Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Security United States

LulzSec's Sabu To Be Sentenced In New York 135

Posted by samzenpus
from the paying-the-discount-price dept.
DavidGilbert99 writes "Two and a half years after he was arrested at his New York apartment by the FBI, LulzSEc member-turned-FBI informant Hector Monsegur (aka Sabu) is set to be sentenced in the South District of New York court at 4pm local time on Monday where he could face up to 124 years in jail. However, following his cooperation with the US authorities, Monsegur is likely to get a much reduced sentence and could avoid jail completely. His sentencing has been adjourned numerous times for unknown reasons, and if the FBI have any more use for him, then we could see it delayed again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec's Sabu To Be Sentenced In New York

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    People that hide behind the internet to commit crimes need to be severely punished - it is dangerous precedent and only encourages their fantasies to do otherwise. Online crime = twice the time.
    • by gmuslera (3436) on Monday January 13, 2014 @11:39AM (#45939709) Homepage Journal
      Meanwhile getting drunk, driving a car and actually killing 4 people doing that gets no jail time at all [huffingtonpost.com]. US law needs justice like a fish needs a bycicle.
      • by jellomizer (103300) on Monday January 13, 2014 @11:47AM (#45939829)

        Justice isn't revenge.
        That part is often confused. There is difference between doing a crime by accident or via neglect, then doing it with intent.
        Now I am not saying I agree with the judgment for the the drunk driving. As Drunk Driving is major neglect on part of the driver, and should deserve jail time, to pinpoint the seriousness of what he did. That said, those hackers went out to cause harm on a large scale, and they did.
        Now just because we personally don't like the guys they harmed, doesn't make it right.

        • by Immerman (2627577)

          >Justice isn't revenge.
          Actually it kind of is. The point of our justice system is manifold:
          - deter future criminal acts with the threat of punishment (though we could argue as to how successful it actually is at that)
          - prevent (or at least postpone) repeat offenses by restraining the perpetrators (again, actual success rates may vary)
          - prevent vigilante justice by punishing the perpetrators harshly enough to satisfy those that might otherwise decide to exact revenge themselves

          Really that last one is the

          • by Ravaldy (2621787)

            I don't see the definition of revenge in your argument.

            - I don't speed because I don't want the fine that comes with it - That's not revenge, it's control
            - I don't drink before driving because I don't want to lose my driver's license - That's not revenge, it's control
            - I don't kill people because I find it morally wrong and I would not live with myself - That's just morals I was though by my parents and surroundings

            The justice system is about control, not revenge. Revenge is you slap me I slap you and that'

            • I don't see the definition of revenge in your argument.

              His third point: the one about preventing vigilante justice.

              • by Ravaldy (2621787)

                I understand the 3rd point but it's not revenge, its still control AKA justice.

                See this scenario: Man murders neighbour's family. Revenge would be for the justice system to murder his family. Instead we punish him to avoid further damages to society. Am I wrong in still thinking there's a clear line between revenge and justice?

                • by dryeo (100693)

                  The justice system satisfies the revenge urge good enough that the neighbours don't kill the murderers family.

                  • by Ravaldy (2621787)

                    So the line here is that no extra people die. Doesn't sound like revenge any more. Revenge avoided.

            • sorry, it is now called 'Mantrol' http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad/32738/NZTA-Mantrol [bestadsontv.com]
          • Sort of forgot the namesake reason behind the justice system:
              * To render a punishment because it is deserved

            I think theres a word beginning with the letter J which describes this facet.

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          look man that's exactly the fucking problem with your fucking legal and moral system.

          shooting someone in the face on your porch == accident ??

          drinking 12 beers and driving?? a fucking accident??? are you fucking kidding me. that's like saying that shooting at a choir is an accident because you didn't know if it was going to kill someone.

          now sabus crimes.. what was the end result? some people needed to do a bit more of work they were hired to do anyways.

        • by Xest (935314)

          "That said, those hackers went out to cause harm on a large scale, and they did."

          Did they? or did they set out to deal with companies that were themselves causing harm through corruption and subversion of democracy because the authorities weren't dealing with the problem?

