Slashdot Mirror


Romanian Hacker 'Guccifer' Sentenced To 52 Months In US Prison (reuters.com)

Romanian hacker "Guccifer" who targeted high-profile US politicians has been sentenced for 52 months in prison. Guccifer, whose real name is Marcel Lazar, pleaded guilty in May on charges of aggravated identity theft and unauthorized access of a computer. Lazar targeted former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Bush family and was arrested on hacking charges in Romania in 2014 and was sentenced four years. He was extradited to the U.S. to face charges in March 2016. Reuters adds: Lazar has said in interviews he breached Clinton's private server at her home in Chappaqua, New York, but law enforcement and national security officials say that claim is meritless. Lazar is believed to have hacked into email accounts of about 100 victims between 2012 and 2014. They include prominent political figures such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a relative of former President George W. Bush and Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House aide and an unofficial adviser to Clinton. Clinton is now the Democratic nominee for president. Lazar leaked online memos Blumenthal sent Clinton that were addressed to her private email account, which was used during her time as secretary of state to conduct both personal and work business in lieu of a government account.

117 comments

  1. Frau Hillary will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sieg Hill!

    1. Re:Frau Hillary will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heil Hitlary!

    2. Re:Frau Hillary will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commit corruption: Exonerated and don't even see the inside of a courtroom.
      Expose corruption: Over 3 years in prison.

      And then wonder why people aren't showing respect for the law. Trickle down, indeed.

  2. Anyone surprised by phorm · · Score: 1

    Nope?
    This guy did commit crimes. He also committed them against powerful people. It's not at all surprising he's going to be spending a fair bit of time in prison. The interesting part is more in regards to the extradition, and possibly that he didn't suffer an "accident" on his way to the US for trial.

    1. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry - he won't make it out of jail. There's a good chance he'll get shanked if someone can get a pardon out of it.

    2. Re:Anyone surprised by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guccifer exposes Hillary's illegal email server and goes to jail for it.

      Hilary gets off Scott Free.

      BTW, Comey said "Leeeeave Hillary Alllloneeee" because there were more appropriate administrative punishments available.

      And? What were they? Were the ever applied?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Anyone surprised by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sweet Jesus, but there's a lot of slashdotters think they live in a Dan Brown novel.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Anyone surprised by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      vote trump and he may make it in to WPP

    5. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you aren't on facebook. Most people on my feed currently believe the Clintons are running a crime family who has murdered over 30 people in the last couple of years because they threatened to expose something that would have been in those deleted emails.

    6. Re:Anyone surprised by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Failing to maintain Public Records, and sending and receiving classified information that isn't properly secured (and possibly involved in the murder of a scientist in Iran) actually IS illegal. Her having an email server wasn't the issue. The issue was using that server in an illegal way, which is ... illegal.

      Quit trying to make it about the actual email server, rather than WHY she set it up, and how she actually used it. I have an email server, it isn't illegal to have an email server. I use that server as a tool in a commission of a crime ... that server is important evidence. She shredded that evidence, when she was required .. by law .. to maintain that evidence.

      And we all know why she did this, she is on record as saying as much, to avoid congressional oversight (which is ALSO against the law).

      So, Email server was legal, all the illegal things she did, was caught doing, reasons for doing ... all of that was ... illegal.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comey said the words "She broke the law"

      What do those words mean to you?

    8. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's literally safer to go to war for a Clinton than to work for one.

      If that doesn't raise your eyebrows, it's because the Kool-Aid is working.

      I suppose you must live in a world where clumsy people do things like "shoot themselves in the back of the head" and "drop barbells on their own necks", just before testifying in court, all the time.

    9. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      then your 'friends' are a bunch of idiots

    10. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that comey is a dried up ex-prosecutor who is used to lying about a person's guilt when he has something to gain by it

    11. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was illegal about her email server? Please do tell, as the the law requiring the use of State Department email servers did not go into effect until after her term as Sec of State.

      Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice also used private email servers, so where is your outrage regarding their use?

    12. Re:Anyone surprised by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suppose you must live in a world where clumsy people do things like "shoot themselves in the back of the head" and "drop barbells on their own necks",

      Pretty much. I live below the Mason-Dixon line. The above 2 examples wouldn't even make a top ten of "Dumbest Ways Floridians Killed Themselves in 2016".

