union "a country". And arguing with voters is silly, look at how US citizens vote.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Do all the countries in the EU have the exact same laws?

      They don't. But then again, there's no separate EU justice system that randomly scoops out some cases from local justice systems to deal with them on its own.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      Where government polices private conduct, it often becomes abusive. When the states abuse the liberties of the people, we can appeal any abuses to the Federal courts. When Washington does that, as with the War on Civil Liberties *cough* Drugs, there is nowhere to appeal.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    15. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Here in American traditionally we don't consider state governments unimportant. The original role of the federal government was to regulate and deal with justice for matters that logically and usually impact people across multiple states.

      Rape does not usually happen over state lines, so most of the time there is no reason for the feds to be a party to the investigation, prosecution, or penalization of it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well frankly originalist thinking said that states trumped except when the federal law was made with direct correlation with an enumerated power that was in the constitution. Anything that was not an express enumerated power was to be left to the State. It is funny that the federal Leviathan has gobbled up more and more power so that this has been changed to "Whatever we feel we don't want to bother regulating is your jurisdiction". We the people are the ones responsible for this as we allowed it to happen.

    17. Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interpol? The Hague/World court? Or are we just going to pretend Slobodan Molosovic didn't get tried outside Serbia?

    18. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      > Looking at it as a European, from the outside, I think there's something horrifically wrong that considers rape unimportant enough to leave it to local governments

      That's like saying the EU should be in charge of all laws for every country in it.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    19. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's several European nations where the voters are electing actual neo-Nazis.

    20. Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those organizations are international and nothing to do with the EU. Just because the US don't like to ratify international agreements related to acting against war crimes doesn't mean they don't exist.

    21. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing that the process here isn't random, then.

      You just don't understand how jurisdiction works here.

    22. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey American, as a European it seems completely insane that you have ONE COUNTRY with FIFTY different sets of laws depending on your current location.

      Well you're a stupid peasant, so who cares what you think?

    23. Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't see the forest from the trees.

    24. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murder is also a state-level crime.

      That's not a "minor" thing, it's because most murders - and most rapes - are likely to happen in a well defined place, and there'll be no major arguments about who should have jurisdiction to investigate and try it.

      Whereas hacking - notoriously - raises those issues all the time, and almost immediately becomes an "interstate" offence.

    25. Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no federal murder statute.

  7. The defense should be by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe, just maybe this guy broke the law. But the law he broke is wrong, unconstitutional, and should be overturned.

    Problem is, the guy needs a few $100k and the ability to stay in jail for a few years until this hits the supreme court.

    1. Re:The defense should be by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the law he broke is wrong, unconstitutional, and should be overturned.

      Laws against conspiracy to harass and intimidate are unconstitutional? Do tell.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1 to 2 years for rape and 16 for computer fraud? Something is out of wack! That poor girl is going to be haunted by that for the rest of her life. Anonymous right or wrong attempted to shed light on corruption and even with the attention, they got away with it. The American people need to wake up and focus on what's matters before it is too late.
         

    3. Re:The defense should be by fred911 · · Score: 1

      No need to hit the Supreme Court, just a decent juror that knows about nullification and is willing to exercise that option.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He'll get a jury trial.

      Now the judge can instruct the Jury on what to do and tell them "you have to convict if what he did broke the law".

      Juries have been giving middle fingers to judges for centuries now. Judges don't like it one bit.

      The amount of publicity this kid got and the results he got should have at least someone on the jury outraged enough not to vote to hang him on any of the counts.

      Personally, what I'd do is convict him on a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace and give him a week in the slammer.

    5. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws against conspiracy to harass and intimidate are unconstitutional? Do tell.

      It's unconstitutional for a law to infringe upon rights, even if the declared purpose may seem legitimate.

      See for example, the Texas TRAP laws, purportedly legitimate, but in character, not. Or the various death penalty rulings, the courts in the US have not ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in the entirety, but instead pointed out the manner of execution was, or the determination of its application.

    6. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't need the computer fraud and abuse act to make those things illegal.

    7. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a real shame they couldn't possibly have used legal means to protest something they disagree with, instead of illegal harassment!

    8. Re:The defense should be by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Quickest way to get kicked out of consideration for jury duty is to mention jury nullification. Of course, you might also get a contempt of court charge....

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    9. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in Kentucky, not a US Coastal City with well known Higher Education Facilities

    10. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a real shame they couldn't possibly have used legal means to protest something they disagree with, instead of illegal harassment!

