Jeremy Hammond of LulzSec Pleads Guilty To Stratfor Attack 192
eldavojohn writes "After facing 30 years to life imprisonment and pleading not guilty to charges last year, Jeremy Hammond has pleaded guilty to his alleged involvement in Anonymous' hacking of Stratfor. The self proclaimed hacktivist member of LulzSec, who has compared his situation to that of the late Aaron Swartz, explained his reasoning in his plea: 'Today I pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This was a very difficult decision. I hope this statement will explain my reasoning. I believe in the power of the truth. In keeping with that, I do not want to hide what I did or to shy away from my actions. This non-cooperating plea agreement frees me to tell the world what I did and why, without exposing any tactics or information to the government and without jeopardizing the lives and well-being of other activists on and offline. During the past 15 months I have been relatively quiet about the specifics of my case as I worked with my lawyers to review the discovery and figure out the best legal strategy. There were numerous problems with the government's case, including the credibility of FBI informant Hector Monsegur. However, because prosecutors stacked the charges with inflated damages figures, I was looking at a sentencing guideline range of over 30 years if I lost at trial. I have wonderful lawyers and an amazing community of people on the outside who support me. None of that changes the fact that I was likely to lose at trial. But, even if I was found not guilty at trial, the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country. If I had won this trial I would likely have been shipped across the country to face new but similar charges in a different district. The process might have repeated indefinitely. ... I did what I believe is right.'"
New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds rather like patent trolling.
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason it sounds like patent trolling is more because it sounds like extortion. They leveraged the law to force him to plea. If he hadn't he could have spent years going around the country until someone convicted him. I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it is. No, no it will not be. TPTB like it that way.
Anonymous Are Bigots Themselves (Score:2)
Recently, Anonymous decided to target the English Defense League by publishing the personal details of its members online, in the wake of that group's protests over the Woolwich jihad murder. I'm a South Asian myself, and I find that Anonymous' blatantly sectarian political bias puts them outside of the realm of social justice. They're just a bunch of Left-wing punks with their own glaring ethnic biases coupled with crooked vigilanteism.
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason it sounds like patent trolling is more because it sounds like extortion. They leveraged the law to force him to plea. If he hadn't he could have spent years going around the country until someone convicted him. I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.
They have evidence he broke the law on numerous occasions. A murderer being charged for multiple murders isn't a loophole.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just a reminder, one does not prove one's innocence under US law, even if possible to do so. One strives to prevent conviction by establishing sufficient reasonable doubt of guilt.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the compliment. I intended for them to be accurate words.
You're right to the extent that once in the system your goal is to get out of it. If you can show by whatever means that you did not do or could not have done what you've been arrested for or are later charged with doing then you're out. Usually.
Once you've been convicted and imprisoned even at a county-jail level, if you can show that you did not or could not have committed the crime then there is no guarantee of release. When things d
Re: (Score:2)
Serial trials are EXTREMELY infrequent. If the crimes are linked, they'll be tried together.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can prove they didn't do it? No. We shouldn't punish them.
Unfortunately, Hammond did this. He knows he did it.
He knows the government and Stratfor have him dead to rights.
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have the largest prison population in the world (and the largest per capita). For the supposed land of the free I think that says volumes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we encourage crime sprees? If I know I will only get charged with one instance of a crime, I'm going to rob a dozen 7-11s instead of one. You should not be rewarded for committing more crimes.
I don't think that is what is happening. You can certainly get charged with multiple charges of the same crime. It would be like if you robbed a dozen 7/11 stores in a dozen states, but they could only prove that you robbed one. You can either go to trial in 12 states, or take the plea bargain for just one robbery, and save yourself the 11 other trials.
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Informative)
Pleading "not guilty" is a "plea" to charges laid and read. It is not a statement of facts. It is a formal notification that you are going to make a case for consideration by the Court. On some charges, in a number of jurisdictions, you are not even allowed to plea other than "not guilty". Pleading is not and cannot be either a truth or lie.