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    13. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, CTR is on slashdot too?!

    14. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you must live in a world where clumsy people do things like "shoot themselves in the back of the head" and "drop barbells on their own necks", just before testifying in court, all the time.

      Yeah, that barbell guy, was not going to offer any testimony about the Clintons, but if you had any idea how it works, you'd know that people have spotters for a good reason.

      And shooting yourself in the back of the head, not too hard either, but that wasn't really Clintons either.

    15. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, when was the last time you turned on a TV or checked out who's running for office? This is the US I'm talking about here.

    16. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that barbell guy, was not going to offer any testimony about the Clintons, but if you had any idea how it works, you'd know that people have spotters for a good reason.

      Thank you for Correcting The Record. Fewer than 10 people are killed by weights in weight trainer per year. The trial was a corruption trial attached to someone that was affiliated to the Clintons.

      And shooting yourself in the back of the head, not too hard either

      It's funny that so many people set to testify against the Clintons, investigate the Clintons, or managed the Clintons' finances and stuff, up and commit suicide -- some of them telling friends desperately the week before "I would never commit suicide".

      Kathy Ferguson
      Bill Shelton
      Ed Wiley
      Vincent Foster
      John Wilson
      James Bunch
      Sue Coleman
      Danny Casolaro
      Deborah Jeane Palfrey

      and let's not even talk about plane crashes...
      Why are you so adamant about turning a blind eye to this? Have you lost so much humanity at this political altar?

    17. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fewer than 10 people are killed by weights in weight trainer per year.

      Killed by weights in weight trainer? Maybe you should review your sentences a little better. But the fact is, you can kill yourself that way. Don't pretend otherwise.

      The trial was a corruption trial attached to someone that was affiliated to the Clintons.

      Affiliated as in if you play six degrees of Kevin Bacon you can come up with some connection. Meanwhile, the rest of the world finds the accusation to be spurious. You'd have better luck with the governor of Florida or the CEO of Enron.

      It's funny that so many people set to testify against the Clintons, investigate the Clintons, or managed the Clintons' finances and stuff, up and commit suicide -- some of them telling friends desperately the week before "I would never commit suicide".

      LOL, yeah, because your list of names hasn't been found laughable before? Or because Suicide is REALLY so uncommon?

      http://www.snopes.com/Politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

      and let's not even talk about plane crashes...

      Why not? I'm sure you blame the deaths of the Big Bopper and Will Rogers on them too.

      Why are you so adamant about turning a blind eye to this? Have you lost so much humanity at this political altar?

      Really, I'm more inclined to believe you're a reverse-operative making these kinds of accusations so the Clintons seem to be the victims of wild accusations.

      How much is the DNC paying you? Or are you carrying water for free?

    18. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, Mikes head was stuck so far up Bushes arse, he couldnt see anything.

    19. Re:Anyone surprised by johanw · · Score: 1

      Only 30? Her wars in the middle east have lead to many thousands of killed people.

    20. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 that Killary Took Care of personally.
      Including Osam bin Lauden.
      Some Killin' Just needs the personal touch.

      "Guccifer" did not really hack her eMail, And there is a election happening, I doubt Killary will take the time for such a small fry.

    21. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing illegal about it. Forwarding classified information to it puts you on the same level as Edward Snowden.

    22. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trent Gowdy?
      Linda Tripp?
      Monaca Lewinsky?
      That Other Woman Bill was sleeping with?
      Ken Starr?
      Newt Gingrich?

    23. Re:Anyone surprised by quenda · · Score: 1

      Funny that. You start a war on trumped-up allegations that kills a hundred thousand people, and voters soon forget.
      Put get caught pushing *one* reporter in front of a train and all hell breaks loose. Which is why it just happens in fiction.
      Modern democracy is an odd thing.

    24. Re:Anyone surprised by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Honestly, this is the lamest argument and I say that as somebody who would like to see all of the criminals from both of your silly little teams in jail where they belong.

      So what if the loyal party members only speak out when the other team does something wrong? Do you really expect anything else from all of these idiotic partisan hypocrites? Here you are acting as an apologist for another criminal and trying to deflect the argument away from her because she's on your stupid team. How is that any different?

