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!

Hacker Behind Leaked Nude Celebrity Photos Gets 10 Years

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the what-would-justice-be? dept.

Crime 346

wiredmikey writes "A U.S. judge sentenced a computer hacker to 10 years in prison on Monday for breaking into the email accounts of celebrities and stealing private photos. The hacker accessed the personal email accounts and devices of stars including Scarlett Johansson, Christina Aguilera and Renee Olstead, among dozens of other people he hacked. The hackers arrest in October 2011 stemmed from an 11-month investigation into the hacking of over 50 entertainment industry names, many of them young female stars. Hacked pictures of Johansson showed her in a state of undress in a domestic setting. Aguilera's computer was hacked in December 2010, when racy photos of her also hit the Internet. Mila Kunis' cell phone was hacked in September that year with photos of her, including one in a bathtub, spread online. According to the FBI, the hacker used open-source, public information to try to guess a celebrity's email password, and then would breach the account."

cancel ×

346 comments

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

Open Source information? (4, Informative)

suso (153703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327667)

What is Open Source information? The OSI foundation doesn't seem to be doing a good job of enforcing the trademark of the term Open Source. I hear and see it used in many ways in which it should not be and the term has been grossly eroded in meaning over the past decade.

Re:Open Source information? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327705)

Pretty standard term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence

Re:Open Source information? (5, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327727)

Trademarks are domain-specific, like how actual windows can still be called windows and Microsoft can't sue over Windows. The use of the term "open source" for intelligence information (OSINT) is as old as dirt and is used to differentiate between sources such as news papers/party organs/etc and information attained through clandestine means, either human intelligence (HUMINT) or signals intelligence (SIGINT). Nothing to get upset about. It's not like the article said he used "the well known, open-source hacker tool Linux..."

Re:Open Source information? (2)

suso (153703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327789)

Ok, thanks for the explanation and wasn't aware that the term open source information had such a long history. Still, the term open source gets used in ways that it probably shouldn't be in relation to software.

Re:Open Source information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327901)

(OSINT) is as old as dirt and is used to differentiate between sources such as news papers/party organs/etc and information attained through clandestine means

There aren't any references older than 2005 - it seems like OSINT was made up after open source was a common term for software. When did you first hear OSINT?

Re:Open Source information? (5, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328123)

Davis W. Moore, "Open Sources on Soviet Military Affairs," Studies in Intelligence (Summer 1963-declassified article)

Herman L. Croom, "The Exploitation of Foreign Open Sources," Studies in Intelligence (Summer 1969-declassified article)

So, the term as applied goes back at least to the 60s. It has just become more common in the last 10-15 years or so.

Re:Open Source information? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328701)

There is occasional usage from the '60s, yes, but as a common term it seems to be mainly based on "open source" becoming a common cultural thing in the tech world in the '90s. At least, that seems to be the case in public sources [google.com] (or should I say, "open" sources?) using the term, where widespread usage dates to around 1995.

Re:Open Source information? (2)

nschubach (922175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328475)

I'm sure you'd still be in court for calling your new deodorant "Mountain Dew"

Re:Open Source information? (1)

Strange Ranger (454494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328651)

It's open-source, not Open Source.
 
Which is a good argument to capitalize it if you want to own a piece of that phase.

Re:Open Source information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327741)

It means public information, don't pretend you didn't know.

Re:Open Source information? (1)

suso (153703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328205)

It means public information, don't pretend you didn't know.

I didn't, because I've only heard it refered to as public information before. I've heard the term sources refering to where you get your sources from, but not open-source information. It turns out Bruce Perens acknowledged this special use of the term open source in the intelligence community when he announced open source software: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html [catb.org]

The intelligence community probably hates it when this happens. *rolls eyes*

Re:Open Source information? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327749)

We must outlaw open source and license all computer programmers.

Re:Open Source information? (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327769)

What is Open Source information? The OSI foundation doesn't seem to be doing a good job of enforcing the trademark of the term Open Source

"Open source" simply means something that was openly published and available to the public. The term has been in use for at least a century. The OSI foundation has no trademark on the term.

That fact that this guy got the info from open sources doesn't make it okay. If I find your key under your doormat, that was stupid of you, but it doesn't make it okay for me to rob you. This jerk got what he deserves.

Re:Open Source information? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327787)

Open source does not mean what you think it means.

Re:Open Source information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328257)

You've confused open source with Open Source. Lots of people confuse the two, because they don't notice the difference.

Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327671)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Really? (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328183)

If there ever was a story where the pictures are worth more than any amount of words, this would be it. I'd go as far as to say that this would otherwise be a non-story if there are no pictures.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328367)

Let me Google that for you... These photos are all over the place, but NSFW, so be careful out there.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328597)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Sure. Let's joke about posting personal pictures of a non-consenting party.

This comment wouldn't even come up if it was a man whose pictures were taken.

Wake up call (3, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327691)

"According to the FBI, the hacker used open-source, public information to try to guess a celebrity's email password, and then would breach the account."

Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

I don't know what is more disgusting, celebrities themselves, or psycho brand of psychonphants they attract.

Re:Wake up call (3, Insightful)

dav1dc (2662425) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327839)

I agree - is it still considered a "hack" when all the attacker did was guess the password from common (public domain) knowledge??

I don't think it changes the degree of wrong in his actions - but in this light we shouldn't revel in the miraculous technical innovations used to snipe some celeb p0Rn.

Re:Wake up call (5, Funny)

seepho (1959226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327943)

is it still considered a "hack" when all the attacker did was guess the password from common (public domain) knowledge??

Yes, much like a golf cart is still considered a vehicle.

Re:Wake up call (1)

dav1dc (2662425) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328687)

But it is the lowest form of hack. ^_^

Re:Wake up call (1)

rtaylor (70602) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328255)

Yes.

It's still breaking and entering even if the door is wide open.

Re:Wake up call (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327969)

Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

Well, he'll be going to a real prison with real criminals -- Slashdot's whinging about what is a hacker, a cracker, or a script kiddie is irrelevant.

He's hardly a criminal mastermind, but what he did was still illegal.

Re:Wake up call (5, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328149)

Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

Well, he'll be going to a real prison with real criminals -- Slashdot's whinging about what is a hacker, a cracker, or a script kiddie is irrelevant.

He's hardly a criminal mastermind, but what he did was still illegal.

As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe. Good to hear that the court system sees hacking for the serious crime it really is. Someone with a talent for computing shouldn't be given free license to break into someone elses devices and steal, and then provide some lame 'War Games' "it was just some innocent hacking" defense. 10 years will give him time to wonder if maybe he shouldn't play like some kind of untouchable omnipotent God at a keyboard. I look forward to hearing of more tough sentences in the future.

Re:Wake up call (5, Insightful)

stdarg (456557) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328311)

As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe

I don't think it's as illegal as that. If someone breaks into your home and goes into your bedroom, that's scary not just because they stole your photos or money, but they could have easily run into someone and had to decide -- do I attack this person, do I turn this burglary into a rape, do I leave witnesses, etc.

I just looked up common sentences for burglary, and found an article that discusses burglary laws in New York (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-penalties-and-sentencing.html ). As I suspected, the main differences between degrees of burglary are whether it was a dwelling where someone lives and whether a weapon was involved. Both combined is first degree. One or the other is second degree. Neither (breaking into a store for instance) is third degree with a maximum sentence of 7 years. Hacking a phone should be the LEAST serious of any of those, really a fourth degree.

The reality is that hacking isn't that bad.

Re:Wake up call (4, Informative)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328533)

You are correct. The article states that he could have gotten 121 years if he'd been convicted on all 26 counts he was indited for. Real world third degree burglary adds up too when you've broken into a couple dozen stores. If the information in the article is correct, it looks like the average maximum sentence for each indictment is around 4.5 years, so 2.5 years less than you say for third degree burglary. It's just that he did it lots and lots of times. Sounds like he got off pretty easy, about 3 months per count.

Re:Wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328195)

Your logic:

1. Some famous entertainers used weak passwords (as do millions of other Americans), so that proves that "celebrities are fucking dumb".

2. Because of this, all famous entertainers deserve the same kind of scorn we would direct at criminal celebrity stalkers.

Slashdot moderator's reaction:

+5 Insightful, @davydagger!

Re:Wake up call (3, Insightful)

WD (96061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328219)

I don't think the quote is right. The technique used to gain access is not to guess the password, but to guess the answers to the password recovery questions. The password itself can be strong, but when you've got a site that provides recovery questions like "Where were you born?", what are we to do? The clever approach would be to have an answer scheme that isn't guessable via public knowledge, but also something you can remember if you need to use it. There's a difference between "fucking dumb" and not being aware of weaknesses in web service authentication schemes.