So, when did he lie?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Weasel word it all you want. It was a lie. He committed a crime and then said that he was not guilty of the crime that he committed. You're not very sharp, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
You should not be rewarded for committing more crimes.
Gee, I hope you're not a banker, or one of those wall street mavens...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same INSTANCE of the same crime.
You robbed a 7/11 on 01/01/2013.
You robbed the same 7/11 on 02/01/2013
You robbed the same 7/11 on 03/01/2013.
You can be tried, in serial, for each of them. Though, for brevity's sake, prosecutors tend to concatenate them.
But yes, it's possible to be cleared of the 01/01 robbery and still have to go to trial for the 02/01 and 03/01 offenses if they charges weren't amalgamated into a single list of offenses.
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more like someone being charged with multiple murders in several jurisdictions, along with:
1 count of aggravated assault for each murder,
1 count of battery for each murder,
1 count of kidnapping for each murder count
1 count of reckless driving,
1 count of improper disposal of a body,
1 count of improper storage of human remains,
3 counts of use of a firearm during the commission of a crime (because you had 3 guns),
1 count of taking a body across state lines
All this on top of the multiple murder charges you're already facing. Now substitute murder with "violation of CAFA" and change the violent charges to fraud charges.
I think you get the point. The charges get stacked in such a ridiculous manner and if you're found guilty of even one you're still going to go to jail for something and the juries are so hopelessly confused that they don't have much of a choice but to usually just do an all or nothing. Prosecutors offer deals that seem minor to the potential 300 year sentence your facing. It is abuse of power and exploitation of the system by the people within the system.
Re: (Score:2)
They have evidence he broke the law on numerous occasions..
So... basically, like any civil disobedience act, like Brown v. Board of Education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education [wikipedia.org] in which an existing and socially unconscionable law was disobeyed, ultimately leading to the end of segregation and the doctrine of "Separate But Equal", right?
A murderer being charged for multiple murders isn't a loophole.
A singular act should result in a singular charge. It's very common for prosecutors to "stack charges", not only so they can threaten consecutive service of penalties in order to coerce a confession, but also t
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Insightful)
A murderer being charged for multiple murders isn't a loophole.
It's not a loophole, it's a flaw. For several reasons. Among them;
If the suspect is truly guilty of the charges then they should serve their time. Why are we letting criminals get away with serving so much less than they should simply because they plead guilty?
Studies show that a great number of innocent people will plead guilty in the plea bargain process. Students were paired with actors to perform a task. They affirmed they would not cheat before the study. Since the other 'student' was an actor, it was fully known whether the person was guilty or not. Many innocent people plead guilty when they are told they can fight the charge of cheating and risk expulsion from school or plead guilty and write an essay.
The only benefit argued by proponents of the plea bargain is that it helps speed up the judicial process for backlogged courts. I don't agree that's even a benefit. If courts are backlogged perhaps we should reassess what we criminalize and prosecute rather than speeding up the conviction process.
Re: (Score:3)
If the suspect is truly guilty of the charges then they should serve their time. Why are we letting criminals get away with serving so much less than they should simply because they plead guilty?
Now define the duration of "their time".
Hammond has spent 15 months in jail already, and will probably get a "time served" sentence, or maybe a little more. If the judge is feeling like being a real dick, he might give him 5-8 years.
So, if the "time" is 10 years for a crime, why on earth should a prosecutor have the ability to stack up charges such that he might spend the rest of his life in jail? Is wasting a week of the court's time worth the rest of someone's life? This is plain and simply abuse of t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They already allow estate taxes to be collected by multiple states that each claim you domicile there.
But the fact that the murder weapon was manufactured by a corporation may prevent a prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a flaw if you're a member of the public.
If you're part of the establishment it's a feature.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.
Fucked up legal system takes away the judging power from the judiciary.
It's not so much a flaw but instead a way for those in power to maintain their consolidated hold on power. This discretionary power held by the Attorneys General (of the States of our United States of America and of the Federal Districts of these United
Re: (Score:3)
You're correct. It is. The only part that is incorrect is the "new strategy" part; this isn't a new tactic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One side of the story... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do have to point out that his statement is rather blatently self-justification and self-serving. Yes, indeed, he sounds like a sweet-well intentioned innocent, and the evil government is the villain, when he tells the story.