      A plague on both your houses.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    25. Re:Anyone surprised by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Failing to maintain Public Records

      Do you know of people who went to jail for that?

      No? You mean people generally don't even care about it??

      Then why is Hillary different?

      and sending and receiving classified information that isn't properly secured

      Can you show someone who went to jail for similar actions?

      No? You just realized those one or two instances of jail time are fundamentally different cases?

      Then why should Hillary go to jail?

      (and possibly involved in the murder of a scientist in Iran) actually IS illegal.

      WTF? So an Iranian scientist publicly gives information to the US, then voluntarily returned to Iran (against the advice of anyone), and then gets predictably arrested and then executed.

      And this is somehow Hillary's fault because there's an email where she made a vague reference to trying to convince him to not go back to Iran in an email?

      She's lived in NYC, is she responsible for 9/11 too?

      Basically BFD. Hillary isn't an absolutely perfect human being. She was careless with her communications, as countless public officials are. She was probably more likely to meet with people who contributed to her charitable foundation. Well welcome to politics!!

      Yes these are real issues, but for anyone else it basically be a trivia question.

      Hell, Trump gave a campaign donation to the Texas Attorney General right after they dropped the investigation into TrumpU. Why don't you want him investigated and arrested for bribery? That's a hell of a lot worse then Bill Clinton chatting with Loretta Lynch on a plane.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    26. Re: Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really expect anything else from all of these idiotic partisan hypocrites?

      Yes. To clean your own house first is necessary, isn't it?

    27. Re: Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why demand of others what you yourself will not perform?

    28. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A death is a tragedy, a hundred thousand deaths are just statistics.

    29. Re:Anyone surprised by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh please, those people were clearly left alive for plausible deniability.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    30. Re:Anyone surprised by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      But there are degrees of bad, aren't there? There are 2 people, one mishandled classified information, and the other tortured people. You only have enough room in prison for one. Who gets to walk?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    31. Re: Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Middle eastern people are not really "people".

    32. Re:Anyone surprised by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Who gets to walk?

      Clearly, your opinion on that depends solely on which political party you swear fealty to and which party your favorite criminal belongs to. Then you go out of your way to downplay and excuse the crimes of one and amplify the other's to a state of ridiculous hyperbole. But you're so steeped in the party politics that you see your actions as perfectly reasonable and are certain that anyone who disagrees with you is evil or stupid.

      In reality, who gets to walk depends on who has the more powerful political connections and has nothing to do with the crime. Which means that both of the politicians walk and the petty criminals on the street have new prisons built to house them.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    33. Re:Anyone surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only room in prison for one criminal, so one of them should go to prison and there other should be made President! What a glowing endorsement for Hillary !

    34. Re:Anyone surprised by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the problem here is that people are excusing illegal activity, by pointing to other people's illegal activity as if it were only a binary choice.

      Tommy: "Mom, Billy spit in my food"
      Billy: "Mom, Sam's brother shit in his kitchen and got away with it"

      Why does this shit work at all? Because the people actually making the "So and so was worse" argument are just little kids who know what they are doing is wrong and trying to deflect blame are nothing more than grownup children. It is time for adults of the world to send them into a timeout.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    35. Re:Anyone surprised by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And this is somehow Hillary's fault because there's an email where she made a vague reference to trying to convince him to not go back to Iran in an email?

      Yes. Remember Vallarie Plame? Oh wait that is an (R) so that is bad, but Hillary is (D) so it is excused.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:Anyone surprised by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Trump .....

      I'm voting for Gary Johnson, the ONLY grownup running for President. Nice try though.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by pteddy · · Score: 1

    But the NSA is doing it for your own good, see?

  4. Legal vs Justice System by BoberFett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He may be guilty under our legal system, but as many people are starting to understand a legal system and a justice system are not the same thing. If we had a justice system, the Bushes and Clintons would be in prison and Guccifer would be free. People like this should be considered heroes for exposing the criminals that lay claim to positions of leadership. The legal (not justice) system that those criminal leaders have set up are designed to keep themselves wealthy and powerful, and people like Snowden and Guccifer threaten their wealth and power.