      That's the trick, just in Georgia recently, a journalist was brought up on charges for abusing public records requests, dismissed, but still, a problem that it was even attempted.

      That sometimes the perceived need goes further, is unfortunate, but no less possible in its truth. It is far too easy for silence to overcome virtue.

       

    11. Re:The defense should be by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A decent juror?

      Good luck with that.

    12. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jury selection specifically eliminates those with any understanding of the issue at hand when it comes to trials for the computer fraud and abuse act.

      They are also generally excluded if the selection process shows a hint of knowing about things such as nullification.

      Basically the guy's only hope is for twelve techs to pretend they're inbred racists with their keenest intellectual interest being daytime dramas, but then they'd have to do so without falsely representing themselves in a way that could get them charged.

    13. Re:The defense should be by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone from Kentucky, if people need to attend an institution of higher education to be aware of basic concepts of jurisprudence then our primary education system is more messed up than I thought ;) I would imagine he's actually got a pretty good chance given how strong an anti-establishment / anti-government streak there is in Kentucky.

    14. Re:The defense should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of publicity this kid got and the results he got should have at least someone on the jury outraged enough not to vote to hang him on any of the counts.

      Kid? He's an adult. Now and at the time he did his crime.

      Publicity? Dipshit did his crime *after* the NY Times ran an article about the case. So yeah, I'm sure he greatly boosted publicity about the case with his hacking after the NY Times brought it nationwide attention.

      Results? What fucking results? He did his crime four months *after* the rapey football players got arrested. An arrest that happened only 11 days after the rape. And they were convicted just over 8 months after the rape. That's pretty fucking quickly. Did he want them strung up by Christmas or something?

      He's a fucking moron. Hopefully he'll think about how stupid he was every day he's incarcerated.

  8. If you want to be anonymous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...you probably shouldn't use the abbreviation for the state you live in as part of your handle.

    1. Re:If you want to be anonymous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he thought the 'KY' would help him slip away? Being in Kentucky was just a coincidence.

  9. Re:And apple wans to help the rapist by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

    The same Trump that you're alleging that about, yes. I'd be curious about your thoughts on Hillary Clinton's deliberate and sustained campaign to destroy the reputations of women who allege - in good numbers, and with lots of other people chiming in - that her husband is a serial abuser of women (and his official power in the process) and rapist. Do you inject your defense, or offense, at Hillary's role in preserving her own prospects of political power by smearing the women her husband assaulted ... into other threads here on /.? No? Why not?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  10. Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One or two years for rape, 16 years for embarrassing politicians into taking action on said rape. The priories of our "justice" system never cease to amaze me.

    1. Re:Sounds about right by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Take a look at the average politician. Now ponder what's probably more likely to happen to him: Getting raped, or getting shamed for not doing his job?

      It's simple self interest, nothing else.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Sounds about right by XXongo · · Score: 1

      One or two years for rape, 16 years for embarrassing politicians into taking action on said rape. The priories of our "justice" system never cease to amaze me.

      Anonymous did not "embarrass politicians into taking action on said rape." The New York Times did that, with their investigative reporting resulting in a two-page feature story on the case, and the subsequent spreading of the story by hundreds of newspapers in the U.S.. (The New York Times story is, in fact, where Anonymous learned about it. Their investigation consisted of reading the newspaper.) Anonymous did, as far as I can tell, pretty much nothing useful. They stole some files which the prosecutors already had in evidence (and thank goodness they did! If they hadn't already had them, stolen files would have been useless as evidence.)

      Really, give the New York Times some credit here. It was their work--not Anonymous-- that brought the case out of the shadows.

  11. The lesson to learn here by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rape someone instead of getting the feds to investigate the rape. You'll be doing less time.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The lesson to learn here by phayes · · Score: 1

      That would be the lesson you would draw from this...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:The lesson to learn here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rapists were both 16 years old. The "hacktavist" was in his mid-to-late twenties. Minors are sentenced differently than adults for _very good_ reasons.

      The rapists are both _still_ registered sex offenders.That part of the punishment will be going on for a while longer than the maximum possible penalty that Lostutter is looking at.

    3. Re:The lesson to learn here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, violently gang-raping the football players, might have been a better punishment anyway.

  12. This guy is as Anonymous as anonymous cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actual Anonymous are Israeli state-sponsored.