          In this respect it's not unreasonable they were actually preventing these companies causing further harm. Even the attacks against Sony - it's not as if Sony isn't a leading RIAA figure that's been responsible for bribing for laws against t

      • by isorox (205688)

        Meanwhile getting drunk, driving a car and actually killing 4 people doing that gets no jail time at all [huffingtonpost.com]. US law needs justice like a fish needs a bycicle.

        This goes with pretty much every other aspect of life in america, I don't see why you're shocked.

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        Yes... what a shame it is that we choose not to condemn our children for their mistakes, but rather sentence them to probation for a decade instead.

      • What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen. Why should you punish someone for something what, when you really thing about it, was just an accident.

        The amount of planning and execution that went into the lulzsec attacks shows that it was planned meticulously. It is impossible to ignore how this vicious criminal had clear intent to embarrass high ranked people.

        This cannot go unpunished.

        (do I need sarcasm tags?)

        • by Viol8 (599362)

          "The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen. Why should you punish someone for something what, when you really thing about it, was just an accident."

          Sorry, I've got to disagree here - someone who gets drunk then gets behind the wheel of a car does not just have an "accident". The drink almost certainly contributed to what happened and unless they're complete fools they knew perfectly well what can happen when you drink and drive. I have zero sympathy - if someone runs down

          • A wrinkle in your argument is that alcohol is a disinhibitor, affecting judgment. A sober person knows better than to get behind the wheel drunk, but a drunk person may no longer have that inhibition. You want to punish the drunk, but the sober person is the one that ends up in prison.
            • A sober person knows better than to get behind the wheel drunk, but a drunk person may no longer have that inhibition.

              Irrelevant - It was the sober person who made the choice to get drunk to the point where they no longer care.

            • by Viol8 (599362)

              Are you trolling. are you really this stupid or are you just making pathetic excuses for your own shameful behaviour? I wonder...

              • We make allowances for mental deficiency in our justice system, be it from congenital mental retardation or sudden psychotic break from reality by other means. I'm arguing that alcohol is one of those other means. We know that there is a segment of the population who cannot control their drinking once they start, cannot function rationally while intoxicated, and often cannot even remember their actions while intoxicated. Yet, alcohol remains legal for adults to consume, while other drugs with this profil

          • by xelah (176252)

            The problem with that is that it imposes huge costs (on the driver, on the drivers family, friends, employer, etc, and on the state) whilst being totally ineffective. Nobody except a handful of murderers (who should be prosecuted as such) drives a car if they believe they're likely to or going to kill someone. Adding a criminal sentence on top doesn't change that.

            If you actually want to achieve something instead of just spreading the misery then you need to make sure that drink-driving is punished with as h

        • by gmuslera (3436)
          Getting drunk and driving, meaning it or not, lead to a lot of innocent people killed, in fact, twice as much as in boston bombing in this particular case. The lulzsec attacks, in the other hand, had no life victims, falls more into the definition of pranks, or if you want, graffitting, than on the definition of crimes (unless you are in a country where the national intelligence sector wants the monopoly on that kind of crimes, and actually does orders of magnitude worse crimes).
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Sarten-X (1102295)

          I see no sarcasm. I see a valid argument.

          The teenager who got drunk wasn't mature enough to be aware of the severity of his actions. That's why we have a juvenile system in the first place. Even if, while sober, he intended to get drunk and drive recklessly, he probably couldn't understand the risk involved. That's why his sentence is only 10 years' probation rather that jail time. It's a sentence that fits reasonably well with several counts of accidental manslaughter and a DWI.

          On the other hand, Sabu inde

          • by easyTree (1042254)

            The teenager who got drunk wasn't mature enough to be aware of the severity of his actions.

            *Buzzer sound* Thanks for playing.

            If this teenager is deemed fit to drive a deadly weapon and thus assume the responsibility for all the split-second choices he's expected to make wisely, he's fit to be held accountable for choosing to drink before driving.

        • by Immerman (2627577)

          Hmm, somebody knowingly chooses to incapacitate themselves and then operate a deadly weapon in a public space? Right, no reason to punish them, it's not like they've ever done it before, or will ever do it again.

          Okay, *maybe* they'll be "scared straight" by the fact that they killed someone, but they still willfully chose to pursue their own amusement over the safety of everyone around them, and that was no accident, in fact they have almost certainly made that choice time and time again before the odds ca

        • by citizenr (871508)

          What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen.

          Yes, I run around with scissors all the time, I didnt mean to pierce someones belly with it!