    1. Re:Legal vs Justice System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He may be guilty under our legal system, but as many people are starting to understand a legal system and a justice system are not the same thing. If we had a justice system, the Bushes and Clintons would be in prison and Guccifer would be free. People like this should be considered heroes for exposing the criminals that lay claim to positions of leadership. The legal (not justice) system that those criminal leaders have set up are designed to keep themselves wealthy and powerful, and people like Snowden and Guccifer threaten their wealth and power.

      Don't forget about Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush.

    2. Re:Legal vs Justice System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever you say, Glen Beck Jr.

    3. Re:Legal vs Justice System by BoberFett · · Score: 0

      Did your mother drop you on your anonymous head too many times as a baby?

    4. Re:Legal vs Justice System by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He may be guilty under our legal system, but as many people are starting to understand a legal system and a justice system are not the same thing. If we had a justice system, the Bushes and Clintons would be in prison and Guccifer would be free.

      Certainly, because the ends always justify the means. Hack your way in to discover evidence of crimes -- it's ok so long as they deserve to go to prison.

      "People like this should be considered heroes for exposing the criminals" says every U.S. TLA when deploying Stingrays, "Network Investigative Techniques," and other exploits against the very not wealthy and very not powerful.

      Yet what happens when they don't find evidence of a crime -- are they still guiltless? If some of the roughly 100 people Guccifer raided in his quest to expose were not themselves reasonably suspected of a crime, are they just acceptable collateral damage? When a TLA runs with this principle, are your fellow citizens just acceptable collateral damage?

      Sorry, I don't buy it.

    5. Re:Legal vs Justice System by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I don't believe criminal trespass on IT systems will ever be considered legal. Otherwise, what stops the police/NSA from legally hacking everyone's computers, reading everything, finding illegal content then prosecuting after the fact? Oh right, that's still technically illegal, even for them, even in your tin foil hat brandishing lunacy. So can you please just drop your rhetoric?

      --
      Bye!
    6. Re:Legal vs Justice System by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Technically illegal? That's adorable. Now run along and play, young man.

    7. Re:Legal vs Justice System by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Who watches the watchers? Who enforces the rules against the people who make the rules? The US has one of the largest percentages of its citizens in prison, yet our "leaders" get away with just about anything. And you want to talk about fairness?

      Cry me a river.

    8. Re:Legal vs Justice System by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Who watches the watchers?

      Well, nobody appointed Guccifer, or you.

      I don't have to cry you a river; I'll cheer them locking up vigilantes and, as a bonus, probably piss you off.

    9. Re:Legal vs Justice System by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Cheer away if it makes you feel better as this country falls into obsolescence as all empires do.

    10. Re:Legal vs Justice System by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Really, you logged in three days later to drop that pearl of wisdom? Vigilante hackers aren't any sort of solution. And halfhearted attempts to link them to prophecies of societal decay in the indefinite future do not constitute a justification.

  5. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is one thing when the elected officials of a country ask you to do it within your own borders, quite another when one member of a foreign government asks you to do it against a different government

    or is that just too hard for people to understand?

  6. aggravated identity theft? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I believe this is the first time I've every heard of "aggravated" identity theft. Did he have a knife in his hand while doing this? Of course being the person he targeted, I'm surprised he didn't get charged with "aggravated attempted assassination" and "1st degree capital fraud".

    1. Re:aggravated identity theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure... because attempting to influence a US election at the behest of one of the nation's avowed enemies is, like, totally okay :/

    2. Re:aggravated identity theft? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      No it's not. But then charge them for something more appropriate.

    3. Re:aggravated identity theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hacked them a long time ago, way before Hillary was a candidate. At least try to read the summary.

      He is a Romanian independent hacker (you are the first to claim he did anything at the behest of anyone) that exposed stuff about rich and powerful people.

      He actually exposed stuff about Bush. They even say that his claims of hacking Clinton are not credible. She is just collateral truth telling.

  7. Re:When are the Blumenthal & Clinton Trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and does Comey just resign or will he be investigated too?

  8. Lesson here is by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't mess with powerful people.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Lesson here is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lesson is, don't expect your government to protect you from being sent into another country and get judged there even though the laws of that country don't apply where you are.