Re:Wake up call (3, Interesting)

rk (6314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328523)

I have a made-up narrative for an alter ego where I know all the answers to those questions (e.g., what's your mother's maiden name?) and I use those answers instead of the real ones. So you can do all the research you want on me, and you'll get wrong answers for those questions. But I'm weird that way... :-)

Re:Wake up call (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328711)

I admire your creativity, but for normal mortals:

Q: What's your mother's maiden name?
A: qU$%3HHr28k4

OK, that makes me somewhat dependant on LastPass, but that's a somewhat smaller risk than outlined in TFS.

Re:Wake up call (5, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328271)

Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

On the contrary, guessing a password is a truly classic hack. What is more of a "real hack" from your perspective? Downloading and running a cracking script? To guess a person's password from information publicly available about them is a prime example of security-oriented thinking.

The best hacks are tailored precisely to the circumstances.

Re:Wake up call (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328399)

"Illegal wiretapping gave Mr. Chaney access to every email sent to more than four dozen victims, and allowed him to view their most personal information," said US Attorney Andre Birotte Jr.

Gosh that sounds a lot like, "Illegal wiretapping gave the federal government access to every email sent to more than forty million victims, and allowed them to view their most personal information." Nobody went down for that one, though.

how many years in prison (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327709)

did Rupert Murdoch and his son get?

Re:how many years in prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328333)

I find the image of Rupert Murdoch sitting at a PC, guessing celebrity passwords to be hilarious.

Congratulations Slashdot! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327715)

That's probably the most stupid misuse of 'open-source' I've ever seen.

Don't put things online you want to keep private (2, Interesting)

jdray (645332) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327723)

I'm not quite clear why anyone thinks that putting things online in any capacity is safe from prying eyes, particularly if they're a celebrity. I don't defend the actions of these "hackers" (pfft), but the photo owners should be smart enough to take some precautions or find someone that can help them do it.

Re:Don't put things online you want to keep privat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327763)

Since when is having stuff on your computer or cell phone considered "online"?

Re:Don't put things online you want to keep privat (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327937)

He got into their email and looked at old messages. I think it's safe to assume they were using some form of webmail, which means that their email was stored online.

Re:Don't put things online you want to keep privat (2)

gfxguy (98788) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328133)

Why is it safe to assume they were using webmail? All of my mail accessed on the web through a web interface, but that doesn't mean that's how I access it. The summary clearly states he hacked their phones, and accessed their email and devices.

Re:Don't put things online you want to keep privat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327983)

I agree that one should expect things online and in email to be at risk, but I also believe you should have some recourse if I break into your gmail account and read through your emails.

Re:Don't put things online you want to keep privat (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328223)

I'm not quite clear why anyone thinks that putting things online in any capacity is safe from prying eyes, particularly if they're a celebrity. I don't defend the actions of these "hackers" (pfft), but the photo owners should be smart enough to take some precautions or find someone that can help them do it.

People who aren't tech-savvy shouldn't get damaged because of it. Would you want your grandmother to have her social security money to get stolen from her, then tell her she deserves what she got? "Shoulda' been bhind a firewall Gramma! That'll learn you!" Sheesh!

Quit blaming the victim (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328555)

Stop blaming the victim. I've heard this so often, I'm finally going to snap. (Nothing personal.)

Make up your mind whether IT administration is easy or hard.

If it's easy, then the IT profession is perpetrating a massive scam and collecting fat paychecks for what is basically an easy job. I don't believe that, and I do not think you will find many people on Slashdot who support that position.

On the other hand, if IT is hard, then it's not fair to condemn non-professionals from being unable to do it. Rather than calling people "stupid" for not knowing things that we take for granted, we could actually try to promote public awareness and give people constructive advice.

10 years does not fit the crime (5, Insightful)

jdastrup (1075795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327731)

10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327829)

10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.

Maybe Child Molesters and Murderers should go to prison longer.

The real question is would someone who leaked pictures of an Ex get the same?

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (0)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328119)

While other issues would probably still be the same, since the pictures were probably freely given at some point to the person who leaked them, I doubt there would be any wiretapping charges. That said, don't be a dick by leaking pictures like that.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328125)

I would wager no. Just like the justice system is different depending on who you are, it is different depending on who your victim was. If this person was hacking the phones of a bunch of nobodies (even 14 year old ones) the FBI probably would have just filed the complaint and gone back to other cases.

Upset someone important though and all of a sudden resources materialize and harsh sentences are 'appropriate'.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327845)

Child molesters and murderers get less time.