    No sooner than you blow the whistle, they have media people trying to lie again.

    Anonymous are Israeli state-sponsored.
    Lizard Squad are NSA.

    Now Queue how some teenage girls in Alabama are Lizard Squad.

    1. Re: This guy is as Anonymous as anonymous cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a member of Tinfoil Hat?

  13. Re:Why is hacking okay? by Opportunist · · Score: 3

    If the justice system fails to do what the public feels is "right", it usually leads to vigilantism.

    And the amount of vigilantism I get to see in the US leads me to the conclusion that there is REALLY something going VERY wrong with it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Piss off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1-2 years for rape, up to 16 years for making sure authorities do their bloody jobs right?

  15. Raping a computer is worth 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computer crimes prosecuted x8 - x16 more.

    1. Re:Raping a computer is worth 16 by XXongo · · Score: 2

      But trying to get people to investigate it is 15 years?

      1. Anonymous didn't "get people to investigate." This was a feature story in the New York Times, and subsequently spread across newspapers across the US.

      2. Sixteen years is the maximum possible sentence, if the hacker were convicted on all counts and for some reason the judge gave them the maximum sentence and made the sentences consecutive. That's not the way real sentences happen. More likely, since it's a first offence on a non-violent crime, would be a short sentence of a few months at most, followed by probation. Check the sentencing guidelines here: http://www.sentencing.us/

      3. The sentence for the rapists was relatively low because they were under juvenile sentencing guidelines. The law has an odd belief that when a crime is committed by somebody under 18, they should not be put in jail for decades.

    2. Re:Raping a computer is worth 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean the developers of Windows 8 will finally be charged and prosecuted?

    3. Re:Raping a computer is worth 16 by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      "Anonymous didn't "get people to investigate."" Anonymous got anonymous to "investigate". There's a difference

  16. US and EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    State v.s. Nation in the US is much closer to nation v.s EU. Most of our states are larger, both size and population wise, than many of the EU member states, and were sovereign before the US was.

  17. not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No reasonable prosecutor would take that case. All he did was hack into their computer, which using Comey's logic in the Clinton debacle, means he didn't necessarily INTRUDE into that computer (totally different)

  18. Re:Why is hacking okay? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    The real point here is not what was done but the mistakes that were made. Admit nothing, deny nothing, the only answer, we will discuss this in court, and to ensure you do not get refused to answer all over the place, answer questions with questions, never answer questions just seek clarification of the questions, the motives of the questioners and the basis for the questions (when they claim you are not answering the claims, state clearly that you legally are answering those questions). What is happening here is those who did not want to prosecute the original case because the rapists were protected and the victim was a nobody, now want revenge. Note they waited until after the real criminal were released so their penalties could not be reviewed whilst they pursued greater penalties against those that exposed the corruption.

    I actually think the prosecution is a scam, designed to bait individuals into playing 'Anonymous' and then targeting them, it's a trap. Otherwise why dredge it up three years later.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  19. Re:Why is hacking okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rape is sentenced at 3 months or a couple of years. Accidentally growing pot in your backyard because the seeds fell out of your bird feeder is sentenced to 10+ years. "Unauthorized" access of a college network (plugging into an available LAN port) sentenced for 35 years - half a lifetime. Picking up the feather of an endangered bird (but you don't have any clue what it is) can carry a sentence of 5 years per feather.

    Our politicians like to rape and steal everything they can get their hands on, obviously they can't be expected to pay for it (even when they occasionally put on a show trial). For controlling the little people, however, politicians need every possible means of keeping the boot on our necks.

  20. It's Deja Vu All Over Again. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Gang rape doesn't pose a threat to our corporate overlords, but hacking and cybercrime does.

    I'll repeat what I posted earlier.

    In the American federal system, crimes of violence are almost always prosecuted under state law. You don't like the sentence for rape, you complain to your state legislature. Crimes with an interstate or foreign dimension are usually a federal responsibility.

    The geek might have noticed that the everyone else was asking the FBI to take the lead in investigating the police shootings of two black men last week --- which ought to have told him who has credibility when it comes to standing up for the little guy.

    1. Re:It's Deja Vu All Over Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that they are seeking an indictment for "intimidating and harassing to advance their online identities could easily apply to virtually every online media business these days, perhaps he can convince the jury of selective prosecution and denial of due (fair) process, considering that such corporations appear to be essential immune to the same crime.

      Has any corporation been prosecuted for such a crime?

