Prison Is For Dangerous Criminals, Not Hacktivists 337
In late 2011, defense contractor Stratfor suffered a cybersecurity breach that resulted in a leak of millions of internal emails. A few months later, the FBI arrested hacktivist Jeremy Hammond and several others for actions related to the breach. Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of violating the CFAA, and today his sentence was handed down: 10 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He said, [The prosecutors] have made it clear they are trying to send a message to others who come after me. A lot of it is because they got slapped around, they were embarrassed by Anonymous and they feel that they need to save face." Reader DavidGilbert99 adds,
"Former LulzSec and Anonymous member Jake Davis argues that U.S. lawmakers need to take a leaf out of the U.K.'s legal system and not put Jeremy Hammond behind bars for his part in the hack of Stratfor. 'Jeremy Hammond has a lot to give society too. Prisons are for dangerous people that need to be segmented from the general population. Hackers are not dangerous, they are misunderstood, and while disciplinary action is of course necessary, there is nothing disciplined about locking the door on a young man's life for 10 years.'"
Fuck off (Score:5, Informative)
You steal my personal data, sell it to someone else who uses that data to commit crimes, you are a dangerous person.
Stop trying to make excuses when people commit crimes. They're a criminal, pure and simple.
Jeremy Hammond is a repeat offender. (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, I happen to be VERY familiar with Jeremy Hammond (for someone who isn't part of his butt-kissing crew). I associated with him for a couple years in hacking circles in the mid-2000's. My opinion of him isn't very high. And I can't tell you what I think of his ethics, as he has none. He's someone who's constantly looking for an enemy to somehow oppress him and fight against.
This argument MIGHT hold water if this was Hammond's first offense. It isn't.
He was expelled from college for a hacking incident. Not for the hack itself, but for installing back doors into the systems and then failing to disclose them when he came forward to "teach the admins" about the methods he'd used to get into the systems in the first place.
He assaulted a Chicago city cop during a gay pride parade in 2004 while trying to confront a heckler.
He was fired from his job at a Mac consultancy in the Chicago area after teaching people how to hack into systems using the consultancy's servers as guinea pigs (machines that held LIVE CUSTOMER DATA).
He and a cohort looted the coffers of the Chicago Communist Party after a failed attempt to take control.
He's had multiple arrests as a public nuisance.
He and a group of his erstwhile friends hacked a site called Protest Warrior and stole credit cards. And he left such a bad taste in these friends' mouths that one of them rolled on him to the FBI. He was caught, prosecuted and sent to jail for 3 years (got out after 2 on good behavior).
After getting out he was busted for assaulting a holocaust denier in a public establishment.
He was busted for theft and destruction of property during the Chicago bid to host the Olympics.
And, what did he do? He hacked Stratfor and stole credit card numbers (with intent to use) AGAIN.
So what are we supposed to do? Impose a "no computers, no cell phones" sentence on him? In this day and age it's practically impossible to enforce.
There's also the fact that he's a repeat offender.
Is he really and truly PHYSICALLY dangerous? No. But prison isn't about simply physical protection of society. It's also about deterring those who abuse society on a constant basis.
And Jeremy Hammond is one such abusive element. He's a thug with a martyr complex. He wants to feel important, authoritative and in control. He wants to be seen as a "rebel". The fact is, he's a script kiddie, using the work of others and trying to make it appear as if he's some vastly knowledgeable authority. He has only a thin veneer of social skills to get by on, and basically defaults to "smash and grab" when he doesn't get his way.
In short, he's a boil on the butt of society. And prison is about the only place for him.
Re:Sorry, but not here (Score:2, Informative)
I know you're not. I was explaining my observation of what popular perception is(ugh, gotta be a better way to say that).
I personally know Jeremy... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't his first hacking charge nor his first run in with police.
His rap sheet is as long as my arm, with charges ranging from hacking and using stolen credit cards to assault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond#Arrests_and_criminal_history [wikipedia.org]
My guess is this harsh sentence stems from the Stratfor hack as well.
Re:They are dangerous criminals.. (Score:5, Informative)
I screwed up and posted, so I can't mod you up.
One needs to understand the motives of the state
Violent, random criminals are the best kind of criminals for politicians. Thugs _make the case_ that the government needs more power to keep people safe.