      • by Ravaldy (2621787)

        Although I'm sure that drunk car driving case is not the only one I'm sure it accounts for a tiny fraction of what actually happens to drunk drivers. Thousands more drunk drivers are caught everyday and prosecuted as expected. I think picking the one stained case out of the bucket makes the justice system look far worst than it really is.

    • by LoRdTAW (99712)

      Yup 124 years for mischief sounds fair.

      I would argue that the maximum for computer crimes should be no more than 5 years for a first time offender. I have never been to prison but I have heard first hand accounts and believe me, 5 years in a state or federal penitentiary sounds like it will inflict enough suffering for most.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    While I can't speak to Sabus conscience, I have to wonder if he now think cooperating was the best course of action. The FBI pretty much owns him. For all intents and purposes, he is their slave. And he still has yet to be sentenced. I don't know what a fitting punishment would have been for exposing HB Gary Federal and the other ilk, but like most other tech 'crimes', it would have been wholly unproportional.

    That said, just how long can the FBI do this to someone? If they have him dead to rights, legally,

    • The legally can since he agreed to be an informant. If he told them to piss off, the case would have been over months ago.

    • He has a choice; he can spend 124 years in prison now, if he wants.

    • I mean, it's not like they're saying, "Help us or we'll lock you up for not helping us." They're saying, "You committed a crime and the punishment for that crime is 124 years in prison. But help us and we'll see if we can shorten that a bit."

      • They can say lots of things, that doesnt make them remotely true.

        Pretty sure thats why everyone has always said "get a lawyer before saying anything". 124 years sounds farfetched, regardless of what reporters / the prosecution were saying.

  • If he's already helped enough to get from 124 years down to possibly "avoid jail completely", what will happen if they have "more use for him"? They should start paying him. A lot.

    • by TWiTfan (2887093)

      A pimp doesn't pay his bitches.

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Monday January 13, 2014 @01:22PM (#45940897) Homepage Journal

      well, that there is even debate that the possible sentence is between _zero_ years and 1.5 lifetimes should be enough to tell that something is quite fucked up in the legal system.

      you shouldn't be forced to provide evidence for your prosecution and this pretty much is it - and if the crime really is so horrible as to require 124 years then one shouldn't be able to snitch out of it in the first place. fucked up on so many levels.

      • You think that is bad? Look up Sammy Gravano...admitted to killing quite a few people for the mob..probably killed a lot more...around a year in prison for snitching on gotti.

      • well, that there is even debate that the possible sentence is between _zero_ years and 1.5 lifetimes should be enough to tell that something is quite fucked up in the legal system.

        Not at all.

        You rob 800 convenience stores. Lets say the maximum sentence for one act of burglary is 2 years. Thats between 0 and 1600 years, right? Except it very rarely works that way, and while the prosecution / media may throw that number around to scare said burglar into bargaining, its not even remotely realistic.

        I would recommend that folks who are neither lawyers nor acquainted with how sentencing works refrain from commenting on how sentencing works.

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          "You rob 800 convenience stores. Lets say the maximum sentence for one act of burglary is 2 years. Thats between 0 and 1600 years, right? "

          in usa it is. that's exactly the point, that there is debate ranging from ridiculously over the top for the crime punishment to zero. that's not how laws work in most of the "civilized" world - not at all - a crime has it's punishment and it's decided by the lawmakers in advance, not by whoever happens to hold the executive branch seats at the time.

    • They should start paying him. A lot.

      Just because he was involved in some petty computer mischief with some other hooligans does not mean he has top-of-the-job-market skills. In fact, because he got caught by the FBI by accidentally exposing his IP address would indicate he isn't an elite player. The dudes out there operating out of the FBI's reach are the ones deserving to be 'paid a lot.' They likely are being paid a lot, too.

  • by DavidGilbert99 (2607235) on Monday January 13, 2014 @11:56AM (#45939937)
    Just in from New York - Sabu's sentencing has been delayed once again without explanation http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lulzsecs-sabu-be-sentenced-new-york-1432049 [ibtimes.co.uk]
    • by arisvega (1414195)

      Disgusting and repulsive manipulation of the legal and penal system, that borders on being plain corrupt. Consider the precedent and the example it sets.

      Yet another dissapointing fail for this country.