Re:One side of the story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there is certainly some self-serving element. I think he's probably guilty of something as well.
However, consider if you actually felt that you were innocent, and I don't mean "activist innocent", I mean you didn't actually do anything illegal. If the government decided that they wanted you in jail, they'd just have to start stacking charges on you and get you up to 30 years or so. Then you have to decide if you can win or not, charge by charge, AND you have to decide if you can pay for it.
The problem is, it is *way* too easy for the government to use this tactic, and tactic is what it is. It is tantamount to forcing a plea of guilty despite the fact that prosecutors are not sure that they could win the case. Instead of the search for truth, it becomes bullying of the worst form.
All I can say is: think twice about doing anything where you will end up on the wrong side of an Assistant US Attorney. Their job is to convict you, and they will not hesitate to use overkill to do it.
And for the rest of us.... think about how to make this go away. It is an understatement to say that it won't be easy to do, but in an age of increasing Federal presence, it is critical that these processes are firmly under control or there will be serious trouble going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
If an activist is committing some form of civil disobedience. Then it is in their interest to demonstrate to the public that it is a problem by fighting it in court to the best of their abilities.
This guy is just in trouble and wants off easy. Not saying he may not have some ideas that are good but he's outside of my scope. I'm uninterested in how he thinks he's going to do anyone or himself any good.
I would not compare him t Aaron Swartz.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah. FUD!
If da gub-mint wants to put ya in jail, you is goin' ta jail! They gonna fight dirty!
Yes! The Evil Military Industrial Complex Will Punish You! FNORD!
This isn't about some fantasy of an innocent guy framed by The Man here. This is a scumbag, repeat-offending CRIMINAL who got caught because he couldn't NOT brag about how "elite" he was.
Jeremy DOES "feel innocent". Because in Jeremy's World, Jeremy does no wrong. Jeremy is "misunderstood". Jeremy knows better than anyone else. Because only Je
Re: (Score:2)
He did not say "before you break the law." He said, "before you do something to end up on the wrong side of an Assistant US Attorney." These are two different things.
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Informative)
http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/233208/stratfor-hacker-could-be-sentenced-to-life-says-judge
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/14/232217/lulzsec-member-pleads-not-guilty-in-stratfor-leak-case
Jeremy has a long history of run ins with the law, I doubt this will be his last. I distanced myself from both him and the site years ago due to his volatile political stance and open opinions on hacktivism.
For a site that was touted as a safe place to learn computer and internet security it was obviously a recruiting ground for hacktivism.
Re: (Score:3)
Not Really (Score:2, Interesting)
It turns out that you just can't fix stupid.
There are simply some people who think of themselves as Robin Hoods and think they are justified in any crimes they commit... and when they think they are "right" and "justified" they then see no reason to hide from potential friends/followers/supporters. The masks they wear (in this case, internet names) are only intended to protect their identity from the authorities, whom they presume are dumber than they, their friends, and their supporters are. It's a poor fo
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Sounds like you've met this guy.
I have, and it pretty much sums him up to a tee.
Re: (Score:3)
It is much easier for a prosecutor to throw a bunch of charges at someone and hope for some them to stick. The US's double-jeopardy prevents a defendant to be tried for the same crime twice. Where exactly the line is for what is considered double-jeopardy isn't always clear, so the prosecutor has a better chance of getting a conviction if they change someone with all possible crimes they are guilty of from the start.
If you want top stop the state from throwing a bunch of changes at someone, double-jeopard
Re: New strategy in criminal law? (Score:2)
Part of the problem (part!) Is the ability for blatantly guilty criminals to get off. So in the past theh HAD to stack charges to get a conviction. See John Gotti Sr a la "the teflon don." He was blatantly guilty, used witness intimidation and threats, and was a horrible human being overall. It still took 4 trials. Or vinny the chin, or any number of mobsters. Sure they committed far worse crimes, but the fundamental problem was the same. To be fair I have no idea how to balance it.