 
Not for as many counts as he commited.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327857)

he got additional years for being stupid. He should've known that in this society (and just about every society), crimes committed against the rich and famous are punished far more severely than crimes committed against the riffraff.

Even the gangbangers know this, they prey on lowly people in their own ghettos most of the time.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (2)

The Living Fractal (162153) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327859)

Ten years seems excessive, yes, but I'm sure he'll get out in a couple years or so if he's a non-violent inmate. Read more about what he did... it's quite a laundry list of abhorrent behavior.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327887)

10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.

Child molesters and murders get less time because their sentences are reduced on appeal, they get time off for good behavior, or they are released early by parole boards or to reduce overcrowding. The same will happen to this guy. It is unlikely that he will be in the slammer for more than two or three years, and likely even less than that.

This is actually a good system, because the headlines show the initial (phoney) sentence, which has a deterrent value by scaring other potential perps, but we don't actually incur the expense of imprisoning them for anywhere near that long.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328385)

> This is actually a good system, because the headlines show the
> initial (phoney) sentence, which has a deterrent value by scaring
> other potential perps, but we don't actually incur the expense of
> imprisoning them for anywhere near that long.

Hmmm in theory anyway. In practice, there is evidence that harsh sentances do not actually translate into significant deterrance.

A much stronger effect is seen by increasing the percieved likelyhood of gettin caught.

An excellent book that talked of this was "More Sex is Safer Sex", that has a whole chapter on this effect, using LoJack as their example... claiming a 20% drop in car thefts for every 1% increase in cars with LoJack....with no increase in penalties (threatened or otherwise).

People are FAR more afraid of getting caught than the penalty.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327947)

Really? Perhaps you can show us the cases where someone who has been found guilty of 9 counts of child molestation or murder got less time.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327949)

I do agree that 10 years is already too much for the offence, but it is even worse. He pleaded guilty to get only 10 years. He could face 121 years. THAT is absurd.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328191)

121 years if he was found guilty of every count and sentenced to serve consecutively. chances are the sentence would be concurrently for all counts and it would be a lot less

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328481)

U.S. almost never does concurrent sentences.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (4, Funny)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328021)

Well, you see, Scarlett Johansson's ass is copyrighted. So the MPAA is probably setting the sentence.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328051)

He should have burgled the houses, and raped the nannies while he was at it, to steal physical photos... He would have got less time. He could have even murdered a couple of guards and got less than 10 years.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328095)

10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this.

Well, he could have been facing a lot worse.

Chaney pleaded guilty in March, in a deal with prosecutors. He could have been jailed for up to 121 years if convicted on all 26 indictments he was originally charged with.

It's a steep sentence, but I have no sympathy for him -- nor more than I would for spammers, con-artists, or crooked politicians.

It's not like he could be under any illusion what he was doing was ever legal.

Not in my state (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328139)

I don't know about your state but here it is pretty lengthy. Second degree murder has sentences that range from 10-20 years provided it is an isolated offence. If you already have convictions of certain types, it can be 25 years, or more. First degree murder is a life sentence or the death penalty. In cases of life, sometimes parole can be allowed, but not before 25 years and then it is still discretionary.

Something else you seem to forget is that he is charged of multiple crimes. You don't get to lump crimes together and claim "Well it was the same sort of crime, so it only counts as one." If you rob a store, then go rob another store, then go rob another store, you'll be charged with 3 crimes and each carries its own sentence. What's more, when you commit multiple crimes often you are eligible for more strict sentences (as noted with the murder thing earlier).

If you disagree with the individual charges fair enough, but please stop with the hyperbole.

Re:Not in my state (1)

dissy (172727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328561)

It looks like the multiple charges (26 specifically) totaled up to 121 years of prison time.
That would require 5x 1st degree murders in your state to bring the minimum 25 years up to that amount, or 6-12x 2nd degree murders for the same.

He plead guilty to avoid getting the entire 121 years total, in exchange for serving only 10 years for all counts combined.

So if you use the time sentenced on a per-charge basis then that comes to a little over 4.5 years of prison per charge, which is in fact less than what a murderer would get.

But looked at another way, two counts of this form of "hacking" is still equal to a second degree murder in the best of situations. Guessing "12345" as a password twice is equal to depriving a person of their life in the heat of the moment (Minus the 4 month rounding error)

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328153)

Child molesters and murderers will get more time if their victims are famous or rich.

If the victims are not connected or wealthy, then Child molesters and murderers get a slap or are ignored.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328189)

10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.

