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 Faces 105 Years In Prison After Blackmailing 350+ Women

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the see-you-after-the-singularity dept.

Crime 473

redletterdave writes "According to the 30-count indictment released by the Central District of California, 27-year-old hacker Karen 'Gary' Kazaryan allegedly hacked his way into hundreds of online accounts, using personal information and nude or semi-nude photos of his victims to coerce more than 350 female victims to show him their naked bodies, usually over Skype. By posing as a friend, Kazaryan allegedly tricked these women into stripping for him on camera, capturing more than 3,000 images of these women to blackmail them. Kazaryan was arrested by federal agents on Tuesday; if convicted on all 30 counts, including 15 counts of computer intrusion and 15 counts of aggravated identity theft, Kazaryan could face up to 105 years in federal prison."

cancel ×

473 comments

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

What a STUPID thing to do (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740443)

Seriously, that's it. I'm out of words.

Re:What a STUPID thing to do (-1, Flamebait)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740693)

Seriously, that's it. I'm out of words.

No shit...

I mean, if those chicks were that stupid....well, didn't they deserve a bit of what they got?

He got them to strip for him with still photos, then on skype...

Hmm...where are all of these gullible women?

:)

The Taliban blames the victim (3, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740879)

We don't.

Re:The Taliban blames the victim (4, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740977)

You're FSM-right we don't. We're supposed to be the good guys here.

This asshole (allegedly) blackmailed 350 people. I say allegedly because he hasn't been convicted in a court of law, which again, is the way we do things around here. You know, in motherfucking civilization.

This is not the victim's fault. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Re:The Taliban blames the victim (0)

magarity (164372) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741125)

Perhaps this fits your intent better?

This asshole (allegedly) blackmailed (allegedly) 350 people. I say allegedly because he hasn't been convicted in a court of law, which again, is the way we do things around here.

Re:The Taliban blames the victim (-1, Troll)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741211)

Well, these women had already been posting naked images of themselves on the internet...all this guy was doing was getting them to do it specifically for him.

These women obviously had no problem with their nudity in public, they could have easily told him to fuck off...again, it isn't like they had a problem with public nudity, it was already out there of them.

And once somethings on the internet...it ain't going away.

Re:The Taliban blames the victim (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741221)

While I agree that the victim is not at fault here, they nonetheless hold a degree of responsibility. If I go to a crack house, and get robbed, while I am a victim, if I had never been in the crack house in the first place, I would never have been robbed. I don't blame the victims at all, and I do find that what Karen did to be a despicable act and deserves to do some time behind it. But, we as a society also need a good dose of "reality" when it comes to crime. If you don't want a dui, don't go to the bar and then drive home.

Plea bargain (5, Interesting)

Paul Johnson (33553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740457)

But no doubt he'll take the plea bargain and spend a mere 1% of that in a low security prison, just like Aaron was supposed to.

Re:Plea bargain (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740665)

Except that when you're going into a fed pen for a sex crime, "Karen" is a supremely unfortunate name to have if you're a guy.

Re:Plea bargain (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740687)

Last I knew, neither "computer intrusion" nor "aggravated identify theft" were considered sex crimes.

Re:Plea bargain (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740893)

Pissing in bushes is considered a sex crime.

Re:Plea bargain (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741173)

Last I knew, neither computer intrusion nor aggravated identity theft were considered pissing in bushes.

maybe not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740895)

It may be covered by the state's peeping tom laws. Which would classify it as a sex crime.

Re:Plea bargain (3, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741197)

"computer intrusion" certainly sounds like a sex crime, from a computer's point of view...

Re:Plea bargain (5, Insightful)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740779)

This is true, and it means that justice will probably be served in his case. But the problem I see is using the extortion of long sentences to force a plea bargain to avoid time in court. That is in my opinion where there is something going wrong with the system, and that we should all be worried about it.
In my opinion plea bargains are just begging to be abused by the system and creates a mockery of due process.

"begging to"? (5, Insightful)

gatfirls (1315141) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740867)

That ship sailed long ago. Coincidentally, our system of 'due process' is basically one massive blackmail racket. If things operated as intended it would be an invaluable tool for the courts and the defendants to provide a win/win. In our completely perverted system charges are trumped up to the maximum (even completely fabricated) levels to force a plea.

Re:"begging to"? (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740897)

Not all plea deals are bad, and I don't believe the court system would handle everything going to trial.