    2. Re:Lesson here is by meglon · · Score: 0

      Normal people might thing the lesson here is: "don't be a criminal," or maybe even "do the crime, do the time."

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:Lesson here is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal people might thing the lesson here is: "don't be a criminal," or maybe even "do the crime, do the time."

      How could that be the lesson in a case where several crimes were exposed and the criminal wasn't even indicted?
      The lesson can either be "don't mess with the powerful" or that "the powerful never pays for their crimes".

    4. Re:Lesson here is by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      These particular powerful people are more powerful than most governments.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Lesson here is by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Sometimes "crimes" are defined to be crimes even if they are not unethical, usually this is done to protect special interests.

      Is political transparency in the interest of the general populous? If not, then I guess it was a serious crime. Let's execute him just to be sure.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:Lesson here is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tar and feather powerful people too powerful to jail, is the correct lesson.

    7. Re:Lesson here is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that's not the lesson in regards to Hillary's email server

    8. Re:Lesson here is by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      These particular powerful people are more powerful than most governments.

      Unlike powerful governments, powerful *people* can be stopped by a nobody with the motivation and a 50-cent bullet in a sub-$200 military-surplus rifle.

      Why do you think the gun-banners are going after rifles first instead of handguns which are used in orders-of-magnitude greater numbers of crimes/murders? The powerful know a sniper with a rifle is a far more deadly threat to them than someone with a handgun which requires being close and visible to security personnel.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Lesson here is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The powerful know a sniper with a rifle is a far more deadly threat to them than someone with a handgun which requires being close and visible to security personnel.

      A sniper rifle requires high quality manufacturing and accurate long range shooting, which is difficult even under the best of circumstances. Explosives on the other hand are cheap, effective and require much less skill of the user. Their effective use in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, even under primitive, dirty and difficult conditions, demonstrates their practical utility. Furthermore, if an assassin is willing to die in pursuit of their target, the bomb becomes even harder to stop. The sniper rifle is what they use in the movies to assassinate people, in real life it's more often an IED that does the targets in.

    10. Re:Lesson here is by meglon · · Score: 1

      He hacked a number of other peoples computers. It's a crime. It is unethical. You false equivalency of his jail sentence and being executed tells me you're just a fucking idiot. Are you a fucking criminal too? Is that the problem?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    11. Re:Lesson here is by meglon · · Score: 1

      I get it... you're a fucking idiot who wants to make this about Hillary. He didn't just hack hers, although they say he didn't even do that.... he did hack some other peoples computers, which is a crime. Are you a fucking criminal? Or are you just a fucking idiot? I guess most conservatives with shit for brains like you are just criminals and wannabe's.... no morals at all.

      He didn't expose any crimes anyway, but fucking morons like you who are too fucking stupid to actually use your fucking brain will say it... because you're a fucking idiot.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:Lesson here is by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      A sniper rifle requires high quality manufacturing and accurate long range shooting, which is difficult even under the best of circumstances.

      Sniping is a tactic, any ranged weapon can be employed to snipe a target.

      Lee Harvey Oswald used a WW2 (mfg. ~1940) surplus Italian Carcano 91/38 6.5mm bolt-action carbine with a 4x Ordnance Optics telescopic sight to kill JFK with a headshot in a moving car. Neither the weapon nor 'scope were of what would be considered 'high quality' even by normal hunting/sport standards.

      LHO was a good shot, achieving the "Sharpshooter" qualification twice while in the Marines, but that is not that unusual. My father also earned the "sharpshooter" bar in the US Army in WW2 and was a good shot, but he wasn't "amazing" or anything.

      Something like a decent-condition WW2-surplus Mosin-Nagant 91/30 can be had for around ~$250 last I checked, and they are excellent weapons and make a great low-cost and quite powerful rifle to use for sniping. The 91/30 PU factory-setup sniper version with the rather strange looking offset-mounted 'scope is very sought-after. With a properly selected and adjusted 'scope on a regular 91/30 in the hands of a competent-but-not-'pro-level' shooter, 98%+ first-shot hits at ~600 yards on a 4-inch target aren't atypical.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Lesson here is by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Don't mess with powerful people.

