Kentucky Anonymous Member Indicted Three Years After FBI Raid (arstechnica.com) 176
A federal grand jury has indicted "KYAnonymous" -- more than three years after FBI agents raided and searched his home -- and charged him under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes an article from Ars Technica:
After The New York Times published an account [late in 2012] of a horrific rape against a teenage girl in Steubenville, Ohio, an online vigilante campaign was started...the campaign targeted local officials who the vigilantes felt weren't prosecuting the rape investigation seriously because the alleged perpetrators were high school football players... Two teenage boys ended up being charged, and when the case went to trial in March 2013, the two were convicted of rape and sentenced to one to two years in prison.
The indictment says Deric Lostutter "knowingly and intentionally joined and voluntarily participated in a conspiracy" to "harass and intimidate and to gain publicity for their online identities," according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. "If convicted in the Kentucky case, Lostutter could face a maximum penalty of 16 years in prison (no more than five years on each of three counts, and one year on a fourth)..."
"The federal search warrant of Lostutter's home listed 'Guy Fawkes masks' among the items agents were looking for."
The indictment says Deric Lostutter "knowingly and intentionally joined and voluntarily participated in a conspiracy" to "harass and intimidate and to gain publicity for their online identities," according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. "If convicted in the Kentucky case, Lostutter could face a maximum penalty of 16 years in prison (no more than five years on each of three counts, and one year on a fourth)..."
"The federal search warrant of Lostutter's home listed 'Guy Fawkes masks' among the items agents were looking for."
Time to bring up the due process motions (Score:5, Insightful)
3 years after collecting evidence?
What, was the Grand Jury out for coffee?
The sad thing is they're going for more time than the real offenders.
I say we tell the Kentucky US Attorney about more serious crimes that could be occurring in her jurisdiction. Ones that would be a better use of taxpayer monies.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's certainly not Hilary.
It's clear some people are above the law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Evil hacker arrested for outing rapists" does not make a good headline.
Gotta let everyone forget.
Just look at the claims against them, a nice, conveniently 'clean' charge of conspiracy to harass and intimidate all for personal publicity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Vigilantism (Score:2)
Vigilantism (Adj when describing something) - done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures
This action of bringing awareness, is not that. Perhaps harassment, but not vigilantism. Word choice colors your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, I don't know where you're getting your definition that vigilantism requires violent action but Oxford says no it doesn't [oxforddictionaries.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws require greater specificity than these common terms give, but the common terms do represent real crimes: laws are made to address the common-term understanding of criminal activity, rather than the other way around. So starting from the initial position that vigilantism should be illegal
Re: (Score:1)
Not only does that not make sense to me, it doesn't make sense in regard to freedom. The original story was about the CFAA law. I don't even want to know what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think that law was meant to address. On the other hand, I am a bit curious what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think criminalizing copyright infringment was meant to a
Re: (Score:2)
I... am having some trouble interpreting your replies, I have no idea why you feel this way, b
Re: (Score:2)
Starting from the principle that something is wrong allows people to criminalize things that have no business being criminalized and that is at least one of the points I am trying to get across to you.
Really? Here I thought you were just very very passionate about semantics for some baffling reason.
Okay, so if that's your real argument here then how do you suggest laws be made? I'm not clear on how that would work, since this is how it's always done: "Murder is wrong! We should make some laws about it. Also stealing. Also people who take too many items through the express lane." Lawmaking is inevitably reactionary.
Your quibble over harassment is unimportant to the argument, but there certainly are
Re: (Score:2)
" I think I was pretty clear that I'm against this individual, or any individual, deciding for themselves how a case should go without the benefit of due process, and acting on it."
In the steubenville rape case, due process failed, period. This man took justice into his own hands, and is being punished for it by cowards.
Rape is worth 1-2? (Score:5, Insightful)
But trying to get people to investigate it is 15 years?
Re:Rape is worth 1-2? (Score:5, Funny)
He wasn't on the football team.
