Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stratfor Hacker Could Be Sentenced to Life, Says Judge

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the well-that's-proportional dept.

Security 388

dgharmon writes with this excerpt from rt.com: "A pretrial hearing in the case against accused LulzSec hacker Jeremy Hammond this week ended with the 27-year-old Chicago man being told he could be sentenced to life in prison for compromising the computers of Stratfor. Judge Loretta Preska told Hammond in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday that he could be sentenced to serve anywhere from 360 months-to-life if convicted on all charges relating to last year's hack of Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor, a global intelligence company whose servers were infiltrated by an offshoot of the hacktivist collective Anonymous. Hammond is not likely to take the stand until next year, but so far has been imprisoned for eight months without trial. Legal proceedings in the case might soon be called into question, however, after it's been revealed that Judge Preska's husband was a victim of the Stratfor hack."

cancel ×

388 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nullified (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077639)

8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

Re:Nullified (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077809)

If he's been arrested, it can take as long as is reasonably necessary before trial begins - and he's already been charged. If the lawyers spar a bit (discovery, pre-trial motions, change of venue, etc), then it only adds to the time spent in lock-up while waiting.

The whole Casey Anthony thing [wikipedia.org] had her locked up for about as long, and she was found not guilty of the murder charge** - there was nothing mentioned or made of the time served while waiting for trial, IIRC. /P

***(IMHO the bitch did it, but legally she was found not guilty. Such is the system...)

Re:Nullified (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078389)

He probably voluntary waived his right to a speedy trial. It is quite common.

Re:Nullified (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078417)

If Preska wanted to see this guy jailed, she should have immediately recused herself. Since she did not, she gave the defense significant legal ammunition to get her verdict tossed out.

Re:Nullified (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077817)

8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

Is anyone here on slashdot aware of anyone's case actually being vacated?
Right to a speedy trial notwithstanding, I hear of a lot of cases (usually terrorism related) where people have been held with no trial

In theory, such practice is illegal. In practice, has anyone managed to get more than finally force the trial to go forward? (Otherwise there is no incentive for state/government to worry - if the prisoner "wins" they may finally go to trial but gain nothing).

Is the "speedy trial" definition suffering from the same issue as the unconstitutionality of "cruel and unusual punishment"? As long as the judge agrees it was "speedy enough" or "not cruel", then all is well?

Re:Nullified (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077823)

The US has proven time and again, that justice is served only to those who own the system.

Authority is no longer derived from the consent of the governed. No one consented to this.

There is no legal basis for the existence of US government. Resistance is inevitable and necessary. You are already in violation of law, without any special effort on that account. [amazon.com] It may as well mean something.

Re:Nullified (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078219)

This is what happens when 12 year olds or people with the intellect of a 12 year old posts on Slashdot.

A total train wreck.

Re:Nullified (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078303)

Yes. 12-year-olds, like f*cking Jean Jacques Rosseau [wikipedia.org] .

"The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled."

"Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void -- is, in fact, not a law."

"The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone."

Re:Nullified (5, Insightful)

Lendrick (314723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078233)

I was with you until you went Full Retard:

> There is no legal basis for the existence of US government.

Governments exist to make and enforce laws, not because of laws. Regardless of your feelings about the legitimacy of a government, in absence of a government there are no laws to speak of, so it doesn't make any sense to say that a government requires a legal basis to exist.

Perhaps you meant that there's no ethical or philosophical basis for the existence of the US government, but even then, republics are set up so that you can replace the people in the government without armed revolution. If you can't build enough support for an electoral majority, then you're just a bunch of annoying anarchists trying to impose your will on a large group of people who don't want it. Call the government tyranny of the majority if you want, but overthrowing a democratically elected government is tyranny of the minority, which is even worse.

Re:Nullified (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078251)

The purpose of the American Revolution was to establish, by law, Government for, by, and of, the people. The precedent necessary and in assumption were those of English Common Law and Magna Carta, etc.

Re:Nullified (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078257)

The alternative to this proposition? "If the government does it, it's not illegal."

How 21st century. :-)

Re:Nullified (1)

Lendrick (314723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078321)

> The alternative to this proposition? "If the government does it, it's not illegal." How 21st century. :-)

That's reading an awful lot into what I said. It's completely possible for a government to make laws and then break them itself -- the fact that they're breaking their own laws doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes the government dysfunctional.