      To be fair, he only got 4 years in prison. He'll be out in 3 as they need the room for the really dangerous criminals, like copyright infringers.

      Had he done the same thing to Putin, he'd have woken up to a Polonium waffle and have shot himself in the back of the head three times

      Seriously, he should have been imprisoned just for using the name Guccifer.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Lesson here is by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I've found that usually the gun is more accurate than the shooter. Someone who has practiced can make pretty consistent shots within a rifle's normal range. Someone who is extremely good can shoot accurately beyond that range. Even 800+ yards is pretty reasonable for a Mosin-Nagant 91/30. It would take someone with some serious skill to go beyond 1000 yards with it, especially if the target or weather conditions were not ideal.

      1000 yards is a crazy distance in an urban or suburban area, draw a circle with such a radius on a map of your neighborhood and you may be surprised at all the places someone could hole up and still reach out to you. (1/4 mile = 440 yards)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    15. Re:Lesson here is by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The flippancy of my statement is not the same as a formal debate. Which is good, because your ad hominem isn't terribly endearing either.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The government writes its own rules for itself. The rules you and I have to follow do not apply to government agencies.

    The US military even operates its own court system that isn't based on Constitutional law. If you had any doubts of there being under a separate system.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  10. Re:When are the Blumenthal & Clinton Trials? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Trump's RICO trial is moving forward. But it's just a civil trial, there won't be any consequences that would prevent him from being President.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  11. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "aggravated attempted character assassination"

    captcha: adjunct

  12. Which Clinton? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    When you say "an unoffical advisor to Clinton", be sure to indicate *WHICH* Clinton. You know, cuz, there was a President with that name too.

  13. !"Hacker" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a hacker - but I suppose "Person who took an educated guess at the shitty passwords of powerful people" shows that powerful people are dumb when it comes to their personal digital security.

    1. Re:!"Hacker" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the powerful people can still destroy your life so the lesson is: don't mess with the powerful people.

    2. Re:!"Hacker" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No absolutely not!
      The lesson is: don't mess with the powerful people and get caught.

    3. Re:!"Hacker" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this day and age it's practically impossible not to get caught. We live in the Surveillance Age. Your own government will not protect you because... Because. State reason and all that. Can't fight the mighty. Sorry, kids.

  14. But she wasn't indicted by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    Guccifer exposes Hillary's illegal email server and goes to jail for it.

    Hilary gets off Scott Free.

    BTW, Comey said "Leeeeave Hillary Alllloneeee" because there were more appropriate administrative punishments available.

    And? What were they? Were the ever applied?

    It's 'kinda worse than that.

    Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

    (Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

    Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

    Nothing to see here, no smoking gun. She wasn't indicted, so let's leave her alone.

    1. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem I have with the witch hunters, is where were they when the Bush administration did the same thing.

      In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted.

    2. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you were one of the "witch hunters" back then, wasn't you? Did it work? Did any of those criminals get any jail time? I believe most people that heard about the issue (specially here) would say, even at the time, that they should be prosecuted.
      They should be prosecuted, just like Clinton.
      To give negative names for people who are asking for the prosecution of powerful criminals doesn't help the country.

    3. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She wasn't indicted, so let's leave her alone.

      That's the price of 20 years of crying wolf, you get ignored.

      Or they can keep on passing around their death list if you want.

    4. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      And you can't really trust the news to expose things. People like the Washington Post were too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC.

      But you don't have to take my word for it.

      Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

      Re: WaPo Party

      From:kaplanj@dnc.org
      To: RangappaA@dnc.org
      Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
      Subject: Re: WaPo Party

      Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

      We are waiting

      Jordan Kaplan
      National Finance Director
      Democratic National Committee
      (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
      kaplanj@dnc.org

      > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
      >
      > They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

    5. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crying wolf?

      Nah, they just find some nutbag stuff like the death list to promote and ignore the real stuff, like mishandling classified information, destroying evidence, etc.

      Next they'll find some obscure fringe theory promoted online, trumpet that as something big, and use it to say that all the allegations against her are nonsense and we shouldn't evaluate any of them on their own merits...

    6. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Bush Loved America, so it wasn't a crime.