Re: New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, one of the fundamental principles of western law is that it is better to allow the guilty to keep their freedom than it is to deny freedom to the innocent. This of course assumes all trials are fair trials (to both sides).
Plea bullying (Score:4, Interesting)
As others have said, if a lot of the charges were indeed bogus, a defense attorney should have been able to get them thrown out.
If they are bogus they should not be there in the first place, according to a thousand years of western law it is not ok to throw "bogus" legal obstacles and distractions at the (presumed innocent) defendant.
A significant part of the problem is that (US) prosecutors are judged by the number of convictions they obtain rather than the quality of the charges they lay. When implemented this becomes pile up 10 charges, plea bargain guilty for one, bingo another brownie point on the prosecutors score card, collect enough points and you are moved up a rung on the judicial career ladder..
The US simply takes plea bargaining to the extreme and turns it into plea bulling, in the same way Fred Phelps takes free speech to the extreme and turns it into harassment. Other nations seem to be able to (largely) avoid plea bullying whilst still leaving the option of a plea bargain open to the defendant.
US law is firmly rooted in English common law and yet a random person in the UK (or indeed all of the EU) is ~7X less likely to be incarcerated, and the figures don't look that much better when comparing the US to China. The main reason for the imbalance is that the US has 500K prisoners from the drug war alone, the EU with nearly twice the population has a total of 600K prisoners for ALL crimes.
There is no sane explanation for these glaring differences other than "culture".
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:4, Informative)
You moron...
"Now that I have pleaded guilty it is a relief to be able to say that I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites"
He even admitted his guilt in TFA.
So establishing his guilt, yes the sentence is way out of proportion with the crime, and yes this is a tactic way too often used by prosecutors to "scare" a defendant into a plea bargain. The problem here is the underlying law allowing for the possibility for a 30 year conviction, while it seems like DA is doing their job in an unjust manner, they are doing their job within the confines of the law. Best option is still to not get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
The best option is to not to break the law. The second best thing not to do is brag about it to your online buddies if you do violate the law. And the 3rd best option is to start realizing that it is becoming damn hard to hide your online footprint if some law enforcement agency really wants to track your ass down.
Re: (Score:3)
The best option is to not to break the law.
Since there are more laws on the books than any one person could learn or know, in addition to the volumes of judgements interpreting and/or refining them, this is not a practical option for most. Not breaking the law requires knowing the law. Not getting caught, does not. Therefore, the best option is to not get caught (whether intentionally breaking the law or not). Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the futu
Re: (Score:3)
He knew exactly what he was doing, maybe not the full extent of the consequences, but he should've known he was breaking at least some law and creating some sort of repercussion. Going public to his friends is where he f'ed up. So you statement:
Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the future.
Is best applied to things somebody is unsure of, in which case it is very good advice. It does however go against social human nature, so I'm pretty sure some people are just incapable of it, but then again those people usually aren't looking for trouble either.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you ever heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
This case would seem to be easily covered by "don't take what isn't yours."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Again,
Jeremy is INTIMATELY familiar with this particular law. Having broke the same exact law, in the same exact way, and getting 2 years in jail for it about 5 years ago.
Hell, he even started these shenanigans WHILE HE WAS ON PAROLE!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if you have strong sociopathic tendencies the golden rule
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Jeremy should know this law fairly well.
It's the same law, and the same set of circumstances, that got him tossed in lockup in Greenville, IL for 2 years back in 2007.
And Jeremy's constitutionally INCAPABLE of not getting caught.
He WANTS people to know how "l33t" he is. That's what actually GOT him caught this time. He couldn't shut up and wound up blathering enough facts about himself to an informant to get ID'ed and then monitored for a sting.
Re: (Score:2)
You moron...
"Now that I have pleaded guilty it is a relief to be able to say that I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites"
He even admitted his guilt in TFA.