While it's possible to have a government without Rule of Law, it's not possible to have Rule of Law without a government. Laws are just a concept. Without some sort of enforcement, they're meaningless.

Re:Nullified (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078369)

OK I dig where you're coming from.

But when a government consistently violates its own foundational law - and abridges the basic social contract on which it is established - actually prosecuting citizens for the assertion of the terms of that contract?

That government is de-legitimised.

Re:Nullified (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078331)

The purpose of the American Revolution was to establish an oligarchy of white, landholding, slave owning, males. Because the rich white males didn't like the old one.

Re:Nullified (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078385)

That was the function... certainly!

Re:Nullified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078523)

Yeah, sorry, but what you imagine the purpose of the American Revolution to be does not enter into what the United States Constitution actually says.

Re:Nullified (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078509)

Everybody knows you don't go full retard...

Re:Nullified (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077827)

If he had been held for 8 months without being charged with a crime, then yes, you could say that his constitutional rights have been violated. But I don't think that's the case here ....

Re:Nullified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077851)

Not necessarily. He may have been offered bail he cannot afford or he may have waived his right to a speedy trial so hi lawyer would have more time t prepare a defense. It is highly unlikely his rights have been violated.

Re:Nullified (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077905)

"To no man shall be sold or denied, right or Justice."

So says Magna Carta. Upon which YOUR CONSTITUTION IS BASED.

Eight months imprisonment without trial is plain on the face of it, unlawful. Period. He has a Constitutional case right there.

Re:Nullified (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078103)

"To no man shall be sold or denied, right or Justice."

So says Magna Carta. Upon which YOUR CONSTITUTION IS BASED.

Eight months imprisonment without trial is plain on the face of it, unlawful. Period. He has a Constitutional case right there.

Two things:

a) I don't actually see the part of the Magna Carta that says you have to be tried sooner than 8 months, and

b) Court cases in every modern democracy often take much longer than 8 months to come to trial. All the time. In the UK, in 2002, the average time from charge trial was 196 days for cases heard in Crown Court. AVERAGE. Lots of cases take much longer. And lots of people spend that time in jail. Welcome to the complex world of modern law. So, Mr. Magna Carta, perhaps you should actually spend a little time learning about the law you're spouting.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030603/text/30603w77.htm#30603w77.html_wqn7

Re:Nullified (2)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077881)

8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

Under ordinary circumstances, you would be correct. However, in issues of National Security, I don't think the speedy trial legal clauses apply but I'm not a lawyer.

Re:Nullified (2, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078387)

Ooh, National Security. Convenient excuse, that. Stratford should have paid attention to securing it's own shit instead of crying to the FBI. Oh well. At least their reputation is in the gutter where it belongs.

Re:Nullified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077955)

8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.

There's a bunch of people in Guantanamo who would like to suggest that your understanding of security law is weak.

Re:Nullified (4, Interesting)

iccaros (811041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078093)

title>

"8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him."

???

He was indited in March, where he went to court, There was no bail request from his lawyers, so he waits for the courts schedule to open for the case, which was July 23rd, where he did request bail but was denied. In that inditement the prosecution request time to gather evidence, which comes to now, when the scheduled opens and time is up for the prosecution. In the constitution he is given right to a speedy trial, but what does that mean? Well normally when ever the courts have the ability, or laws set by the state, but in this case this is his third time in court so he has not been waiting, so no his constitutional rights have not be violated.

but how were the actions of Hammond a good thing for people to hold up, The attitude of I do not agree with you so I will destroy your property is a childish way to act, and the conspiracy theories surrounding this case make it hard to tell truth from fiction.

Re:Nullified (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078477)

Because what he did, although obviously illegal and a bad thing, should never grant him a life sentence in any remotely sane law system.

Wrong. (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078109)

It is almost universal that the defendant waives their right to a speedy trial on the advice of their attorney. Otherwise, their attorney would have to put on a defense far sooner that they would be ready.

Re:Nullified (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078111)

For obvious reasons, I'll post as an AC, but be well aware that speedy trials are not always the rule. I was accused of a serious crime. I spent 14 months in jail awaiting my trial. Fourteen months in jail because I was denied bail. I was acquitted of all charges. But of course, there are still those who believe that because I was arrested, I had to be guilty. The Police only arrest guilty people. So I just had a good lawyer. Not true!