Re:"begging to"? (3, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740991)

That's why plea bargains exist... to avoid trials and keep the court's resources in check. The problem there is that an innocent person might be scared of getting sentenced to life and accept the 5 year prison deal instead of going to trial and stating their case. Of course, if you're truly innocent you'll win the trial in the perfect world, but we're not perfect.

Re:"begging to"? (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741245)

Not all plea deals are bad

But many of them are.

I don't believe the court system would handle everything going to trial.

When I was in the military back in the 1980s, if a defendant pleaded guilty in either an NJP [wikipedia.org] or court martial, the presiding officer or judge was required to conduct a "providency hearing" and conclude, and document, that the plea was actually in the defendants best interest. I probably conducted over a hundred NJPs, and I never once , accepted a guilty plea. Usually this was because it was not in the defendants best interest, but also because a finding of guilty in a providency hearing could be an avenue for appeal, which would be a lot more paperwork. In several of those cases, there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, and the defendant got off.

Civilian courts should have something similar. Before a judge accepts a guilty plea, they should have to review the evidence, and conclude that the defendant is probably actually guilty of what they are admitting to, although the standard would be less than "beyond a reasonable doubt". This would eliminate the most egregious plea bargins, but still allow most to go forward.

Re:"begging to"? (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740903)

Fair enough, poor choice of words. I wasn't really implying that this is a new thing.

Re:Plea bargain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741061)

Justice served by a short sentence (one year)?

If a child was harvesting personal data and using it to blackmail people for naked pictures I would agree, but this is an adult. I would think that this would think that if I was going around in person, and making threats to see womens' naked flesh I'd be in far worse trouble, I don't see when this guy is getting off so easily.

Re:Plea bargain (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741177)

Justice served by a short sentence (one year)?

If a child was harvesting personal data and using it to blackmail people for naked pictures I would agree, but this is an adult. I would think that this would think that if I was going around in person, and making threats to see womens' naked flesh I'd be in far worse trouble, I don't see when this guy is getting off so easily.

Huh? Who said anything about 1 year? My bet is that a plea bargain will let him off easier then 105 years in jail, maybe even easier then if he goes to court. It will still be a punishment that I expect will fit the crime. My problem is with the plea bargains themselves and believe that he should be forced into court, where all such allegations (and bargaining) belong.

Hmmmmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740483)

Am i the only one who is confused by the wording of the summary?

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740607)

I'd answer that, but I'm confused by the wording of your post. Who's "i"?

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740669)

Well the story cited is equally confusing.
How did he hack into hundreds of on line accounts from Facebook Skype, and then find enough to blackmail them?

Seems these women were already posting pictures online in many cases.

But left unexplained is how he hacked into at least three different services in the first place.

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740713)

From the few details I can gather, it's more "social engineering" than "hacking". And you're quite right about them posting the pictures online in the first place... otherwise what would he have gotten to blackmail them with? There's a lot of unanswered questions, but I think there's plenty of lessons for both sides here.

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741111)

Ars Technica says he somehow got access to 176 different facebook accounts. Very doubtful that "hacking" on this scale was done purely through social engineering --- my guess he was targeting girls with trojans/keyloggers.

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740863)

He got the initial pictures where a lot of these kinds of creeps do. Hacking email accounts, etc.

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740747)

Am i the only one who is confused by the wording of the summary?

Far from it. From the summary, it sounds like he convinced women to strip for him in front of a camera, then used those pictures to blackmail the women into... sending him naked pictures of themselves.

Re:Hmmmmmmmm (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740813)

And I took it to mean things happened the other way around...

Evidence (5, Funny)

rbgaynor (537968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740513)

Now, now - let's not rush to justice until we've had a chance to see the evidence.

Re:Evidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741015)

On a more serious note in the same vein, how is any of this "hacking"? Are there serious holes in those platforms we should know about? Or is this yet another case of trying to scare-up the case by using extradoubleplus scary words for things that are quite mundane? If the latter, please stop having a jolly old deliberately stirred-up media hysteria frenzy. It may drive sales but it's not really "informing the public" any longer, and as such a bit of a journalistic disservice to the public or even justicial disservice to the people.