So establishing his guilt, yes the sentence is way out of proportion with the crime, and yes this is a tactic way too often used by prosecutors to "scare" a defendant into a plea bargain. The problem here is the underlying law allowing for the possibility for a 30 year conviction, while it seems like DA is doing their job in an unjust manner, they are doing their job within the confines of the law. Best option is still to not get caught.
Um...you have to admit your guilt in part of a plea agreement. Calling him a moron for admitting he's guilty when he's pleading "guilty" is kind of ironic, don't you think?
Re:New strategy in criminal law? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not new in the least.
It's a standard feature of the legal system. You can claim many things, they can even be mutually exclusive, and the court case is there to check which ones hold up.
It applies to both sides, as well. Defendants routinely claim that a) they didn't do it, b) they were intoxicated when doing it and c) it was an accident. The geek in you winces that these can not all be true, so how can you claim them all - but to a lawyer, that's not even worth mentioning.
Re: (Score:3)
Defendants routinely claim that a) they didn't do it, b) they were intoxicated when doing it and c) it was an accident.
I don't think people claim intoxication as a defense much anymore. But that's beside the point.
Defendants routinely simply refute every statement made against them. That doesn't necessarily imply a contraction.
In any case that's not quite the right characterization.
It's more like the prosecution will charge:
You were there.
You stabbed him.
You intended to kill him.
And the defense counters:
He
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like an SNL skit
What are the charges?
Everything
everything?
yes. Everything
including...?
then go on to read through a list of really weird outdated laws
"Assault by Lawyer" (Score:2)
it's more than that: it's actually a criminal offense, known in the U.S. as "Assault by Lawyer". if you repeatedly sue someone, for example, such that they are made bankrupt by the legal fees of doing nothing more than defending themselves, it's actually a criminal offense. could someone please get word to this guy's legal team about this please?
Lies? (Score:3)
" the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country"
How can they claim this without giving the person a list?
Re:Lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Habeus Corpus is dead. Murdered in an attempt to "be tough on crime." I think these convictions will do very little to deter other anonymous splinter groups.
Reminder that what this guy leaked that he's being prosecuted for: The company stratfor was using their government sponsored spying program to also spy on companies in order to provide Goldman Sachs with insider information through a foreign owned subsidiary, in order to dodge US insider trading laws.
Then the government arrests him, and not them.
Re: (Score:2)
stratfor was also breaking the rules of credit card conduct.
was stratfor ever fined for it for damages? fuck no.
Re: (Score:2)
They can claim anything they want (not always, but often). You shouldn't necessarily believe them if they don't provide evidence, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blame the people who are actually responsible for the insecurity. Not the ones who are taking advantage of it."
Skip the false dichotomy and embrace the power of 'and'. Just because somebody sold me a crappy lock doesn't absolve a person who breaks into my house of responsibility for his or her choice to do so. We don't have to pick just one to hold accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
idiot
lulzsec is not the good guys (Score:5, Interesting)
Hammond Versus Barrett (Score:2)
The more I read about what these guys were doing--and I mean the stuff they've admitted to, not just been accused of--the more I think they are getting what they deserve. Breaking into someone's network to get at information that the public should know is political. Breaking into someones network and racking up charges on personal credit card numbers is criminal. They're like the idiots that smash store windows during street protests.
I agree they are not the good guys. But I also think it's important to mete out justice based on who was doing what. I hope in street protests when windows are smashed that the vandals are correctly identified and brought to justice. Similarly, I hope they find who are responsible for the credit card thefts [rt.com] but it appears Hammond is not and there are reports he did not benefit personally from this intrusion:
Barrett Brown of Dallas, Texas is expected to stand trial starting this September for a number of charges, including one relating to the release of Stratfor subscribers’ credit card numbers. He faces a maximum of 100 years in prison.
More here [dallasobserver.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not Hammond benefited PERSONALLY from the hack is IRRELEVANT.
If you break into a home or business, and take nothing, you're STILL guilty of breaking and entering.
In this case, he DID take those credit card numbers. So it's even more clear-cut than that.
Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
The Boston Tea party: Some hooligans in the US in Boston dressed up as native Americans and dumped the tea cargo into the harbor. That was vandalism. It wasn't to protest just one thing either, there were multiple issues the protesters were upset about. I suspect that were something similar to happen today, Fox would give them the same treatment they gave the occupy wall street movement. "It's vandalism! And what are they even upset ABOUT? They can't even tell us that (at least not in few enough words to fit on a bumper sticker.)"
Anyway, they can be thieves and window smashers and still have valid political motivations. And what they've done is illegal no matter what their motivations.
Re: (Score:2)
The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protesters were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent. Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights... Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business. Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act. Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods
It reminds me of occupy wall street. They were upset at more than one thing. Fortunately, the media in those days catered to people who had an attention span longer than ten words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30 years though? I could go into a 7-11 - shoot the clerk and rob the store and get less time.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. Go into 7-11. Shoot the clerk and rob the store.
Now do your time.
Now repeat the same offense.
You're going to go away for LONGER this time.
Jeremy basically broke into a business' server and stole credit cards (and did time for it) previously.
So he's now being charged as a repeat offender.
The more likely boring truth: (Score:2)
They broke into a company that was handling credit card transactions and was poorly secured. Stratfor would have done well to invest in some decent sysadmins years ago.
Even worse, in their eyes, Stratfor had discounted Barrett Brown and the claim that anonymous would bring down the Mexican cartels as wishful thinking fantasy (which it indeed was).
Then, they found all sorts of "spook speak" in emails and convinced themselves that they had found their way into something more secret than the CIA, NSA, DEVGRU a
Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (Score:5, Interesting)
This was not a good company. [wikipedia.org]
Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not seeing anything on their page that is, on the face of it, illegal. Certainly, they seem to be getting near the edge of the law, but if they don't cross the line, there's nothing there.
They may be immoral, but the moment you start legislating morality, you open up a can of worms that can't be unopened.
Stratfor may be kind of dumb in some areas, but that doesn't make them a bad company.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but the moment you start legislating morality
We already do: murder, rape, theft, and other such things are illegal. They likely wouldn't be if most people had no problems with them (if we even had a society in such circumstances).
Re: (Score:2)
but the moment you start legislating morality
We already do: murder, rape, theft, and other such things are illegal. They likely wouldn't be if most people had no problems with them (if we even had a society in such circumstances).
That is the most asinine thing I have read all day. Murder, rape, and theft all violate the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: Namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have no right to deprive people of their ability to decide who they have sex with, whether someone else gets to live or die, or whether or not they get to keep their property. Your rights end where mine begin.
Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Declaration of Independence?
I think you missed the point. The rules you follow in social life are based on morals as defined by your cultural background, evolved over centuries of social interaction. The rights you cite are valid in places that do not care about the Declaration of Independence. The laws we follow are codified morals.
Re: (Score:3)
Murder, rape, and theft all violate the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence
And you don't think that the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence put them there believing they were immoral?
Re: (Score:3)
They may be immoral, but the moment you start legislating morality, you open up a can of worms that can't be unopened.
What are you talking about? Law is nothing but codified morals.
Re: (Score:2)
Big fucking deal. You burglarize a marijuana grow house, and you get prosecuted for burglary. Everybody who is not a criminal is happy.
It's a 'two-fer.'
Hammond stole from some extremely vile scumbags. They lose their reputation. Hammond goes to jail.
It's a "two-fer."
Two for the price of one.
Re: (Score:2)
they weren't doing many illegal things. they were bullshitting about having good intel on many things though, but just bordering on fraud.
however, stratfor was going against regulations by storing those cc numbers. they had no real reason to store them and the credit card companies should have sued them for breaking the rules.. and for damages for 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
For a first time offender? I agree.
For a repeat offender? Not so much.
And Jeremy's a repeat offender.
Not at all like Swartz (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the LulzSec crew, Swartz was not politically motivated and did not do anything "black hat". Comparing the two sets of CFAA charges are like comparing someone who got a speeding ticket to someone who got a DUI, since they're both moving violations.