Re:Nullified (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078119)

constitutional rights

lol

Re:Nullified (4, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078121)

Imprisoned until proven innocent, unless the defendant is rich enough to afford bail, is the law. Servers him right for embarrassing wealthy people.

Re:Nullified (2)

Garybaldy (1233166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078261)

At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.

Re:Nullified (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078485)

At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.

Is the choice between a speedy trial and indefinite detention? Or can the defendent waive it for a period of time of his specification after which he can choose to extend it or start the trial?

Re:Nullified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078347)

HIS lawyers are the ones who are holding up the trial, you idiot. They're the ones making motions asking the charges to be dismissed without a trial.

Re:Nullified - Did he waive his right... (0)

BenJCarter (902199) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078449)

to a speedy trial?

free hammond (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077663)

do it

breaking and entering (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077665)

Why should the sentence be any different than the very same crime committed in meat space.

His crime is taking advantage of poor security to gain access. This would be the same as kicking in a flimsy door to gain physical access.

Re:breaking and entering (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077761)

I agree that the guy is getting unfairly treated (and charged, etc), but your logic sucks - no matter how flimsy the door, it's still B&E.

The fucked-up part is, physically breaking and entering into the datacenter would likely have gotten him less potential jail time than busting in digitally.

Re:breaking and entering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077963)

I agree that the guy is getting unfairly treated (and charged, etc), but your logic sucks - no matter how flimsy the door, it's still B&E.

I'm curious, what's the penalty for that? I'm guessing it's not life imprisonment.

Re:breaking and entering (2)

Zondar (32904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078069)

I'm thinking the possible penalties are more related to the sensitivity of the items taken, and less related to the method of obtaining it.

Re:breaking and entering (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078269)

Or, more to the point, the possible penalties are so harsh because he not only interfered with a company that serves the United States' ruling class, but also demonstrated that they're clueless idiots, which in turn damage their stock price.

Re:breaking and entering (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078203)

It is in a state with crowded jails and early release for not violent crime. It would be time served if he went to court today. Ironically, he would have had his day in court, had it been physical B&E, 4-5 months ago.

Re:breaking and entering (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077767)

And then burning the building down after he got inside (he deleted everything including backups).

Re:breaking and entering (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078507)

Nope, a better (even if still flawed) analogy would be B&E and destroying things inside without killing or doing anything that would imply into physical threat to the people inside and around it, like burning. It is B&E and destruction of property, which hardly incur in a life sentence even in US.

Re:breaking and entering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077961)

hold fire, he has NOT been found guilty by a Competent Court of *anything* yet. NOBODY can say with conviction that he has committed any crime as at right now.

Re:breaking and entering (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078527)

Oh, he is already found guilty by the government, now they are just waiting that long to make sure they can make a good case to justify it.

Re:breaking and entering (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078145)

But if a billion dollar corporation is behind that flimsy door you are not going to get a slap on the wrist.

Life? (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077667)

Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.

Re:Life? (5, Informative)

bartosek (250249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077707)

Well now you know what the judicial system thinks.

Re:Life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077721)

why who do you think writes the laws & subsides all the junkets of the judges?

Re:Life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077995)

Like in most of these things, the max sentence is unlikely. In the end, I'm sure it will be no picnic, but it won't be life either.

Re:Life? (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078217)

Yeah, I'm sure a hacker won't have any trouble surviving 360 months in jail.

Re:Life? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078539)

30 years is still ridiculous for a crime like this...

That's not about corporations (5, Insightful)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078211)

Corporations are virtual entitty. He tried to fuck with "priveledged" people, so he must be severely punished in order to demonstrate the power to other peasants. Sending a message is more important than any peasents' business.

And I'm not being sarcastic.

Re:Life? (1, Troll)

sgt scrub (869860) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078277)

I'll try to catch you up since you've obviously been in a comma for a while. Reagan won, his VP's son trashed the economy and started a couple wars, and in between the clan industrialized a few of their pet projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex [wikipedia.org]

not surprised (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077671)

meanwhile rapists and murders get off in 5-10

truly is a corporate run government.