      Given how many times one has to fight one's browser just be saved from intimidating and harassing behavior designed to advance corporate identities, perhaps anti-corporate activists should spend more time running for local prosecutor than protesting in the streets.

  21. Re: Why is hacking okay? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Stop trying to think; you're quite simply no good at it.

  22. Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually was thinking about that. A fair percent of crimes are never solved, and the percent that is solved has increased in the last 50-60 years.
    But, I can imagine a major factor is the internet is increasing awareness, often instantly, of crimes that 20 years ago would have been on the 4th page of a local newspaper.
    Crime is down, but access to information is up. I would also ad that the quality of news reporting has move markedly toward sensationlistic.
    Maybe this creates more rage in people who want to fix the world. Although the shooter of the police in Dallas highlights the problems with that.

    1. Re:Vigilantism by DFDumont · · Score: 1

      Vigilantism (Adj when describing something) - done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures
      This action of bringing awareness, is not that. Perhaps harassment, but not vigilantism. Word choice colors your argument.

    2. Re:Vigilantism by guises · · Score: 1

      Colors it how? I think I was pretty clear that I'm against this individual, or any individual, deciding for themselves how a case should go without the benefit of due process, and acting on it. If that wasn't clear before then I am stating it now. I'm making no claims about being impartial, I am stating unequivocally that I think this was a negative action.

      Further, I don't know where you're getting your definition that vigilantism requires violent action but Oxford says no it doesn't.

    3. Re:Vigilantism by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Is vigilantism a real crime? If so, then it is unnecessarily so, since other crimes are usually committed in the act of committing vigilantism. But at any rate, vigilantism does not appear to be the crime the person is being charged with.

    4. Re:Vigilantism by guises · · Score: 1

      Vigilantism is the common name, not a legal term, for any of a set of actions which are illegal. There aren't any laws specifically against "vigilantism," by that name, but it is none the less illegal. Many other common names for crimes are like this. Rape, for example, is not illegal by that name, but it is none the less illegal to commit rape.

    5. Re: Vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your dictionary sucks. Vigilantism is a noun.

    6. Re:Vigilantism by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I don't go running to a dictionary as if it was prescriptive rather than descriptive. You said that vigilantism was a "real crime". Dictionaries do poorly when it comes to the meaning of two words together like that anyways, but in my book a real crime is a crime which has a law on the books specifically by that name. In the jurisdictions I frequent, assault is a real crime but the real crime when people say they have been assaulted is battery. The crime of assault is threatening to harm another person.

    7. Re:Vigilantism by guises · · Score: 1

      I don't go by that book. Things in my book can be crimes even when there is not a law on the books specifically by that name. I gave the example of rape, in addition to vigilantism. Stealing would be another example.

      Laws require greater specificity than these common terms give, but the common terms do represent real crimes: laws are made to address the common-term understanding of criminal activity, rather than the other way around. So starting from the initial position that vigilantism should be illegal, the lawmakers then craft a set of laws which insure that all of the actions with which vigilantism can be expressed have been addressed. The resulting laws don't say they're against vigilantism, they say they're against lynching or harassment or whatever, but the effect and the goal are the same.

    8. Re:Vigilantism by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      laws are made to address the common-term understanding of criminal activity, rather than the other way around.

      Not only does that not make sense to me, it doesn't make sense in regard to freedom. The original story was about the CFAA law. I don't even want to know what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think that law was meant to address. On the other hand, I am a bit curious what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think criminalizing copyright infringment was meant to address.
      Laws are meant to deal with problems. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a common term for any given activity that has been criminalized. The law is supposed to let people know with great specificity what they can and cannot do in exercise of their freedoms.

    9. Re: Vigilantism by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I suspect that lynching and... Wait... many if not forms of harassment aren't even a crime, and you'd be hard pressed to even get civil redress for at least some. When trying to figure out why lynching might be a separate crime, I went not to vigilantism, but to murder. They didn't go to either murder or vigilantism and figure out all the different ways someone can murder/be a vigilante and pass laws for each and every one of them, see lynching and then go, oops I guess we missed one of them. Lynching was already a crime of murder or attempted murder. Where lynching was made a separate crime in the American south, according to my reasoning juries probably did some of that jury nullification type of thing and legislators thought something new had to be done. My guess is that lesser sentences might have been imposed to encourage juries to convict. I haven't actually seen the sentencing rules, at first had it in my head that they wouldn't be available or hard to compare to the original statutes for murder and when I finally worked my mind around that, ran straight into news articles about laws used to arrest some activists that (in my head again) I think will probably drown out legal results and are something I want to look into to boot. So, I'm finding it hard at the moment to hold up my end of speculation.

