Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Government The Courts United States

Kentucky Anonymous Member Indicted Three Years After FBI Raid (arstechnica.com) 176

Posted by EditorDavid from the we-are-the-FBI dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kentucky Anonymous Member Indicted Three Years After FBI Raid More

Kentucky Anonymous Member Indicted Three Years After FBI Raid

Comments Filter:

  • Time to bring up the due process motions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2016 @09:39PM (#52486029)

    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.

    • Well, it's certainly not Hilary.

      It's clear some people are above the law.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "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)

      by guises ( 2423402 )
      You're comparing a maximum sentence to an actual sentence, he is not getting more time than the other offenders. And they are all real offenders (provided that he is found guilty): vigilantism is a real crime and it is right and just that it be prosecuted. Yes the maximum penalties are excessive, there are many problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but it's minimum sentences, not maximum ones, which tend to be the real affront to justice.

      • 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)

          by guises ( 2423402 )
          Colors it how? 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. If that wasn't clear before then I am stating it now. I'm making no claims about being impartial, I am stating unequivocally that I think this was a negative action.

          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].
          • Is vigilantism a real crime? If so, then it is unnecessarily so, since other crimes are usually committed in the act of committing vigilantism. But at any rate, vigilantism does not appear to be the crime the person is being charged with.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by guises ( 2423402 )
              Vigilantism is the common name, not a legal term, for any of a set of actions which are illegal. There aren't any laws specifically against "vigilantism," by that name, but it is none the less illegal. Many other common names for crimes are like this. Rape, for example, is not illegal by that name, but it is none the less illegal to commit rape.
              • I don't go running to a dictionary as if it was prescriptive rather than descriptive. You said that vigilantism was a "real crime". Dictionaries do poorly when it comes to the meaning of two words together like that anyways, but in my book a real crime is a crime which has a law on the books specifically by that name. In the jurisdictions I frequent, assault is a real crime but the real crime when people say they have been assaulted is battery. The crime of assault is threatening to harm another person.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by guises ( 2423402 )
                  I don't go by that book. Things in my book can be crimes even when there is not a law on the books specifically by that name. I gave the example of rape, in addition to vigilantism. Stealing would be another example.

                  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

                  • laws are made to address the common-term understanding of criminal activity, rather than the other way around.

                    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)

                      by guises ( 2423402 )
                      I'm not sure where you're going with the copyright talk, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act isn't about copyright. The person in the article is being tried for accessing a computer without authorization. You don't want to know what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" I think that law was meant to address? I'll tell you anyway: part of it was meant to address accessing a computer without authorization.

                      I... am having some trouble interpreting your replies, I have no idea why you feel this way, b

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by guises ( 2423402 )

                      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)

            by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

            " 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2016 @09:42PM (#52486037)

    But trying to get people to investigate it is 15 years?

    • Re:Rape is worth 1-2? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @09:45PM (#52486057)

      He wasn't on the football team.

      • Re:Rape is worth 1-2? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Barny ( 103770 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @09:51PM (#52486075) Journal

        It is sad I laughed at this, almost as sad as the question ye olde grandparent asked.

  • U.S. Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2016 @09:45PM (#52486055)

    15+ years for cybercrime vs 1-2 years for gang rape? Makes total sense...

    • Re: U.S. Legal system (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2016 @09:50PM (#52486071)

      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)

        by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @10:20PM (#52486175)

        This is why so many of us are voting for outsider candidates this year.

        • 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."

          • 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!

            • They're just shooting the wrong democratic pillar.

              • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

                by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

                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)

                  by swb ( 14022 )

                  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

                  • 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.

                • 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.

                  • 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

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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.

          • 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?

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • 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.

            • 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.

        • Here's hoping at least one outsider gets enough votes to be officially recognized as a political party. I'd much rather we have a 3 or 4 way monkey shit fight during election years than the toddler-level "he pulled my hair on the playground" BS we see today.

      • 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)

        by e r ( 2847683 )
        Considering that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo's responses to the Snowden revelations and to being hacked was to encrypt their stuff end-to-end and make an effort to demonstrate that they're on the consumers' side it seems more likely to me that the overlords you should be worried about are the political ones. Look at how Hillary is getting off scott free. Look at the government's reaction to Snowden. Think about who it is that actually makes and has the power to selectively enforce the laws.

    • State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:4, Informative)

      by westlake ( 615356 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @10:08PM (#52486141)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @11:10PM (#52486345)

          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.

        • Most murders in the US also fall under state rather than federal jurisdiction.

        • Re: State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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)

          by Ramze ( 640788 )

          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,

        • 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)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          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.

        • > 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:State vs Federal Jurisdiction. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Monday July 11, 2016 @02:05AM (#52486943)
        Beyond that it's always a mistake to compare actual sentences with potential maximum sentences. This guy is unlikely to get anything like 16 years, assuming he's convicted.

    • Juvenile (Score:4, Informative)

      by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Monday July 11, 2016 @03:18AM (#52487151)
      They only got 1 to 2 years because they were 16 and 17 and were tried as juvenile (not adult) and so got only up to the point they reached adulthood. The other guy was 18+ at the time of the fact. This is the difference and explain everything.

    • 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)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @10:11PM (#52486145)
    Maybe, just maybe this guy broke the law. But the law he broke is wrong, unconstitutional, and should be overturned.

    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)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @10:42PM (#52486229)

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2016 @10:51PM (#52486253)

      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)

      by fred911 ( 83970 )

      No need to hit the Supreme Court, just a decent juror that knows about nullification and is willing to exercise that option.

      • A decent juror?

        Good luck with that.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...you probably shouldn't use the abbreviation for the state you live in as part of your handle.

  • Sounds about right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • 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)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      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)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday July 10, 2016 @11:04PM (#52486315)

    Rape someone instead of getting the feds to investigate the rape. You'll be doing less time.

  • Piss off (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    1-2 years for rape, up to 16 years for making sure authorities do their bloody jobs right?

  • ...search warrant... listed 'Guy Fawkes masks' ... items agents were looking for.

    Makes sense. After all, we know you can't hack corrupt politicians unless you wear a silly plastic mask.

  • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like its far worse to give a govt official a hard time, than is is to rape a girl.

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Guy rapes girl gets 2 years. Guy rapes computer and could get 16 years. Thank you FBI :)

  • FFF... BYEEE... G-G-G...

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close