Re:not surprised (5, Insightful)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078031)

British Petroleum managment always gets off with no time served. Bodies and billions destroyed all over the US.

Simple - If you can't afford the time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077681)

Then don't do the crime.

Re:Simple - If you can't afford the time (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078003)

Then don't do the crime.

Baretta is that you?

Re:Simple - If you can't afford the time (1)

siddesu (698447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078099)

Even simpler - if you let some people game the system against you and one day you end up on the receiving end, open wide. The democracy is like the security -- it is a process, not a state. The moment the citizenry relaxes its vigilance (and back muscles) is the moment its freedomz are under attack (and democracy is anally raped).

Yours, dirty K.O.

yum. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077729)

A pretrial hearing in the case against accused LulzSec hacker Jeremy Hammond this week ended with the 27-year-old Chicago man being told he could be sentenced to life in prison for compromising the computers of Stratfor. Judge Loretta Preska told Hammond in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday that he could be sentenced to serve anywhere from 360 months-to-life if convicted on all charges relating to last year's hack of Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor, a global intelligence company whose servers were infiltrated by an offshoot of the hacktivist collective Anonymous. Hammond is not likely to take the stand until next year, but so far has been imprisoned for eight months without trial. Legal proceedings in the case might soon be called into question, however, after it's been revealed that Judge Preska's husband was a victim of the Stratfor hack.

Scam people out of their life savings (5, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077751)

and get bailed out. Maker some intelligence company look like chumps and get life in prison. I know its the states but what happened to the punishment should fit the crime?

Re:Scam people out of their life savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078143)

That never did exist, that is the thing.

Everyone wants that ideal, but it doesn't exist.

Hacking is now Terrorism? (4, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077753)

Crabtree notes that Hammond ... has also since been added to a terrorist watch list.

So hacking into a Corporation will now get you labelled as a Terrorist and could land you life in prison.
Seems that being a plain ol' armed robber and/or murderer would net you far less severe a punishment.

Seems that if a crime happens on the internet, the punishment is automatically increased 10 fold from it's brick and mortar counter-parts.

Re:Hacking is now Terrorism? (1)

garcia (6573) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078463)

Depends on what the company he hacked does and if the government considers them a part of the US computer network infrastructure.

BUT !! BUT !! BUT !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077765)

It's only copy infringement !! (2 MILLION DOLLAR FINE !!) I mean, it's only unauthorized computer access !! (360 MONTHS !!) I mean, it's only murder !! (2 YEARS, 1 SUSPENDED, time served) !!

The moral is, don't try !! I mean, if you are going to commit a crime, GO BIG !!

Re:BUT !! BUT !! BUT !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078289)

Oh, I'm pretty sure that if he'd killing an important person he'd be looking at the death penalty. Murder all the peasants you want, but lay hands on a knight, or god forbid, a noble, and it's death for you, peon.

Stratfor To Get Life (-1, Flamebait)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077793)

When all the treasonous rot that Stratfor has engaged in comes to further attention, they'll soon be getting some heavy-duty sentences themselves. It says a lot about the character of the company that they'd not come out and directly discourage such a gross penalty. If they really had anything to do with security or "intelligence", they'd not try so hard to destroy people who aren't significant threats. They would also do things to empower society -- not sociopathic plutocracies.

Anyway, Stratfor, I hope the worst is yet to come for you. You are charlatans and parasites and don't give a damn about what you profess to protect.

And PS to all replies: I'll not be responding.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077795)

proving two things; "smart" people can say the dumbest things, and she shouldn't be a judge.
Did you hear her "view" on religion in schools? obviously she didn't listen, or understand, while she was learning to be a judge.
She should be removed. Both from the case, and the bench.

This makes perfect sense (1)

mmHg760 (2780437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077807)

Think about it, they NEED to keep him in jail for at least 10 years : this is the only way to be sure that his "dangerous" knowledge about the interwebs will be obsolete enough to be harmless !

JUSTICE !

Re:This makes perfect sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077947)

I want to agree with your joke but sadly most of the security vulnerabilities on the internet are classifications that are at least 10 years old.

Re:This makes perfect sense (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078049)

Think about it, they NEED to keep him in jail for at least 10 years : this is the only way to be sure that his "dangerous" knowledge about the interwebs will be obsolete enough to be harmless !