I'm all for putting someone who does things like those described behind bars for a goodly while (though "forever" takes away the chance to better oneself and a bit of saucy blackmail usually isn't that bad, not even when computers are involved) but let's not lose ourselves in how bad it all is, hmkay? Pass judgement, apply consequences (like "put behind bars"), move on.

oops... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740529)

Someone messed up...

hope they used gloves (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740537)

When they grabbed his computers! UUUCH The keyboards most likely had stuck keys.

Won't come close to that (2)

jjthegreat (837151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740543)

I have no problem with this type of scum getting some sort of jailtime. The question is, does the punishment fit the crime? I do not believe that this person will get anywhere near 105 years, especially if there are no priors. Before passing judgement, I think I will wait for a conviction. Is there a precedent for this type of crime with the same kind of scale to it?

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740635)

You missed the point. Absurd punishments are used to encourage people to plea bargain, so the courts don't get flooded with people trying to prove they're not guilty. So there presumably won't be any conviction.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740969)

The only thing about that is they actually did away with statutory maximum and minimum sentences in the US federal courts a few years since having a set minimum was deemed unconstitutional. So now the judge can pretty much give you whatever they want, though they do generally go by the former guidelines more or less.

As far as plea bargaining to the feds, you don't get a guaranteed low sentence when you do that, what happens is if you are pretty sure you'll get convicted, you plea bargain so that the US attorney will recommend a particular to the judge but it is still up to the judge what you get. If you can come in with a good enough sob story about how your molested as a kid (for example) then you stand a decent chance of getting lower than what the US attorney is suggesting.

The problem with going to trial is you aren't being what they call "cooperative". This adds to your "points" which is how they compute the guidelines that they aren't really bound by but use anyway. It's a circus. I wish I could explain it all more clearly.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740637)

I really doubt he'll get what is effectively life in prison for this. I have a hard time believing they'll give him more than 20 years and even that might be a stretch. Although 20 years seems relatively mild, consider losing 20 years of your life. He'll be 47 by the time he gets out and be missing the stretch where most people get a family, build up wealth and the do the bulk of saving for retirement. Even if he doesn't care about that, it's still a very long time to be in prison.

Re:Won't come close to that (0, Troll)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740745)

20 years doesn't seem relatively mild. Any actual prison time seems relatively severe. A prison sentence means never being employed in a real job again and likely physical assault and rape. Does offending a few people's sense of modesty really justify doing that to someone regardless of how many people he did it to?

Some sort of small fine seems appropriate here. Maybe $500 that should be enough to discourage most people from this type of behavior.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740845)

I've known several people with felonies on their records with real jobs. One of them was my CIO.

Re:Won't come close to that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740907)

and how well off are they compared to those without a felony on their record? Yes you can get a decent job but to make a ton of money legally after a felony is damn near impossible.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741051)

True enough, they were not (well, none of us were) making nearly as much as they should have.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740945)

Some sort of small fine seems appropriate here. Maybe $500 that should be enough to discourage most people from this type of behavior.

Why? Then you just trivialize what he did and make it so other people can do this. If it's only going to cost $500 to make it go away, then you'd see an awful lot of people doing it.

Essentially he committed several serious crimes ("The indictment charges Kazaryan with 15 counts of computer intrusion and 15 counts of aggravated identity theft") in the process of this.

Gone are the days where someone says "oh, how cute" and just moves on. A prison term of 105 years is excessive, but a $500 fine for criminally using someone else's account? No way.

Sorry, but those are federal offenses, and this is no longer legally some childhood prank. We may need to find a better legal middle ground, but a small fine and a slap on the wrist won't do.

Information doesn't "want" to be free, and just because you feel entitled to it doesn't make it ok.

Re:Won't come close to that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741071)

If it's only going to cost $500 to make it go away, then you'd see an awful lot of people doing it.

This is why people who litter should be shot in the head.

I mean, the death penalty stopped murder, after all.

Re:Won't come close to that (5, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741145)

"Why? Then you just trivialize what he did and make it so other people can do this."

Because what he did was trivial. He tricked some girls into letting him see them naked. OMG. They are just bodies for god sake we all have them and they will all show them to hundreds of guys over the course of their life and regret many of those times. But but he LIED. Yes he lied and those same girls will no doubt have been lied to by every guy they sleep with to some degree or another. All men are willing to lie or withhold, or otherwise twist the truth to get laid.

What he did is morally reprehensible but hardly criminal. It makes him worthy of despising and calling a pig but then so would a more severe action like cheating on a girlfriend.