Re:Rape is worth 1-2? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is sad I laughed at this, almost as sad as the question ye olde grandparent asked.
Re: (Score:3)
But trying to get people to investigate it is 15 years?
1. Anonymous didn't "get people to investigate." This was a feature story in the New York Times, and subsequently spread across newspapers across the US.
2. Sixteen years is the maximum possible sentence, if the hacker were convicted on all counts and for some reason the judge gave them the maximum sentence and made the sentences consecutive. That's not the way real sentences happen. More likely, since it's a first offence on a non-violent crime, would be a short sentence of a few months at most, followed
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...
Re: U.S. Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
Gang rape doesn't pose a threat to our corporate overlords, but hacking and cybercrime does. The system punishes people who threaten the status quo more severely, it doesn't care about teenage girls getting gang raped because that is the status quo and it only affects the little people.
Re: U.S. Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why so many of us are voting for outsider candidates this year.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem here is that this has more of a kid throwing a vase on the floor in a tantrum. Basically saying "I want to be heard, even if that means they scold me, but at least they stop ignoring me."
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that this has more of a kid throwing a vase on the floor in a tantrum. Basically saying "I want to be heard, even if that means they scold me, but at least they stop ignoring me."
Be glad another box is being added to the system (the shit box? the penalty box? going to have to work on that one) instead of ammo boxes being opened up... whoops, too late!
Re: (Score:2)
They're just shooting the wrong democratic pillar.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They're just shooting the wrong democratic pillar.
I honestly think it doesn't matter. I'm as scared of Republicans as the next guy, and I find Trump as odious as the next guy, but I think that if you could look into both universes you'd find that his appointments would be about equally monetarily-motivated as Hillary's.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't Trump imbued with the same "hope" that Sanders' small-donor machine had? That a candidate could be elected with some kind of funding base that wasn't the usual collection of rich donors demanding influence?
I don't know actually true this would be for Trump, but much as been written about his low levels of funding and how little his campaign has spent, indicating that he's taken less money from the usual suspects.
Of course, I'm not personally investing in the idea that even should he manage to get ele
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not personally investing in the idea that even should he manage to get elected he wouldn't be influenced by the usual rich types, but at least the standard narrative is that he's "using his own money" and "not being bought".
I feel like your summary sentence is a good summary of the situation.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're not scared of BOTH Hillary and Trump, you're not paying attention. IF You are voting for Hillary, because Trump scares you, you're just stupid. BOTH Hillary and Trump are equally scary. However, I would suggest to you that Hillary is much scarier, because of the Sycophantic press that is actively supporting her, that wouldn't lift a finger to support anything Donald does.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not scared of BOTH Hillary and Trump, you're not paying attention.
Don't worry, I am both alert and frightened.
IF You are voting for Hillary, because Trump scares you, you're just stupid.
Nope. Don't worry. I may still be stupid, but not because of that. I'm going to write in Sanders (even though it's a protest action and nothing more) and let the chips fall where they may, because at this point I couldn't be arsed to care which turd sandwich we have to bite. Still going to go vote, though.
However, I would suggest to you that Hillary is much scarier, because of the Sycophantic press that is actively supporting her, that wouldn't lift a finger to support anything Donald does.
Possibly true. Probably, though, if Trump actually did somehow become president, he would do as necessary to get money, which would mean taking actions which wou
Re: (Score:1)
You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist ....
Re: (Score:1)
You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist ....
Yeah, and apparently I'm also a SJW who hates democracy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The founding fathers were 1%ers. So was FDR, Kennedy, actually quite a lot of presidents. Some good, some bad (Dubya). Voting for a 1%er is a coin toss, not a shot in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.foundingfathers.com... [foundingfathers.com]
Nice story, that they were "1%". Unlike the progressive %1 that are pure hypocrites (do as I say, not as I do) who love to tell ME what I need to do, only to do the opposite.