JUSTICE !

Oh come on, it will be sooner than that

Re:This makes perfect sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078421)

I think your misunderstanding the type of person it takes to do something like he did. When your dealing with a real hacker you can pick him up out of any environment and drop him into a completely alien environment, he will still become more knowledgeable and practiced than the vast majority of the population in that new environment. It's in our (hackers) very nature to be extremely curious, the moment we see something that peaks our interest we find a way to learn about it, even if that traverses the boundaries of what's considered legal. Some of us do everything we can to avoid harming others, some don't seem to care, it's inevitable in any field to have people of both extremes as well as every shade of gray in-between.

Is he really that dangerous? (1)

physlord (1790264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077825)

Again, the government is trying to make the hackers look like overwhelmingly dangerous guys.

Is a person like this so dangerous so he has to be kept away from the rest of us, the good working honest citizens, for the rest of his life?

The last sentence is alarming, "[...]after it's been revealed that Judge Preska's husband was a victim of the Stratfor hack.". So, this is what justice is about.

Re:Is he really that dangerous? (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077903)

Wait, is this not a conflict of interest? I feel a mistrial coming up.

Re:Is he really that dangerous? (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078075)

Which means if this was a non-politically motivated trial, the judge would have rescused herself out of conflict of intrests. This violates the very principle of a "fair trial".

But we'lve already heard the system, and its supports for justifying breaking whatever rules if the accussed is high profile, and politically relivant.

Does it sound like a little bit of history repeating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

except no one died in stratfor hacks. And its been established they were done at the behest of a man working as an agent of the US government.

So what are you in for? (4, Insightful)

Ka D'Argo (857749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077829)

Oh I murdered a couple of families on the eastern seaboard, luckily all I got was life. You?

I uh..hacked a computer network..

Re:So what are you in for? (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077897)

Oh I murdered a couple of families on the eastern seaboard, luckily all I got was life. You? I uh..hacked a computer network..

Remember, Peacekeepers have no sense of humor.

abuse of power (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077855)

nepotism

plain and simple

stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"

prosecute them

Re:abuse of power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078089)

nepotism

plain and simple

stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"

prosecute them

What makes you think the legal system will do anything to well-connected
criminals ?

You must be new here. And by "here", I mean planet Earth.

Re:abuse of power (1)

tftp (111690) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078495)

stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"

Services of all well-connected douchebags are not cheap. You pay for their connections. Sometimes the information is well worth the money. If you don't like the price you can always deploy your own network of spies, or you can resort to tasseography [wikipedia.org] .

Interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42077873)

Couple interesting things from the article:
- the judge's spouse was a victim in the credit cards that this scumbag stole
- the article says if convicted on all counts, it's a 360 month sentence (30 years)
- he was denied bail
- he has been added to a terrorism watch list

If none of this makes any sense, then the article also points out that:
- he was part of group that stole the emails published on wikileaks including those that revealed the existence of the Tripwire program (secret anti-terrorism surveillance on high value targets all over north america [includes face recognition and behavior analysis]).

I have no sympathy for thieving scumbags and I look forward to him spending a good long time in jail for the cc thefts, but let's keep things in perspective a little. he's not Jeffrey Dahmer.

Legal precedence scare tactics (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077887)

This would give the government a very scary legal precedence to scare script kiddies with.

Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation (5, Informative)

sugarmotor (621907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077915)

From the article

In a press release issued under the branding of the Anonymous collective, supporters for Hammond call for Judge Preska’s immediate resignation from the case. “Judge Preska by proxy is a victim of the very crime she intends to judge Jeremy Hammond for. Judge Preska has failed to disclose the fact that her husband is a client of Stratfor and recuse herself from Jeremy's case, therefore violating multiple Sections of Title 28 of the United States Code,” the statement reads.

Re:Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078041)

She should have resigned the moment she knew her husband was involved. This personal vendetta is reprehensible. Can she be disbarred for this, or whatever the equivalent is for judges?

Re:Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078329)

LOL. It's so amusing to watch the sheep starting to wake up.

Soviet vs American justice (-1, Troll)

leereyno (32197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42077985)

Had this happened in the old Soviet Union he would have gotten life in prison as well. A short life, punctuated by a bullet to the back of the head.