"a $500 fine for criminally using someone else's account? No way"

He didn't use someone's bank account. He used their social networking account in a way that results in absolutely no tangible damage to anyone. The bar for identity theft can't just be pretending to be someone else in a harmless prank and if that is going to be the bar then yes the punishments have to dropped to something appropriate for a harmless prank. What next? If he pretends to be a friend confirming his alibi to his girlfriend/wife on the phone so he can sleep around we charge him with identity theft and communications fraud?

Re:Won't come close to that (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741259)

Information doesn't "want" to be free

Tell that to the US military or go on TPB and watch the flood of information that has freed itself. Information does want to be free and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it. And, yes, it is okay. It's just the way the world works.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741081)

Does offending a few people's sense of modesty really justify doing that to someone regardless of how many people he did it to?

See, the courts see it a little differently. If you steal something like a computer or whatever, then the person you stole it from is like, "it sucks but I can get another one". The mental harm is fairly minimal. But when you start fucking with peoples' emotions like in this case it takes on an entirely different and to the average person more serious context. This dude isn't going to get a slap on the wrist. Expect at least 10 years. And in the fed joint, he'll do 85 percent of that. There are some programs he can apply for that might knock off a year or so but he's done for a while.

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740719)

True he will never get the max.

But would you have even bothered to read the story if the poster hadn't hype the ridiculous theoretical maximums?

Re:Won't come close to that (1)

deesine (722173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740927)

But would you have even bothered to read the story if the poster hadn't hype the ridiculous theoretical maximums?

Yes, "Blackmailing 350+ Women" was pretty much the hook for me.

I think there is a lesson in this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740577)

Protip: don't post nude or semi-nude pictures of yourself anywhere unless you want people to see them. It might be fun to tease people, but its probably better to do that in person.

The actual lesson (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740631)

Here's a better pro-tip:

Don't blackmail people, or you will raped in prison for the rest of your pathetic life.

Re:The actual lesson (1)

crypticedge (1335931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741035)

Both Parent and GP are pretty spot on, too bad they posted as AC's.

Re:I think there is a lesson in this (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740639)

If people exercised natural common sense on the Internet, Slashdot would be a very boring place and we wouldn't probably even be having this conversation.

Obvious moral (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740581)

Just like in the Anthony Wiener scandal, the clear bit of advice to come out of this: Never, ever, ever transmit pictures of yourself over a computer network with fewer clothes on than you'd wear in public.

I'm sure some people find that kind of thing fun, but the simple fact is that the damage is greater than getting many STDs.

Re:Obvious moral (1)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740835)

"I'm sure some people find that kind of thing fun, but the simple fact is that the damage is greater than getting many STDs."

Not really. The only possible damage is a little embarrassment. We shouldn't be sending someone to prison over violating someone's sense of modesty and embarrassing them. There is an offense there but an action that does no more harm than potentially stirring up an emotion shouldn't result in effectively permanently destroying the life of the person doing it (which prison time does regardless of duration).

Re:Obvious moral (1, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740919)

"I'm sure some people find that kind of thing fun, but the simple fact is that the damage is greater than getting many STDs." Not really. The only possible damage is a little embarrassment. We shouldn't be sending someone to prison over violating someone's sense of modesty and embarrassing them. There is an offense there but an action that does no more harm than potentially stirring up an emotion shouldn't result in effectively permanently destroying the life of the person doing it (which prison time does regardless of duration).

Nude photo: Embarrassing for victim. 20 years in a federal penitentiary for the felon.
Breaking and Entering with Assault: Mental Anguish, Nightmares, Lost property or broken bones for victim. Probation for the perp.
Nice system.

Re:Obvious moral (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741093)

I disagree. There have been multiple cases where people have lost their jobs, spouses, or visitation with children as a result of graphic/nude images being made public. If memory serves Miss USA or Miss Universe (or something similar) had their crown taken away because old nude photographs were discovered. An American Idol finalist as well I believe. Even 'small' public officials like police can lose their jobs or be reprimanded for things like that. Granted it's the minority, but it does happen. On the other side, make a big fuss over it *greatly* increases the chances of it being a problem.

This person is being charged with blackmail and computer intrusion. Not embarrassing people. The penalty he faces is far more severe than deserved but others have pointed out how charges are trumped up to get a plea and avoid actually using the court system. Oddly, it seems very similar to what he did to the women so...that much he deserves.