Sorry, I don't listen to hypocrites.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to be a one-percenter just to run, or curry favor with one-percenters. Given this choice, I would rather have an independent rich individual be the candidate. As nerds, can we dream of an Elon Musk administration?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
false dichotomy electoral system built around illegal "party" affiliations.
Imagine a system where Primary elections are to pick the top two candidates from ALL sources, and parties had to nominate their one candidate without the help of publicly funded elections.
Or, to put it another way, WHY should the public fund the campaigns of party candidate elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I believe that the people who *should* be in power are too intelligent to run for a federal office. Local, maybe, but you have to compromise too many ideals to run for a federal position.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me more about this Luthor fellow. Does he have a campaign website? There's a lot of interest in third-party candidates this time around.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: U.S. Legal system (Score:4, Interesting)
I like what Gary Johnson has to say. Unfortunately, he's not saying it to very many people.
What's Johnson's super PAC? (Score:2)
Then say it to those people that he is failing to reach. What IEO PAC supports him?
Re: (Score:2)
PurplePAC and AlternativePAC are the two major SuperPACs that have been formed to support Johnson.
But you must understand, Libertarian candidates typically are ethical and principled, and do not often avail themselves to all the legal means of supporting their candidacies. IF you don't like SuperPACs, you don't use them. If you don't like Government funded campaigns, you don't ask for government funding. If you don't like the status quo, you use ONLY that which your ethics and principles allow, and forgo t
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the pointers to PurplePAC [purplepac.org] and Matt Kibbe's [twitter.com] AlternativePAC. I plan to check them out this week and give if they appear worthy, though it appears AlternativePAC doesn't have its own website yet.
As for ethics, I look to the GNU project's use of copyleft, a class of licenses that uses copyright to protect the rights of users. If for-profit interests can hire someone "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" or to exercise "the freedom of speech" on their behalf, then in theory, so can
Re: (Score:2)
Is it to late to drum up support for the lizard people?
I actually meant that to be a joke, but I'm not so sure now that I think about it.
It's Deja Vu All Over Again. (Score:2)
Gang rape doesn't pose a threat to our corporate overlords, but hacking and cybercrime does.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier.
In the American federal system, crimes of violence are almost always prosecuted under state law. You don't like the sentence for rape, you complain to your state legislature. Crimes with an interstate or foreign dimension are usually a federal responsibility.
The geek might have noticed that the everyone else was asking the FBI to take the lead in investigating the police shootings of two black men last week --- which ought to have told him who has credibility when it comes
Re: (Score:2)
State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:4, Informative)
15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...
Rape, like other violent crimes, is almost always prosecuted under state law. Don't like the sentence? Talk to your your state legislature. Risking a felony conviction under federal law? Never a good idea.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking at it as a European, from the outside, I think there's something horrifically wrong that considers rape unimportant enough to leave it to local governments and give them right to punish it weakly (or not at all) but at the same time enforces draconian sentences for things like this on a national level. How did your priorities get so skewed?
Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at rape, then look at hacking, then ponder which of the two is more likely to happen to a politician, and which is more likely to be done by a politician.
And then ponder again why one is punished harshly, and one is ... less so.
Re: (Score:2)
Most murders in the US also fall under state rather than federal jurisdiction.
Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:1)
Yes, thankfully the entire nation isn't yet fully under federal control.
This is a very good thing. You EU folks are already finding out the hard way the problem with people far away making laws for you.
Also who says Federal laws would be objectively better anyway? Why do you assume federal laws are always better than the local laws written by and for locals that the federal laws over ride?
The EU slave mind is astonishing to me as someone who truly loves freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not left to local governments. Local governments in the USA are cities and counties. States are the equivalent of countries in the EU (or they would be if the EU had a stronger central government). Federal laws are only for dealing with borders between states or between countries -- or at least that's where they stem from. Commerce is where most of those border laws get their teeth. This was an internet crime, so it crosses borders and deals with interstate commerce. States deal with rape,
Re: (Score:2)
Where government polices private conduct, it often becomes abusive. When the states abuse the liberties of the people, we can appeal any abuses to the Federal courts. When Washington does that, as with the War on Civil Liberties *cough* Drugs, there is nowhere to appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in American traditionally we don't consider state governments unimportant. The original role of the federal government was to regulate and deal with justice for matters that logically and usually impact people across multiple states.