But because this is America, my tax dollars are going to spent keeping him alive for the next several decades. Either kill him, or deliver a cost-effective but brutal punishment such as will discourage anyone else from pulling the same crap he did.

Seems to me that the best punishment would be a year or so in prison with the most violent and vicious criminals our society has to offer. If that doesn't discourage him from his black-hat activities then nothing will. A few before and after pictures (of both his face and anus) posted online should do the trick.

Re:Soviet vs American justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078015)

I'm confused...Is this a troll, or is he serious?

Re:Soviet vs American justice (-1, Troll)

leereyno (32197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078275)

I'm quite serious. Cases like this one reveal a severe flaw in our criminal justice system. The cost/benefit ratio of locking this guy up for the rest of his life just does not compute. It costs tens of thousands of dollars each year to keep someone locked up. Multiply that over the course of 4 or 5 decades and the price tag just isn't worth it. We're 16 TRILLION in the hole, and counting. We quite simply can't afford to give life sentences to every asshole who comes along. There are people who need to be kept in a cage till the day they die. Rapists murderers, child molesters, etc, etc. This guy isn't one of them. Yet at the same time a slap on the wrist simply encourages others out there like him to do the same thing he did.

Seems the best solution is one that severely punishes him, and IS SEEN TO BE SEVERELY PUNISHING, but doesn't cost a whole lot. A year with Bubba is a good cheap alternative.

Re:Soviet vs American justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078465)

Vote Libertarian don't you.

Re:Soviet vs American justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078537)

Why do you want to reward Bubba?
If you want someone raped, you should have officially employed rapists, not let random criminals handle it.

give him community service (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078133)

give him community service or make him work work off the damage

Re:give him community service (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078359)

This.

Why waste time and money putting non-violent criminals in jail? Temporarily seize their assets, put them in crappy low cost housing, then put them to work at minimum wage (think affordable nursing homes). Have them work 9-5, and in house arrest the rest of the time. No TVs, no computers, no phones. Easy and cheap compared to prison - they even have to pay for the food and housing.

Any breach of the rules could of course result in a trip to the 'real' prison.

Re:Soviet vs American justice (4, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078179)

the best punishment would be a year or so in prison with the most violent and vicious criminals our society has to offer. If that doesn't discourage him from his black-hat activities then nothing will. A few before and after pictures (of both his face and anus) posted online should do the trick.

You sir are simply a sadist.

Even without experiencing the horrible torture you propose, you are already as cruel and depraved as if you had.

Re:Soviet vs American justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078183)

Nice try, Stratfor.

Or how about we just not have political prisoners? (1)

Rix (54095) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078209)

Is that really too much to ask?

Re:Soviet vs American justice (2)

TechnicalFool (719087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078255)

That or you'll create someone who is so disaffected with society that they will end their own life approximately three months after coming out, in a way that involves a hail of bullets and a packed shopping mall.

Some people break under pressure. Other people, well, they snap. You going to take the chance on which one Hammond is?

This is without going into the particularly virulent sadism you seem to exhibit. Some people, just want to see some poor sod burn, eh?

u.s no longer check's and balances (3, Interesting)

Vince6791 (2639183) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078245)

So when the U.S government hacks into foreign government servers and causes damage it's patriotic but a u.s citizen it's criminal. What about government monitoring every aspect of the web including your emails(email and mail same shit) without a court warrant. Anyway, the judge violated parts of the Title 28 of the United States Code, The judge by law cannot take a case where his own family member is involved in which it might affect his decision making he/she no longer impartial, and it showed. The hacker was held for that long with no bond or speedy trial, decision made by the judge, it's illegal. If this is the fault of the patriot act or ndaa for holding him without trial we are all fucking screwed. Unfortunately, when high officials abuse human rights they get fired and never see jail time. This whole government is acting like a fucking monarchy, like they are all kings or fucking special. Government will never work because people are corrupt by nature this is why we should build machines with impartial behavior built in their cpu to rule us all.

360 months! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42078373)

Dude, people keep talking about life: Do a little math, 360 months is 30 years.

That shits outrageous.

Why do I get the feeling that.... (0)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078461)

little bullies with their toys have their panties in a bunch over being exposed for what they are?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>