    7. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't intent count for anything? Can anyone prove that Hillary maliciously mishandled classified information in order to compromise national security? Is it possible she just doesn't have a clue how technology works? That doesn't make what she did OK, or excuse her from just punishment, but does it make any difference at all?

      Should we punish those guilty of involuntary manslaughter the same way we punish those guilty of premeditated murder? And before someone suggests that Hillary's actions were premeditated, let's not forget that no human being is capable of reading another human being's mind. That's why our justice system has to present evidence that proves intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

      I believe that we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard, and I understand why someone would choose not to vote for Hillary because she should have known better, but comparing Hillary's misconduct to Guccifer's guilty plea is preposterous.

    8. Re:But she wasn't indicted by quantaman · · Score: 2

      It's 'kinda worse than that.

      Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department

      We already knew that Hillary was using her private email server for work, and that some of that information was classified.

      So what is the shocking new scandal? That the previous secretary of state emailed information to an official at the state department?

      , after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

      FTA,
      "At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”

      So yeah, gimmie a call when they find evidence that something was deleted because it contained incriminating info, and not because some dumbass lawyer a) thought it was a good idea, and b) sucked at it.

      Or at least let me know when they know it's not a duplicate.

      (Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

      Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

      Yeah! The media is notoriously easy on Clinton!

      Did you actually read the Mother Jones analysis instead of looking at their rebuttal as evidence of media bias?

      The whole "scandal" is around the fact that Bill Clinton still does stuff in his capacity as ex-President. This takes some money, not a lot of money, but because it's considered to be in the national interest the federal government gives him funds to do this, ~$100k.

      It would be kinda stupid to bring in a whole different set of staff just because you spend a few hours doing ex-President stuff inbetween Clinton foundation stuff, so he just has the same staff work for the government instead of the foundation for that period.

      I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise. A bigger scandal would have been if he paid the staff for an ex-Presidential event using Clinton Foundation funds!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:But she wasn't indicted by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I guess you were one of the "witch hunters" back then, wasn't you? Did it work? Did any of those criminals get any jail time?

      Depends what you mean. I hated Bush, thought his administration was completely lawless, and there were crimes for which people should have done jail time.

      But screwing up the IT? That wasn't one of them.

      I believe most people that heard about the issue (specially here) would say, even at the time, that they should be prosecuted.
      They should be prosecuted, just like Clinton.

      That's an interesting idea... if only /. had some magical archive where we could look back 9 years and see...

      Well golly I found it!!

      Hmm, lets see. 59 comments with a score of +4 and +5. I see one comment speculating that congress is trying to get Gonzales to perjurer himself in front of congress so they can send him to jail and... that's about it.

      So yeah, back when Gonzales used a private email server which actually did delete a huge portion of the potentially incriminating information, no one talked about jail.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise.

      Acted with ethics and integrity?

      Is it really too hard to use Government money for Government business and Foundation funds for Foundation work?

    11. Re:But she wasn't indicted by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise.

      Acted with ethics and integrity?

      Is it really too hard to use Government money for Government business and Foundation funds for Foundation work?

      Did you read my post? That's exactly what he did.

      He just had them share resources because do to otherwise would be stupid and would waste money.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:But she wasn't indicted by kenh · · Score: 2

      In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted.

      Where to start?

      OK, how about we start with the firing of eights U.S. attorneys? - They were political appointees, and they served at the pleasure of the President.

      Now, what about many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server? They were discussing political appointees on a private server explicitly created to ensure that political business was kept off government servers, AKA to comply with federal law, not to avoid it. (Do Democrats conduct Democrat party business on government servers? No, to do so would be a crime,)

      And finally, what about Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted And then, a few months later all the "missing" emails were found with the help of federal investigators, experts from Microsoft, and the Republican party - all 22 million of them.

      Not really the same thing, not really a problem - but hey, it helps the low-information Democrat voters feel good about their criminal politicians. Here's a link that might help you.

      --
      Ken
    13. Re:But she wasn't indicted by kenh · · Score: 1

      Let me add this:

      Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted. - The "deleted" emails were recovered - nearly all 22 million of them. (Though on an obscure NZ website, the story is a Reuters story.)