    10. Re:Vigilantism by guises · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you're going with the copyright talk, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act isn't about copyright. The person in the article is being tried for accessing a computer without authorization. You don't want to know what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" I think that law was meant to address? I'll tell you anyway: part of it was meant to address accessing a computer without authorization.

      I... am having some trouble interpreting your replies, I have no idea why you feel this way, but to try and clarify:

      Lawmaker A: "This person was trying to take the law into their own hands! Harrassing someone they decided was guilty, trying to stir up a mob. There was even talk about lynching!"

      Lawmaker B: "That's terrible, we can't have vigilantes acting outside the law. Lynching is already illegal, no need to do anything there, but they're going to get away with the harrassment, since there's nothing currently on the books preventing them from doing it in the way that they did it."

      Lawmaker A: "You're right, this will take a new law about harassment. Let's get on that. It'll help me score some 'tough on crime' points with my electorate..."

      Is that any better? If you start from the principle that vigilantism is wrong, then it just comes down to recognizing when it happens and when it might happen and making laws to address those instances. Likewise rape, likewise theft, and so on.

    11. Re: Vigilantism by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Minor point: Harassment is generally not considered behavior bad enough to criminalize and too many people see it as their right to do so under the right circumstances for that to change. When sexual harassment comes up, it is usually a tort, a civil matter.

      With the CFAA, my thinking was that the law had to be updated because being authorized to access a computer was significantly different from authorization to a physical property that some judge determined that those laws didn't apply. I suspected you had some other overarching concept besides authorization in mind in the same way you seem to think vigilantism is an overarching concept that makes harassment a crime, which as I've pointed out, usually isn't a crime. The odd thing is that the two examples you are giving for vigilantism are examples where the majority of the local people don't usually see it as a crime, but the just punishment of someone not knowing their place and it happens too far from other people for them to care. Sometimes (maybe a lot of the time) there is a special interest group when people of a group are unjustly targeted, but those aren't going to be impressed with the law being promoted as part of a tough on crime stance. Starting from the principle that something is wrong allows people to criminalize things that have no business being criminalized and that is at least one of the points I am trying to get across to you. I understand that the CFAA doesn't have to do with copyright but copyright infringement is one of the things that recently went from a civil matter to a criminal matter and I was at least a little bit curious as to what you might think the overarching principle might be. Harassment is not a real crime in either use of the phrase.

    12. Re: Vigilantism by guises · · Score: 1

      Starting from the principle that something is wrong allows people to criminalize things that have no business being criminalized and that is at least one of the points I am trying to get across to you.

      Really? Here I thought you were just very very passionate about semantics for some baffling reason.

      Okay, so if that's your real argument here then how do you suggest laws be made? I'm not clear on how that would work, since this is how it's always done: "Murder is wrong! We should make some laws about it. Also stealing. Also people who take too many items through the express lane." Lawmaking is inevitably reactionary.

      Your quibble over harassment is unimportant to the argument, but there certainly are forms of harassment which are illegal. Less so in the United States than in many other places. This demonstrates the need for specificity in lawmaking, which shows why there's a difference between common speech and legal speech, but it doesn't really change anything. Laws about harassment still stem from the "harassment is bad" principle.

    13. Re: Vigilantism by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      At some point of in time someone decided, "Murder is a problem. We need one law." At another point, "Manslaughter is a problem." Not because somebody sat down and said "Let's try to outlaw evey wrongful death." If I understand correctly most stuff that causes cancer is still civil law, not criminal. And in fact I seem to remember saying that in an ideal world, civil court action was the recourse. However, I acknowledge that sometimes things can get to be too big of a problem for civil law. In that case, the piecemeal approach is the best. Problem is, people are looking to have the state do their dirty work for them as with copyright. The Pokemon Go situation is interesting since trespassing is mainly a problem that I see should be pretty solidly in the realm of civil law, but the tone being taken in warnings is one of it being a crime. I find it sad that law has come to be so strongly associated with crime.

    14. Re:Vigilantism by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      " I think I was pretty clear that I'm against this individual, or any individual, deciding for themselves how a case should go without the benefit of due process, and acting on it."