Re: (Score:2)
His intent was to unlock public domain court case records from behind a government-sponsored paywall and serve them up to the public.
Instead, I'll argue intent: wasn't his intent to release all of the public domain materials that he obtained legally?
Question (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder when Stratfor is going to be prosecuted for engaging in corporate espionage? Never, because most Fortune 500 companies and government intelligence agencies rely on this private corporation to know what is going on in the world. Can we say "too big to fail?"
Re: (Score:2)
Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of everyone, in every government intelligence agency, laughing at you.
Re: (Score:2)
They can only laugh if they look up from auditing my taxes to see if I can be thrown in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
which indeed they are doing it to weed out political opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not true that "most Fortune 500 companies and government intelligence agencies rely on this private corporation to know what is going on in the world." Stratfor is a small company that does some private consulting, not some kind of global anti-CIA.
Stratfor will be prosecuted for corporate espionage when it commits corporate espionage. Stop trying to substitute drama for analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Look guys, the Project Manager for the CIA/NSA/FBI/NRO/DOD program to buy intelligence from Stratfor has come onto Slashdot! Please, don't audit me Bro!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most disturbing; buffered charges (Score:4, Informative)
So, inflating charges is one thing, but I guess I have a much bigger problem with the idea that the government can buffer some of the inflated charges for later and keep you in a state of permanently accused and tried. I've heard of this for serial killers, where they only bring 1/2 of the cases in one block in case they don't get the conviction or the convict is released at a later date. I have no clue how you address this, but it sounds like a horrible precedent. A really unscrupulous DA could trickle out charges one at a time and keep you in court for life for all kinds of offenses.
Slightly OT, but I just watched a movie called American Violet about disreputable DAs in Texas who were piling on charges with sometimes innocent poor people, getting them to plead out under the threat of YEARS in prison, then collecting money from the Feds for successful drug convictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, since things are worse other places we should just shut up and not fix the issues we have here? Clearly the most rational approach is to let our little solvable problems turn into huge intractable problems before even start trying to address them.
Re: (Score:2)
But in communist Russ^H^H^H^HChina, the government rewards you for hacking American networks!
I think this is a fair resolution. (Score:2)
Taking Hammond's crime, his criminal history, his messed-up psychology, and the altruistic component of his motivation all into account. . . this looks like a fair resolution to me.
I hope Hammond learns his lesson THIS time. I feel sorry for him, he's really smart and really a moron at the same time. He could to a lot working within the law.
Feds could've ripped his guts out. Maybe THIS federal prosecutor thinks a little more about justice and a little bit less about winning.
Relieved (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some say, his pants put themselves on.
He was once clocked, doing eighty, in reverse, on the loo!
Whatever, he's our guest witness today.
And he's called, THE STIG!
What I'd like to know is when will... (Score:2)
... there be laws against fabricating problems for profit that otherwise would not exist?
Exposing such should not be criminal, but honored and rewarded.
Overreach? (Score:2)
As noted here earlier this month, three young hackers in Britain convicted of similar charges relating to the Stratfor hack received sentences that pale in comparison to what Hammond faces and highlight the U.S.’ overreach when it comes to cybercrime prosecutions. The longest sentence handed down in the U.K. cases carried a maximum of 15 months jail time. Meanwhile, as Hammond expressed in a statement Tuesday, he could have faced 30 years in prison were he to have been found guilty at trial. His supporters and legal team are now asking his presiding judge to hand down a sentence far less harsh than the possible 10 years his plea agreement can carry.
Uhm. How is this overreach?
This is NOT his first CFAA violation. He did 2 years in federal lockup previously for THE EXACT SAME CRIME several years back?
Worse, he started this little shindig while still on parole from the first offense!
Not to mention other convictions for assault and battery, theft, assaulting a police officer, etc.
This guy isn't a hero. He's not a crusader. He's not a moral compass. Hell, he hasn't actually even done anything ORIGINAL. His basic idea, steal a bunch of credit cards an
Where is the justice (Score:2)
Reading about all these news about :-