People like Snowden are govt's worse nightmare. He hasn't hurt anyone at all, but he did blow the lid off of a bunch of stuff the govt was doing, which ranged from blatantly illegal to making govt look petty/incompetent.
Snowden threatens _government_ legitimacy, and that is why he is a huge priority for the Feds.
Re:Sorry, but not here (Score:5, Informative)
Here we have prison to punish people. It doesn't exist as a means to control risk by controlling dangerous people. We've collectively decided that we should put people in cells(and let them be raped) like it's telling 5 year olds to stand in the corner.
Officially, there are five reasons for incarceration (the five theories of punishment)...
Most, if not all, of those goals are met by incarcerating even 'hacktivists,' though I personally think a 10 year sentence is way overboard (especially if it's federal, where there's no "parole board" and the most "good time" credit that can be earned is 15% -- the same California allows "serious" or "violent" first strikers (non-serious, non-violent offenders can serve as little as 50% of their sentence with "good time," 1/3 of the sentence if they're accepted into a fire camp and bust their ass fighting wildfires for at least a year of their sentence...)
Re:Sorry, but not here (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe one should look at the swedish prison system where prisoners are allowed to enroll in universities and lesser levels to study. After they leave the prisons they are helped to integrate into society.
A reality for some of you... (Score:4, Informative)
Consider the following:
- I was locked up on non-aggressive felony charges, so I was classified to do my time in the Graham unit @ Safford which is classed as a level 2 yard.
- There are level 1 yards which are even less intimidating than the one I was locked up at
- I was classified at Alhambra which is considered a 1-5 (Due to the fact all convicts get sorted through that facility, non- & aggressive inmates are all housed together, with the exception of chomo's and rapists who get private handling for obvious reasons)
- I am a thin, tall and relatively quiet individual with a good intellect and gentle demeanor
The Graham yard was a breeze. It's laid out like a military base, with barracks for inmate bunks, a gym, a music room, a library, two soccer fields and a baseball diamond. The bathrooms/showers are private and not open to the world, you had a modicum of privacy while you were washing your ass, and no, inmates don't follow you in expecting you to drop the soap.
When I first arrived, just like county, you're introduced to your race "Head" and "Second Head" which are the political heads who you handle grievances if ever there's a problem between you and another inmate. Individual races' are held accountable for their own group if the beef is internal or inter-racial. For instance, if a wood (caucasian) stole from another wood, the heads would deal out the punishment. If a wood stole from a paisa (Mexican national), the two race heads would convene and each race would deal out the punishment to their own based on what was agreed upon. This 'political' system exists in all jails, even if the race separation is different among regions of the US, but exists to handle the cases I mentioned above. During my intake and introduction to my race, it was obvious this system helps defend a new inmate from another inmate from taking advantage of them at first glance. However over time, the shitty individual who wants to steal and lie to their own heads, cause trouble and in general be a dick, will be blackballed and at that point you're on your own.
Alhambra was a different story while I was being classified. I stayed there for 12 days, and it was a 23h/1h lock down with 11 other inmates in the cell. The racial system exists, but as there are no inmates that stay permanently at that facility (unless you're a rehabilitated 20+ year sentence inmate, then you call Alhambra home), there are no heads or groups. Everyone is rogue and keeps to themselves unless you're being an asshole.
So for those out there that think all prisons are equal, or that by going to prison, you by default are the target of rape just because you showed up, could not be more incorrect. The things I talked about above hold true for most non-violent classified yards, levels 1-2, and even into 3 yards where some first time violent inmates end up. I know people that have done time in a higher security system, and all the same politics and protections from your race still exist. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if you're truly a shitty person, you don't learn from your mistakes, and you want to continue trying to play criminal in a criminal population, you get what you deserve.
Now back to the article. I do think there are too many people being locked up for things that people should no longer be locked up for. For example, weed and paraphernalia charges shouldn't put a person in the system. Dangerous drugs, yes, absolutely for repeat offenders. Hacktivists, and non-violent offenders, it's a stickier subject. There has to be recourse, and people have to be deterred from doing it, but if restitution is ruled against me for a million dollars, and I don't receive any prison time what good does that do? I'm never going to be able to pay off a restitution order like that in any reasonable amount of time, so I'll say f*ck it and just keep on doing what I did to get there in the first place