Rape does not usually happen over state lines, so most of the time there is no reason for the feds to be a party to the investigation, prosecution, or penalization of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Looking at it as a European, from the outside, I think there's something horrifically wrong that considers rape unimportant enough to leave it to local governments
That's like saying the EU should be in charge of all laws for every country in it.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey American, as a European it seems completely insane that you have ONE COUNTRY with FIFTY different sets of laws depending on your current location.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The USA is roughly the same size as Europe. Do all the countries in the EU have the exact same laws?
The states in the USA are separate sovereign governments united by a federal constitution that mostly exists for mutual defense, protection of civil rights, and control of commerce across various borders. Think of the USA as the EU and the states as EU member countries. The USA just has a much stronger union than the EU... and unfortunately, no defined method for states to secede. (The South t
Re: (Score:2)
Do all the countries in the EU have the exact same laws?
They don't. But then again, there's no separate EU justice system that randomly scoops out some cases from local justice systems to deal with them on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing that the process here isn't random, then.
You just don't understand how jurisdiction works here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's several European nations where the voters are electing actual neo-Nazis.
Re:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Juvenile (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...
Lots of thing in criminal justice make little sense. In order to make sense, criminal law would have to be the product of pragmatic considerations of what benefits society, and balanced with considerations of individual freedoms etc., rather than vindictiveness, petty moralism and fear of the unknown. A sensible, criminal law would not send people to jail for using a realtively harmless, recreational drug like cannabis, while allowing a widespread trade in more harmful drugs like alcohol and nicotine; that
The defense should be (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem is, the guy needs a few $100k and the ability to stay in jail for a few years until this hits the supreme court.
Re:The defense should be (Score:5, Insightful)
But the law he broke is wrong, unconstitutional, and should be overturned.
Laws against conspiracy to harass and intimidate are unconstitutional? Do tell.
Re:The defense should be (Score:4, Insightful)
1 to 2 years for rape and 16 for computer fraud? Something is out of wack! That poor girl is going to be haunted by that for the rest of her life. Anonymous right or wrong attempted to shed light on corruption and even with the attention, they got away with it. The American people need to wake up and focus on what's matters before it is too late.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to hit the Supreme Court, just a decent juror that knows about nullification and is willing to exercise that option.
Re: (Score:2)
A decent juror?
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He'll get a jury trial.
Now the judge can instruct the Jury on what to do and tell them "you have to convict if what he did broke the law".
Juries have been giving middle fingers to judges for centuries now. Judges don't like it one bit.
The amount of publicity this kid got and the results he got should have at least someone on the jury outraged enough not to vote to hang him on any of the counts.
Personally, what I'd do is convict him on a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace and give him a week in the
Re: (Score:1)
Quickest way to get kicked out of consideration for jury duty is to mention jury nullification. Of course, you might also get a contempt of court charge....
If you want to be anonymous... (Score:1)
...you probably shouldn't use the abbreviation for the state you live in as part of your handle.
Sounds about right (Score:2, Insightful)
One or two years for rape, 16 years for embarrassing politicians into taking action on said rape. The priories of our "justice" system never cease to amaze me.
Re: (Score:3)
Take a look at the average politician. Now ponder what's probably more likely to happen to him: Getting raped, or getting shamed for not doing his job?
It's simple self interest, nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
One or two years for rape, 16 years for embarrassing politicians into taking action on said rape. The priories of our "justice" system never cease to amaze me.