      In the steubenville rape case, due process failed, period. This man took justice into his own hands, and is being punished for it by cowards.

  23. No good deed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They waited so long because when the whole rape convictions were still fresh, getting revenge for tattling on someone important would have caused too much of a stir.

    Wouldn't want those dissatisfied with a lack of justice in the justice system to start thinking the CFAA's an abusive, overreaching tool of oppression, lest they start reacting the way the black folk did to theirs...

  24. Guy Fawkes masks by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    ...search warrant... listed 'Guy Fawkes masks' ... items agents were looking for.

    Makes sense. After all, we know you can't hack corrupt politicians unless you wear a silly plastic mask.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  25. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like KYanonymous will need KYjelly soon.

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol he won't last one day in prison! You know what happens to nerds in prison? Gang rape is probably the nicest thing that will ever happen to him there! He will become a human toilet!

    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right. We really need prison reform. It should be about reform, not retribution. Go ahead, mod me down.

      Now, if you really want to punish this so-called nerd, how about ban him from using a electronic devices for life? Or would that be cruel and unusual treatment?

    3. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such contemptible delight at the thought of the grossest tortures being visited upon this poor knave. Repent, thou vile capitalist dog!

      - Pastor Mitch

    4. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm ok with having nerds beaten up and turned into human toilets, thank you very much. :)

    5. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, my dear troll (I know you're trolling but thank you for demonstrating once again the lack of humor and intelligence on the part of the nerds), I joyfully contemplate the debasement, torture and ultimately the obliteration of this contemptible neckbeard. We should all rejoyce at the thought that once again the Beautiful World has been rid of a zitfaced socially deficient nuisance.

  26. Re:Why is hacking okay? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 0

    Jesus tells us what to do in such a situation. Rather than use force, we are commanded to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

    Really? Because according to your book and your fairy tales, this fictional character actually said these:

    Matthew 10:34-36: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

    Matthew 15:3-4: "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

  27. Juvenile by aepervius · · Score: 3, Informative

    They only got 1 to 2 years because they were 16 and 17 and were tried as juvenile (not adult) and so got only up to the point they reached adulthood. The other guy was 18+ at the time of the fact. This is the difference and explain everything.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Juvenile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only got 1 to 2 years because they
       
      didn't do it "with a computer".

  28. Re:And apple wans to help the rapist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    faggot

  29. And the reason for the delay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any jury would likely have laughed in the judges face when this first happened.

    No, well, memories may have faded enough that they can get a conviction.

  30. The vigilantes picked the wrong time and place. by edgedmurasame · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After The New York Times published an account [late in 2012] of a horrific rape against Alayna Macaluso in Steubenville, Ohio, an online vigilante campaign was started...the campaign targeted local officials who the vigilantes felt weren't prosecuting the rape investigation seriously because the alleged perpetrators were high school football players

    In 2016, the vigilantes would have been given an imprimatur to destroy the town, as exemplified by the recent Stanford case.
    The prevailing attitude at Stanford is that disputed consent only favors the woman, and that Turner's hometown must be made to pay for his actions.

    If it was at a prestigious university, they'd not even need a rape case to destroy the person. Washington & Lee used Title IX to wreck someone's life.
    The worst parts of it are that no crime occurred, that due process wasn't served, and that there was no legal charge - just straight intimidation.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  31. 1-2 for Rape, 15 for harassing official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like its far worse to give a govt official a hard time, than is is to rape a girl.

    1. Re: 1-2 for Rape, 15 for harassing official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what happens if I rape an official?

    2. Re:1-2 for Rape, 15 for harassing official by Krakadoom · · Score: 1

      Note to self. According to the justice system, it would have been better to just rape the officials, than mildly embarass them publicly.

    3. Re:1-2 for Rape, 15 for harassing official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rapists were minors, this guy was not. They were given time that'd bring them up to their 18th birthdays.

  32. Re: Why is hacking okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All feminists are rapists.

  33. What's Johnson's super PAC? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then say it to those people that he is failing to reach. What IEO PAC supports him?

    1. Re:What's Johnson's super PAC? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      PurplePAC and AlternativePAC are the two major SuperPACs that have been formed to support Johnson.

      But you must understand, Libertarian candidates typically are ethical and principled, and do not often avail themselves to all the legal means of supporting their candidacies. IF you don't like SuperPACs, you don't use them. If you don't like Government funded campaigns, you don't ask for government funding. If you don't like the status quo, you use ONLY that which your ethics and principles allow, and forgo the rest even if it is detrimental to current campaigns.