      --
      Ken
    14. Re:But she wasn't indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't intent count for anything? Can anyone prove that Hillary maliciously mishandled classified information in order to compromise national security? Is it possible she just doesn't have a clue how technology works?

      The legal standard here is "gross negligence" and in this case would be easy to prove. Reference 18 U.S. Code 793. I mean Comey laid this out in very clear terms. Whether or not she's technically competent is not an excuse. She signed on the dotted line when she became Sec of State that she would protect classified data.

      Admittedly prosecutors rarely go after anyone for violating this law. However if Clinton's detractors with power were ends-justify-the-means types (like Saul Alinsky devotees). They would not hesitate using this law to take her out.

  15. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1, Informative

    That's correct. When joining the armed services you have given up several of your rights. The government can send you dangerous places and ask that you risk your life; you do not have freedom of speech, nor of assembly.

    As far as military tribunals - they do operate out of bounds of the constitution. The Constitution only applies to areas that are part of the US; so military actions taking place out side of the US are outside the purview of the Constitution. (Assuming that Congress has authorized force and that the President is in command of said military forces.)

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  16. ARSTechnica smear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The first sentence of the ARSTechnica article by David Kravets with the same headline reads-

    "The Romanian hacker who helped expose Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail as secretary of state was sentenced Thursday to 52 months in prison in connection to an admission that he broke into about 100 Americans' mail accounts."

    Talk about a wicked psyop. It paints the picture that Hillary's use of private e-mail was a secret of some kind. I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of people she communicated with via that e-mail account who therefore knew of the activity long before any hackerZ came into the picture. That's an amazing conspiracy to have kept under everyone's radar for so many years. Or it's a political smear.

  17. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by meglon · · Score: 1

    The US military even operates its own court system that isn't based on Constitutional law. If you had any doubts of there being under a separate system.

    And all this statement really says is you never had the balls to actually serve your country. First week of basic you get a history lesson on why the military is different than civilian life. I get it, though... you're just someone who doesn't want any of the responsibilities that come with the freedoms you're using, and you've never sacrificed a single thing for this country.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  18. Don't mess with copyright, even when not valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aaron Schwartz was up for far more jail time, for a crime that wasn't really a crime.

    1. Re:Don't mess with copyright, even when not valid by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Not really, he likely wouldn't have to serve more than 2 years in prison. Even one of the prosecuting attorneys (Heymann) threatened only 7 years in prison as if that was the maximum he could have really gotten. It's a far cry from the 50 years or 35 years that was bandied about in the media. (7 years is no joke though, for essentially B&E and some very minor wire fraud)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last "fighters for freedom" went home after WWII. Every other action since has been a sacrifice for the oligarchy. So thank you for your service and protecting my right to buy Chinese shit at walmart. And thank you for becoming police officers after your triumphant return and beating our asses + writing us tickets. SO much freedom.

  20. Re:NSA is doing the same for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they quit teaching about assumptions in basic? When you assume, you are making an ASS out of U or ME.

  21. Claim is meritless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The claim he had breached Clinton's server is meritless? Is it because they need no breach to avoid indict Clinton about careless classified material handling?

  22. Isn't Guccifer 2.0 a Different Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've read that the currently active hacker Guccifer 2.0 is not the same person as Guccifer. Therefore, we can expect more mischief from 2.0.

  23. And yet rape will only get a wrist slap by harryk · · Score: 1

    This kind of sentencing is extraordinary especially in light of other recent verdicts and sentencing.

    --
    think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
    1. Re:And yet rape will only get a wrist slap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "making an example" and "sending a message". It tells everybody who have half a mind to take on the Ruling Elite: "see that guy who messed with Mrs President Clinton (yes, she WILL win the election, get over it) and had his life ruined forever? It could have been you. Be careful. Don't tickle a dragon. Good citizens behave and obey." And you can bet the message will be heeded.

  24. Re:When are the Blumenthal & Clinton Trials? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right after the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ones. A week from Never.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  25. He should have just assaulted them in an alleyway by technophebe · · Score: 1

    ... he would have been out in 3 months.

  26. Re:When are the Blumenthal & Clinton Trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck did this get upvoted? I thought we were a Hillary witch trial house now? WTF?