Anonymous did not "embarrass politicians into taking action on said rape." The New York Times did that, with their investigative reporting resulting in a two-page feature story on the case, and the subsequent spreading of the story by hundreds of newspapers in the U.S.. (The New York Times story is, in fact, where Anonymous learned about it. Their investigation consisted of reading the newspaper.) Anonymous did, as far as I can tell, pretty much nothing useful. They stole some files which the prosecutor
The lesson to learn here (Score:4, Insightful)
Rape someone instead of getting the feds to investigate the rape. You'll be doing less time.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the lesson you would draw from this...
Piss off (Score:1, Insightful)
1-2 years for rape, up to 16 years for making sure authorities do their bloody jobs right?
Guy Fawkes masks (Score:2)
Makes sense. After all, we know you can't hack corrupt politicians unless you wear a silly plastic mask.
The vigilantes picked the wrong time and place. (Score:2, Interesting)
After The New York Times published an account [late in 2012] of a horrific rape against Alayna Macaluso in Steubenville, Ohio, an online vigilante campaign was started...the campaign targeted local officials who the vigilantes felt weren't prosecuting the rape investigation seriously because the alleged perpetrators were high school football players
In 2016, the vigilantes would have been given an imprimatur to destroy the town, as exemplified by the recent Stanford case.
The prevailing attitude at Stanford is that disputed consent only favors the woman, and that Turner's hometown must be made to pay for his actions.
If it was at a prestigious university, they'd not even need a rape case to destroy the person. Washington & Lee [google.com] used Title IX to wreck someone's life.
The worst parts of it are that no crime occurred, that due process wasn't served
1-2 for Rape, 15 for harassing official (Score:1)
Sounds like its far worse to give a govt official a hard time, than is is to rape a girl.
Re: (Score:2)
Note to self. According to the justice system, it would have been better to just rape the officials, than mildly embarass them publicly.
God bless America (Score:1)
Guy rapes girl gets 2 years. Guy rapes computer and could get 16 years. Thank you FBI :)
FFF... BYEEE... (Score:1)
one to two years for rape, 16 for protesting rape (Score:2)
One to two years for rape, 16 for protesting rape. If that's not the most fucked up priorities, then go ahead and keep voting Democrat and Republican.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The same Trump who didn't fly on the "Lolita Express" like Bill Clinton did 26 times in full knowledge of Hilary Clinton.
The same Trump who did fly to Epstein's "sex slave island" and called him a "terrific guy" [dailywire.com].
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yep, we have one candidate whose husband is a rapist and abuser of women, and she viciously attacks his victims.
We have another candidate who thinks a guy with a sex slave island is a terrific guy.
Great choice we have here.
When the system ends up giving us these as our two choices, you know the system needs to be completely overhauled because it can't get much more broken than this.
Re:Why is hacking okay? (Score:4)
If the justice system fails to do what the public feels is "right", it usually leads to vigilantism.
And the amount of vigilantism I get to see in the US leads me to the conclusion that there is REALLY something going VERY wrong with it.
Re: (Score:3)
The real point here is not what was done but the mistakes that were made. Admit nothing, deny nothing, the only answer, we will discuss this in court, and to ensure you do not get refused to answer all over the place, answer questions with questions, never answer questions just seek clarification of the questions, the motives of the questioners and the basis for the questions (when they claim you are not answering the claims, state clearly that you legally are answering those questions). What is happening
Re: Why is hacking okay? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus tells us what to do in such a situation. Rather than use force, we are commanded to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
Really? Because according to your book and your fairy tales, this fictional character actually said these:
Matthew 10:34-36: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Matthew 15:3-4: "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as anti-religion at the next guy but does die the death actually mean get killed, or just fail to go to heaven? We have to cherry-pick more intelligently than they.
Re: (Score:2)
NIV is a little better at translating than the KJV, obviously. Here's the full start to Matthew 15:
"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' But you say that if an
Re: (Score:2)
Where is your evidence?
Re: (Score:1)
Two wrongs don't make a right. We really need prison reform. It should be about reform, not retribution. Go ahead, mod me down.
Now, if you really want to punish this so-called nerd, how about ban him from using a electronic devices for life? Or would that be cruel and unusual treatment?