      This is a longstanding debate in the Libertarian party, compromised principles to win vs staying true to your values and continue to lose.

      THIS year, however, is different. Enough people HATE both R and D candidates in such a way, that it should be easy to get 10% and possibly 20% of the electoral vote. The trick would be to get closer to 1/3 of all the votes cast, which would be a HUGE indictment of the "status quo" candidates of Trump and Clinton. To get there, everyone who HATES those two, need to come over to Libertarian Gary Johnson.

      And while you may not like everything about Gary Johnson, at least he is not someone you "Hate". Which should be enough to get you to NOT vote for (D) or (R) Candidates. I mean, if you HATE both the candidates, PLEASE start supporting (not just voting for) Gary Johnson. THIS year is the year to break the FALSE dichotomy electioneering of our country.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:What's Johnson's super PAC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/two-super-pacs-have-formed-to-start-supporting-gary-johnson/

    3. Re:What's Johnson's super PAC? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the pointers to PurplePAC and Matt Kibbe's AlternativePAC. I plan to check them out this week and give if they appear worthy, though it appears AlternativePAC doesn't have its own website yet.

      As for ethics, I look to the GNU project's use of copyleft, a class of licenses that uses copyright to protect the rights of users. If for-profit interests can hire someone "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" or to exercise "the freedom of speech" on their behalf, then in theory, so can the public. IEO PACs supporting a Libertarian would pervert the perversion in a similar manner.

  34. Re:Why is hacking okay? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I'm as anti-religion at the next guy but does die the death actually mean get killed, or just fail to go to heaven? We have to cherry-pick more intelligently than they.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  35. God bless America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Guy rapes girl gets 2 years. Guy rapes computer and could get 16 years. Thank you FBI :)

  36. Re:And apple wans to help the rapist by EricTDuckman1414 · · Score: 1, Troll

    The same Trump who didn't fly on the "Lolita Express" like Bill Clinton did 26 times in full knowledge of Hilary Clinton.

    The same Trump who did fly to Epstein's "sex slave island" and called him a "terrific guy".

  37. Re: Why is hacking okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "this fictional character"

    Dislike religion all you want but Jesus (well his real name Yeshua) is probably one of the most verified historical figures. Saying he didn't exist is as ignorant as saying Mohammed or Julius Caesar didn't exist. You may not believe they were divine but they did exist.

  38. Is this really illegal or just convenient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "harass and intimidate and to gain publicity for their online identities,"

    If this illegal in Kentucky or elsewhere, are prosecutors going to go after virtually every corporate advertising agency next?

    Or is this law merely to avert political inconvenience?

  39. Re:And apple wans to help the rapist by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Yep, we have one candidate whose husband is a rapist and abuser of women, and she viciously attacks his victims.

    We have another candidate who thinks a guy with a sex slave island is a terrific guy.

    Great choice we have here.

    When the system ends up giving us these as our two choices, you know the system needs to be completely overhauled because it can't get much more broken than this.

  40. Re:Whee, I'm a troll! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist ....

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  41. Re:Whee, I'm a troll! by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist ....

    Yeah, and apparently I'm also a SJW who hates democracy.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  42. Re: Why is hacking okay? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

    Where is your evidence?

  43. Re:Why is hacking okay? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

    NIV is a little better at translating than the KJV, obviously. Here's the full start to Matthew 15:

    "Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

    Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!"

  44. Re:And apple wans to help the rapist by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Hey, look! Another fine example of a Hillary supporter, showing their true colors and their inability to articulate any support, whatsoever, for their favorite lying, corrupt candidate. So nice to see consistency from the liberal camp. Nothing if not predictable, especially in their hatred of guys. Would be funny if they weren't so toxic.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  45. FFF... BYEEE... by MACNAYA · · Score: 1

    FFF... BYEEE... G-G-G...

  46. one to two years for rape, 16 for protesting rape by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    One to two years for rape, 16 for protesting rape. If that's not the most fucked up priorities, then go ahead and keep voting Democrat and Republican.

  47. Re: Vigilantism more by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    In an ideal world, there would be no civil or criminal problems. In a lesser ideal world all problems would be civil.
    Copyright was addressed by civil law and then some people got it into their heads they wanted there to be criminal penalties. There can be citizen's arrests that aren't crimes, too.