Well, clearly, you're wrong. See, a murder victim remains dead even after the trial, so it's not like they have to deal with the long-term psychological effects of the ordeal. Similarly, victims of child molestation cease to be children (in a wide-eyed, innocent sense) after their incidents, so there's no further harm there.

But a FEMALE CELEBRITY?!? Having NUDE PICTURES of her released that she didn't sell herself? My GOD, man! That'll ruin her for life! Now nobody will ever see any of her movies or whatnot ever again, because they've already seen her nude, so there's no further reason to be titillated by her on-screen presence! That's FAR more damaging to the country than a simple murder or child rape! This is a CELEBRITY, man! Geez! Get it together!

<blink><b>SARCASM</b></blink>

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

couchslug (175151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328199)

OTOH its a nice way to remind other people to stay the fuck out of systems which do NOT BELONG TO THEM.

Re:10 years does not fit the crime (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328707)

murderers get less time.

This is not true at the Federal level (which this case was). 1st degree murder is mandatory death or life imprisonment. Second degree murder is no less than 10 years up to life imprisonment.

Pics (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327751)

or it didn't happen...

Defense rests your honor.

Re:Pics (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327909)

If you're too stupid to know how to find the pics online, you don't deserve to see them.

Have you heard of a search engine? Took me more time to type this than it took to view all of the pictures.

Re:Pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328043)

guess that whoooshing sound made it too hard to hear the joke. It's ok.. humor isn't for everyone.

Re:Pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328389)

Hmm.. Can you elaborate on this? I've never heard of a search engine that can search for pictures. Sounds absurd, and I think you're just trolling.

Password Guessing != Hacking (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327757)

Seriously. Stop it.

HSBC laundered money, execs lose/reduce bonuses (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327761)

Why does it seem there is one set of rules for the little people and another set for big business?

"HSBC executives brushed off complaints from other bank employees, so that the problems persisted for eight years, the report says.

In addition, some HSBC bank affiliates skirted U.S. government bans against financial transactions with Iran and other countries, according to the report. And HSBC’s U.S. division provided money and banking services to some banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh believed to have helped fund Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the report said."

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1227431--hsbc-laundered-billions-of-dollars-for-mexican-drug-cartels-senate-investigation-finds [thestar.com]

"The penalty includes a five-year agreement with the US department of justice under which the bank will install an independent monitor to assess reformed internal controls. The bank's top executives will defer part of their bonuses for the whole of the five-year period, while bonuses have been clawed back from a number of former and current executives, including those in the US directly involved at the time."

Re:HSBC laundered money, execs lose/reduce bonuses (4, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328027)

I think that this article [torrentfreak.com] about High Court versus Low Court justice will explain it for you.

information wants to be free! (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327807)

These celebrities should open source their privates and make money by selling support contracts.

U.S. is crazy (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327825)

Seriously. The guy did deserve to go to jail, but 121 years?!!! And he pleaded guilty to get "just" 10 years? It is no surprise U.S. prisons are full and U.S. has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the World...

Re:U.S. is crazy (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327967)

Our justice system only works (for certain definitions of "works") because we threaten insane sentences to force less-insane plea bargains.

We can't afford to have more than a tiny number of cases go to trial, or the system would break down. Not enough money, not enough judges, not enough lawyers.

Re:U.S. is crazy (2)

theNetImp (190602) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328151)

Each hack is a different crime. Each crime has a minimum sentence. The rest is math. Most countries are no different.

Let's take a closer look... (1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328343)

Seriously. The guy did deserve to go to jail, but 121 years?!!! And he pleaded guilty to get "just" 10 years? It is no surprise U.S. prisons are full and U.S. has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the World...

Maybe he shouldn't have been doing things that are clearly illegal, without much question creepy, and doing these things to "high profile" people to boot?

Perhaps society should be protected from creeps this fucking stupid?

Also, keep in mind:

The indictments against him included accessing and damaging computers, wire tapping and identify theft.

...So we're not talking about just a few celebrity nudes.

He then allegedly communicated directly with contacts found in the hacked email account's address list and searched the account for photos, information and other data.

To control the account, Chaney is alleged to have altered the email's account settings to go to a separate, unrelated e-mail address that he controlled.

After gaining complete access to the hacked account, Chaney then used the contact list to "harvest" new targets, according to the FBI.

Just a little "innocent" hacking of "rich people" who should have known better?