Realistically he deserves some punishment, but years (or decades) in prison isn't it. Give him probation and community service for privacy/womens rights or similar. Teach him a useful lesson instead of making him a hardened criminal.

Re:Obvious moral (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740889)

the damage depends. if you're already a xxx model there's no damage.

consider this, if you were considering between two women and the other had hiv and chlamydia and the other had stripped for a webcam and her naked gorgeous body was as result available online...

105 years though? stacking ftw.

Re:Obvious moral (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741059)

the damage depends. if you're already a xxx model there's no damage.

'Common those photos have economic value! They are debasing the brand of the model! There must be some type of compensation available under tort law!
</joking>

Re:Obvious moral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740905)

Never, ever, ever transmit pictures of yourself over a computer network with fewer clothes on than you'd wear in public.

Never EVER take such pictures in the first place!

These days the safest way is to take black and white film camera and use it to take photos if really wanted and then develop film in own darkroom. After made prints of those negatives, burn the damn negative and store your nude pictures in safety box... even then prepare them to be stolen or other way lost to hands of person who should never see them.

As pro potrait and fashion photographer, when a woman ask could I take "art photo" (nude art) of them... I simply answer "No unless you really want to play high risk to lose your honor." About 1/3 that answer is enough for them but most are sure photos will never end up anywhere bad place.

In the cases when they really have wanted, I have asked them to sign a contract where they can not sue me about anything. Then I let them to take empty CF card from its package and place it to camera itself. After the shootout, I ask them to remove the CF card from the camera and do what ever they want with it as it is as far their responsibility how those photos end up to be stored. After the sessio on payment, I still recommend them to destroy the card just by taking hammer and mashing it pieces as those photos will some day end up to their boyfriends or even future husbands knowledge... and then if those relationships ends badly, they usually end up to Internet.

Yes, body of a nude woman (or a man) can be beautiful but it demands environment and good lighting what most "personal photos" are not. Not even those cheap porn pictures make justice to people at them. And it is very easy mistake on many amateurs to take nude photos other way than in sensual sexuality but more like "Here I have naked woman" with cold feeling in them.

Pix or it didn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740583)

Pictures or it didn't happen!

Re:Pix or it didn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741037)

I read the comments for this, am satisfied.

If he commits suicide (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740627)

Will Slashdot cry about the big bad justice system?

No sympathy for this one.... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740649)

Although 105 years is excessive and the insane US legal system is clearly broken. I think 5 years is perfectly adequate. And of course paying the rest of his life for restitution to his victims.

Re:No sympathy for this one.... (-1, Troll)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740755)

Although 105 years is excessive and the insane US legal system is clearly broken. I think 5 years is perfectly adequate. And of course paying the rest of his life for restitution to his victims.

For what?!?!

I mean, these women were sending naked pics to people and posting them to the internet. He got them to do it for him specifically...they could have just told him to 'fuck off' and not done the skype thing for him. I mean, they already were posting nude images of themselves, what would they care if they had it posted in a few more places on the internet.

I mean, once you post something on the internet...it is there forever.

Re:No sympathy for this one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741099)

Read the summary again... they thought he was someone else.

Re:No sympathy for this one.... (3, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741229)

I mean, they already were posting nude images of themselves, what would they care if they had it posted in a few more places on the internet.

Two problems there.

First, they were not posting images of themselves on the open Internet. They were storing images of themselves online, in, as they say, "the cloud," behind password access. Which the suspect allegedly hacked.

Second, your suggestion that possessing nude photos of one's self voids one's expectation of privacy is sexist and objectionable.

Re:No sympathy for this one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740759)

On the flip side, you take a risk when you take nude photos of yourself. While he is at fault, a little should go to the "victims" for not being bright.

Why incarceration at all? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740859)

An ethical approach to justice wouldn't even consider incarceration for non-violent crimes. The ethical approach would focus on restitution to the victims, rather than submission to authority.

It's true! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741109)

An ethical approach would reward people for *NOT* sexually exploiting and blackmailing people. Haven't they ever trained an animal? Punishment doesn't work.

I didn't murder anyone today. The government better give me my treat, or I might forget to not do that tomorrow!

