Hacker Faces 105 Years In Prison After Blackmailing 350+ Women 473
redletterdave writes "According to the 30-count indictment released by the Central District of California, 27-year-old hacker Karen 'Gary' Kazaryan allegedly hacked his way into hundreds of online accounts, using personal information and nude or semi-nude photos of his victims to coerce more than 350 female victims to show him their naked bodies, usually over Skype. By posing as a friend, Kazaryan allegedly tricked these women into stripping for him on camera, capturing more than 3,000 images of these women to blackmail them. Kazaryan was arrested by federal agents on Tuesday; if convicted on all 30 counts, including 15 counts of computer intrusion and 15 counts of aggravated identity theft, Kazaryan could face up to 105 years in federal prison."
Plea bargain (Score:5, Interesting)
I HATE this (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate that I have to stand beside him and say this is wrong. I hate that I have to support someone so despicable. I hate that the flawed system actually makes me support people like Gary Kazaryan.
And yet it's something I must do.
Re:"begging to"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Taliban blames the victim (Score:1, Interesting)
While I agree that the victim is not at fault here, they nonetheless hold a degree of responsibility. If I go to a crack house, and get robbed, while I am a victim, if I had never been in the crack house in the first place, I would never have been robbed. I don't blame the victims at all, and I do find that what Karen did to be a despicable act and deserves to do some time behind it. But, we as a society also need a good dose of "reality" when it comes to crime. If you don't want a dui, don't go to the bar and then drive home.
Re:"begging to"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all plea deals are bad
But many of them are.
I don't believe the court system would handle everything going to trial.
When I was in the military back in the 1980s, if a defendant pleaded guilty in either an NJP [wikipedia.org] or court martial, the presiding officer or judge was required to conduct a "providency hearing" and conclude, and document, that the plea was actually in the defendants best interest. I probably conducted over a hundred NJPs, and I never once , accepted a guilty plea. Usually this was because it was not in the defendants best interest, but also because a finding of guilty in a providency hearing could be an avenue for appeal, which would be a lot more paperwork. In several of those cases, there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, and the defendant got off.
Civilian courts should have something similar. Before a judge accepts a guilty plea, they should have to review the evidence, and conclude that the defendant is probably actually guilty of what they are admitting to, although the standard would be less than "beyond a reasonable doubt". This would eliminate the most egregious plea bargins, but still allow most to go forward.
Re:105 Years versus LIBOR (Score:4, Interesting)
I completely agree. Yet another story that highlights how prosecutors are given entirely too much power and there's no way to hold them accountable. The most messed up part is that we're sending non-violent criminals to prison. Everyone cheered when Madoff was sent to prison, I didn't hear a single person mention the eighth amendment. No one mentioned that, as a prison inmate, he would just be a further burden to society.
Unless a person is a threat to society, I can't see the justification for putting them in prison. That's what jails should be for, they shouldn't be a camp of retribution, of societal vengeance. If a person is drunk and disorderly in public, or drinking and driving, they get thrown in the drunk tank until the next day. That makes sense, that's reasonable. They're a threat to society until they sober up. If a person kills someone and it's not in self defense, then they've proven themselves to be irrational and dangerous. They need to be kept away from the greater society.
If this guy is guilty, should be be punished? No doubt. Should he serve a single day in jail/prison? Absolutely not. That doesn't benefit anyone except the corporations that run our prison system. Community service should be the standard punishment for most crimes because it's a form of restitution to society. But no, the standard form of punishment is a fine or time. A fine that goes to paying for the out of control penal system that the U.S. employs on both a state and federal level.
Re:"begging to"? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I was fortunate enough to never undergo NJP during my military career, I can see one major flaw with moving that system into the civilian sector : Chain of Command
In the Marines, my boss at work was also my boss overseeing my personal life (to a degree) and on up the chain. This gives us a vested interest in not crippling someone via monetary penalties or jail/brig time. I knew a few guys who got NJP'ed for a few things, and there was almost a family-type thought process in place. We'll take care of it in-house, punish the person for their stupidity, and get them back on their feet so they can keep working and stay combat ready.
A judge in civilian court doesn't know you, doesn't care if you're living on ramen noodles and sleeping in your car for the next year. That judge is never going into combat with you. You could literally step into traffic and die as soon as you leave the courthouse, and the judge would not be affected in the least. They just want to set an example of you, and bilk you for as much money as they can, because that money goes straight into the city coffers. Which brings up another major difference that hurts NJP in a civilian setting : Barracks and the Chow Hall (or BAH and comrats) No matter how much money you garnish from a Marine's paycheck, they will always have three square meals and a roof over their head.
I'd love to see some sanity instilled in the Justice system, and I think NJP might be a decent starting point ... but it's going to need some serious revisions before it works outside of the military.
Re:Won't come close to that (Score:3, Interesting)
I like where you're going, it's interesting to compare this case to potential existing situations that mirror intent and outcome. Let's pretend he had met these girls at a bar instead of online, bought them a few drinks (social engineering) and talked the girls into flashing the crowd.
Certainly a few bar patrons would have cell phone cameras ready, and the victims would get the same exposure (if not MORE) than what actually happened.
Would he be looking at 100+ years of jailtime for such shenanigans? Absolutely not. See : Girls Gone Wild. Plenty of women have tried to claim emotional distress due to coerced consent, and every case has fallen through (even in the case with an all-female jury.) The only one to gain any real traction was the case where a girl was underage when filmed, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
But if you add "that same thing, but with computers" to the crimes, suddenly we have a serious situation. It ties back to my earlier post, it's all about a lack of education. In a bar, women know not to take their shirts off, and understand the repercussions of such actions. Add computers, suddenly no one understands how to keep their clothes on, and it's the computer's fault.
Re:The Taliban blames the victim (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope.
Blackmail is ALWAYS the fault of the person seeking to take advantage of another person.
In this case, women took nude pictures (or videos, I guess) of themselves. Not illegal, and it's only naughty if you're a puritan, and frankly even then it's pretty pathetic to think of it as anything naughty. Do you consider yourself to be some kind of bastion of morality? If so, what gives you the right? And if not, then where the hell do you get off trying to say other people are being naughty or not in regards to things that are completely irrelevant to you?
In other, more extreme cases, people have been blackmailed for things that carry a social stigma but are, according to decent human beings, perfectly OK. Example: Secret Jews during the Nazi regime. You think they were at fault (you DID say 'ALWAYS') because unscrupulous neighbors threatened to turn them in? Example: Closeted gay folk. You think they are at fault because some people decided to threaten to out them? Example: People who believe in religion X when religion Y is the official religion of their country. Example: People who don't toe the party line in countries where the party is the law. Example: Do I really have to give you more examples, or are you able to acknowledge that maybe your hyperbole and your victim blaming are wrong?
The person at fault when it comes to blackmail is the person who chose to try and take advantage of another human being. Period. And you should damn well know better if you're old enough to be posting on the Internet unsupervised. And you should feel bad about being so stupid you didn't think your opinion through before trying to voice it with your all caps removal of any possible wiggle room in the form of 'ALWAYS.'