And, keep in mind that if he wasn't already doing credit card theft, it was probably in his "script kiddie" queue.

Careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328611)

The guy did deserve to go to jail

Come on, at least TRY to think for yourself. The fact that government regularly incarcerates non-violent people (especially drug offenders) is one of the reasons why the US has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. Are you honestly OK with that? Are you honestly OK with the government that supposedly represents you locking non-violent human beings in cages like animals? Have you ever considered that perhaps one day YOU will be locked in a cage for a non-violent crime?

The solution is restitution, not incarceration. A legal system based on restitution to the victim is the only system that respects the equal human rights of all people. A system that incarcerates both violent AND non-violent offenders is one where the non-violent offender is a second-class citizen.

Idiot (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327847)

The idiot he should of just laundered money for al-qaeda.

Hacker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327861)

Does this summary win the prize for the most uses of some variant of 'hacker'? It's used more than once per sentence.

Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327869)

Because this really seems like the elite beating down a serf for daring to see the princess naked.

Re:Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327919)

Disney would be so unhappy with the way your talking about the princess.

Re:Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (1)

kc67 (2789711) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328029)

I've seen the preview, I can't wait for the movie. :)

Re:Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328117)

Just because you leave your door unlocked doesn't mean I can sleep on your sofa when you're out of town. Had these people left their nekkid pics on a flash drive that they dropped somewhere in public, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. When you cry "1%ers" every time someone gets nailed for committing a crime, it's going to make it a lot less effective when you try to protest a real, actual abuse of power.

Re:Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328299)

Bottom line is that the guy would have gotten a slap on the wrist for posting nude pictures of you, if you could have even gotten the police to care enough to file a report. In a system where you are entitled to only so much justice as you can afford, is is ill-advised to target the wealthy; save your crimes for the poor.

Re:Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328657)

Not really true. I know normal people that his sort of thing has happened to and the perpetrators went to jail. Maybe not for ten years, but remember that this guy was charged with 26 counts. He did this to *a lot* of people. Surprisingly enough you go to jail for a longer time when you rob four stores than when you rob one store.

Re:Have we completed the road to serfdom yet? (0)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328593)

Those naked princesses generate a lot of revenue and the general public knowing what they look like naked can make, break or stagnate the significant investments put into them. A naked girl is pretty much worthless these days. A semi-naked girl with a couple hundred million behind her in marketing is at least worth your life, my life and maybe a couple small towns.

Scarlett Johansson naked pics ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327921)

Your name will not be forgotten, generous hacker. You took one for the team.

Scarlett Johansson naked pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327981)

Your name will not be forgotten, generous hacker. You took one for the team and will shine forever in our *hem* hearts.

And the judge said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328079)

...pics or it didn't happen?

Like they didnt want it to happen (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328161)

I consider the real sickness here is the wierdness that is the mind of apparently most Hollywood stars.
I mean why do they apparently all carry nude pictures of themselves on their phones? Especially even knowing that phones can be hacked.
I can smell the Paris Hilton effect in action.... There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Re:Like they didnt want it to happen (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328467)

The sickness is called "Ego", it's incurable, and they all have it. Worse still, they have invented an infection path via reality television which they use to spread this epidemic of narcissism to the rest of the planet

Re:Like they didnt want it to happen (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328655)

"I mean why do they apparently all carry nude pictures of themselves on their phones?"

Because they hope the phone will be "hacked" and the pictures posted online, thereby generating a great deal of publicity for them.

Thanks Uncle Dick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328171)

Uncle Dick Chaney must've given him a tip-off of how to play the old Patriot Act game!

open-source information (1)

jameson71 (540713) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328291)

What is with these announcements using the term "open-source information" when announcing "crimes" committed by using information that is publicly available? It used to just be called "public information"

Meanwhile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328409)

the banksters who have destroyed the economy go free - indeed, are above the law.

Scarlet grainy pics uncensored (5, Informative)

Cito (1725214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328423)

most sites have these watermarked or censored with black bars

http://goo.gl/xFwzF [goo.gl]
http://goo.gl/T97ZZ [goo.gl]

Brings me back (1)

skitchen8 (1832190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328675)

I would hardly call this hacking, more social engineering with the social part being the ability to use Google. I remember hacking an ex girlfriend's account when I was in middle school to send e-mails to every guy she knew asking for sexual favors. I guess I'm just a super 1337 hax0r. I also have to question how wise it is to carry nude pictures of you everywhere, do they often run into emergency "showing my tits" situations?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>