US Justice System (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740663)

Relevant comic about the US Justice System: http://www.pereanu.com/comic/us-justice-system/ [pereanu.com]

Re:US Justice System (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740811)

"provded"

Would love to see this go before a jury. (1)

Sheetrock (152993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740673)

Because there are two worlds colliding here in the mind of the average person.

  • The school of thought that the victim is always at least partly responsible for being conned. There's a sense of superiority a lot of people get when they hear about scams where, because they themselves would never fall prey to a scammer, anyone who does is deficient or incautious.

  • Anyone charged with a crime involving a computer for more then Solitaire, porn, and recipe hunting must be guilty.

A true hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740705)

This man is a true hero of our time. Oh i like them boobies so much.

Only in America (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740721)

In most countries in Europe he would get a proportional sentence to the damage he caused. 105 years in Prison I could not even begin to imagine the horrible crimes one would have to commit to get anywhere near that here. You're insane, and your society is sick.

We pity you, and hope you get less barbaric in your "justice" system. Enjoy your so-called "freedom" and "democracy". We laugh at that when you tout it.

Only in Europe (0)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740855)

In America, we understand the difference between "potential sentence" and "has not even had a trial yet, nevermind a conviction".

105 years would be the extreme maximum and has virtually no chance of happening. The truth is that there is no specific law for this exact crime, so they charge him with every crime that it could fit under. After that, a judge and jury (or plea bargain) is used to reduce it to a punishment that, ideally, fits the crime.

So get off your damned "America sucks because I prefer to cling to a fantasy of how I think they are rather than understanding how they are" horse. Because we laugh at you when you tout that.

Re:Only in Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740959)

If you think that is the right way for the courts and law enforcement to operate. You scare me.

It might work objectively, but with real people who have emotions are involved... It's just a horrible and easily corruptible system.

Re:Only in Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741041)

In America, we understand the difference between "potential sentence" and "has not even had a trial yet, nevermind a conviction".

105 years would be the extreme maximum and has virtually no chance of happening. The truth is that there is no specific law for this exact crime, so they charge him with every crime that it could fit under. After that, a judge and jury (or plea bargain) is used to reduce it to a punishment that, ideally, fits the crime.

So get off your damned "America sucks because I prefer to cling to a fantasy of how I think they are rather than understanding how they are" horse. Because we laugh at you when you tout that.

We do? because if you actually look at the way the justice system has resorted to in the United States it would seem that most Americans have no clue how it works, let alone how fucked up it has become. So when the US Legal systems has resorted to a plea bargain warehouse that is not justice. Lawyers who make a 6 figure salary for doing little to no work except for showing up to a hearing/trial and having their underplayed paralegals, or clerks do all the heavy work is not a system that works. It perpetuates a society of greed and fraud. The legal system needs a revamp here in the US and you know it!

Re:Only in America (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741205)

Get off your high horse. The 105 years quoted is pure bs. The min/max guidelines in federal court were overturned years ago but people just keep quoting them. This guy will do some time but he'll see the light of day in plenty of time to enjoy life as an ex-felon with something like zero prospects of ever living a productive life with a decent job again. That's the real tragedy here.

105 years (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740731)

105 years jail for nudie pics.

If he did this in New Zealand and raped the women as well he'd be out of jail in 5 years.

Re:105 years (0)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740861)

105 years in jail for nudie pics.

No, 105 years in jail for unauthorized access, identity theft, and blackmail.

Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740749)

You can (allegedly) blackmail and arguably sexually assault/harass 350 women and get 105 years (1year plea deal?) in jail.

Download information in violation of a TOS and you're eligible for 50 years (6months plea deal) in jail?

Am I the only one who see's a problem with this? A theoretical life sentence for breaking a TOS, and harming no one. A longer theoretical life sentence for blackmail and harassment of 350 individuals.

Hacker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740775)

I would normally expect that term from Fox News, but even Gizmodo won't call this pervert a "hacker".

Re:Hacker? (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740877)

Yeah, sounds more like manipulator, not so much a hacker.

Perhaps what's scariest about this situation is the fact that Kazaryan's alleged online criminality occurred over popular online platforms that millions of people use everyday, like Skype and Facebook, which means you don't have to be deeply entrenched in technology to be taken advantage of.

That too sounds very hyperbolic... Scams happen on "popular communication platforms that billions of people use everyday, like phone and snail mail, which means you don't have to be deeply entrenched in technology to be taken advantage of..."