    • So of this Sabu character had no skills, but had cooperated, they'd be a free man right now. Good thing he can't spin straw into gold;
      this sentence; His sentencing has been adjourned numerous times for unknown reasons, and if the FBI have any more use for him, then we could see it delayed again. Kind of is the evidence of "carrot and stick".

      When law enforcement continuously puts people in jeopardy and withholds rights or selectively prosecutes -- that is not justice. And when Prosecutors load up charges in

    • by Dabido (802599)
      They delayed it just for the LULZ.
  • The sentencing is a formality, a boilerplate. It is to send a message to any other would-be ne'er do wells that should you cooperate and come quietly the government will absolve you of your sins. Lulzsec for all their antics were champions of the government transparency inherent in a democracy contrived by the people and for the people.

    the lesson from this is that ideas never die. Next time if you want to be a hero, you need to take a good hard look at your life and decide "is it worth it?" in Sabus
    • by Entropius (188861) on Monday January 13, 2014 @01:51PM (#45941295)

      Edward Snowden played a chessmasters game in his defection and for it our government is left to do nothing more but ensure negative propaganda against him is dissemenated appropriately to all media outlets and further steps taken to mitigate a repeat performance. The only difference between a soviet system, the one we feared for 20 years, and our system, is that every 4 years we're burdened with the task of shuffling off to a school or church to apply our endorsement for a party. there are normally only ever two however.

      You're naive if you believe this.

      I live in Washington DC. There are city buses with "Thank you Edward Snowden!" advertisements on the sides, so big you can read it from a city block away, paid for by his supporters. There's an advertisement in the Pentagon subway station that says "Snowden honored his oath -- honor yours. Report unethical actions." with a URL.

      Compare this to what happened in the Soviet Union -- you'd never see this in Moscow in the 1960's. Yes, there are things that aren't perfect in the US. Yes, our government does some scary, scummy, tyrannical things. But just because things aren't perfect doesn't mean that we're living in a totalitarian hell.

      • by csumpi (2258986)
        +1 (wish I had mod points)
      • by houghi (78078)

        In Soviet Russia you were not allowed to say anything, because they feared you could change things.

        In the USofA they do not have that fear that you can cause change, so you can say anything you like.

        I think the false pretense of freedom and liberty is scarier.

    • Sabu gave us hope and he taught us lessons.

      Yes, his posting fake stories on PBS.com and releasing the names of all X Factor contestants was truly an inspiration to us all.

  • Pow (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "You are charged with being smarter than us and exposing our corruption."

  • What crime - any crime - justly deserves 124 years in the gulag? The court apparatus has gotten badly out of control, to the point where it no longer seems interested in maintaining even the appearance of fairness or legitimacy.

    • by Jakeula (1427201)
      It's not that any one crime yielded him 124 year sentence. He had a lot of stolen credit card data, so that's multiple counts of ID theft, add that to the multitude of private computer systems LulzSec compromised equals that long of a sentence. I still think that is a bit drastic. However, in some states you get an attempted murder charge for x pills of Ecstasy you have if you have enough to be considered "intent to distribute". Enough pills of E and you have a hefty max sentence in front of you. Many times
      • by jmcvetta (153563)

        Right... the threat of a comically-draconian sentence is used to coerce the defendant into a false confession ("plea bargain"). Thus we keep the gulags nice & full, and the citizens entombed therein are expected to show gratitude for being "let off" with a mere year or two in a Federal Torture and Rape Facility.

  • Guaranteed, there are people trying to figure out how to give him a dirt-nap, or figuring out who they can pay to do it. With the sentencing delayed, it appears he is not through making lifelong enemies. I see some witness protection in his future, if not already to some degree (the monitored phone, computer, etc...) ...I am sure the feds would know instantly if something happened or he was on the move.
  • When you do something like this you know the consequences. It is shameful that he turned on those he fought alongside. And if you don't agree with that, let him fry for breaking the law. Either way, neither side should consider him worthy of anything other than a long prison sentence for breaking the rules of their society.

  • 1 in 30 people in the US are under the supervision of the correctional system in the US. We really need to decriminalize being human. There are too many laws and to many ways for people to get arrested and end up at the bar of justice in this country. You can break laws that you never ever imagined ever existed. Hell I probably broke a dozen or so just posting this stupid post...

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.

Working...