Scumbag (2)

buxomspacefish (2811071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740795)

Guys pretending to be girls on the internet? Say it isn't so... Once upon a time I got involved in some rooms on yahoo (back when they existed and had a sense of community) and made friends with a girl who was a regular there - I'd show for her on cam occasionally - "she" didn't have a cam, but talked on mic (I didn't realize you could use a pitch shifter on it). This went on for a while then "she" started getting bossy about it and I refused to do it anymore. Next thing I know, "she" announces to the room that "she" is a he and he fooled us all. He had been recording the cam stuff and uploaded some videos to some porn sites. Luckily I was pretty much just topless in them and not ashamed of my body, but that was the day I decided no more cam. As to those saying how stupid the women are, I would have no issue flashing my boobs at a girlfriend in person or on a cam - based on the story it seems to me that's how he did it and then kept pushing things to get more and more compromising images of them. I unfortunately am jaded and now assume that most females I talk to online that are into girls are just men.

Re:Scumbag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741053)

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you are a guy pretending to be a girl who is into girls. What I can't figure out is why you would pick Slashdot to prowl for your next victim. I am so confused.

Re:Scumbag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741083)

Just out of sheer curiousity, what on earth prompted you to "show for her"? That's not usually part of a normal conversation for friends... lol

Captcha: Uncouth.

I HATE this (5, Interesting)

SoTerrified (660807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740875)

He's scum. He preyed on innocents without remorse and deserves punishment. And yet you're going to give him more jail time than he'd get for MURDER?

I hate that I have to stand beside him and say this is wrong. I hate that I have to support someone so despicable. I hate that the flawed system actually makes me support people like Gary Kazaryan.

And yet it's something I must do.

Re:I HATE this (2)

buxomspacefish (2811071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740933)

It wasn't one instance of it though - it was more than 350 women. If you steal one orange, you'll get a slap on the wrist, you steal a truckload and that's a totally different thing as far as penalty.

Re:I HATE this (2)

Jahava (946858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741005)

It wasn't one instance of it though - it was more than 350 women. If you steal one orange, you'll get a slap on the wrist, you steal a truckload and that's a totally different thing as far as penalty.

I would personally disagree that blackmailing even 350 people is worse than murder. Regardless, I think OP's point still stands. Things like murder are in a completely different category of crime.

Re:I HATE this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741097)

Yes, but murdering the driver of the orange truck should carry a stiffer penalty than just stealing the oranges.

Re:I HATE this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741183)

More time than he'd get for ONE murder. If he'd killed over 350 people, I'm sure he'd be facing a lot more than 105 years.

Routine Naked Video Skype? (1)

erice (13380) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740929)

All he had to do is pretend to be one of their female friends? Forget the con part. He was able to find 350 women who didn't think it was all that peculiar that one of their friends wanted them to video Skype naked. Who knew?

This guy would make a perfect lamb.... (1)

BulletMagnet (600525) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740973)

I really hope they find some way to stick this guy with a lengthy sentence and find some nice PMITA prison for him - so he can be the victim ... hopefully repeatedly.

Re:This guy would make a perfect lamb.... (4, Insightful)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741185)

Of course, because convincing some marks to send you nude photos of themselves and then blackmailing them is totally equivalent to repeated violent rape. How can you even pretend to be appalled by this guy's actions when you would like an even worse penalty for him?

Re:This guy would make a perfect lamb.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741237)

Once he becomes desensitized to being sexually assaulted himself, after being raped repeatedly. To him, the actions that put him in there will look even more trivial, and will most likely spur him on to commit more serious crimes in the future. After all, getting raped isn't that bad (after the first 20 times)...

Re:This guy would make a perfect lamb.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741265)

Prison rape is just an acceptable form of punishment.

Information want to be free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741019)

Specially if is basically free already, probably there are hundreds of nude fotos of lookalikes for each of those women. Giving him a year for coercing, could be justifiable. Giving the same punishment as stealing with violence is more debatable. For more than drunk driving put a lot of people's lives at risk? For more time that actually killing someone?

In the other hand, people that pushed a lot of women (far more than 150) into full prostitution because losing everything with their banking games, gets bailed out and no punishment.

Pictures... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741031)

...or it didn't happen.

sheesh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741049)

You know what's really outrageous? If he'd raped someone his proposed sentence would have been much less. The fact that the number of the times a crime is committed can outweigh the severity of the crime seems a bit off-kilter to me.

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>