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!

Hector Xavier Monsegur, Aka Sabu, Dodges Sentencing Again

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the and-for-my-next-impression-jesse-owens dept.

Government 116

hypnosec writes "Ex-LulzSec leader Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu, has been handed another sentencing delay, possibly because of his continued cooperation with the U.S. government that led to the arrest of several Lulzsec members. Sabu plead guilty to all counts of bank fraud and identity theft offenses, and was to receive up to 124 years of imprisonment — but was granted a six-month breather back in August 2012 after the U.S. government asked the District Attorney to consider adjournment of Monsegur's trial 'in light of the defendant's ongoing cooperation with the Government.' New reports indicate that Sabu has dodged sentencing for a second time, with no dates set for the next hearing."

cancel ×

116 comments

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

TRAITOR IN THE MIST !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994307)

Midst ??

Re:TRAITOR IN THE MIST !! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42997107)

Gorillas in the Midst.

Thou shalt not steal (3, Insightful)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994313)

The government doesn't like competition.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994373)

From what I understand LulzSec never stole anything. The government simply heard they were hacking, which is apparently worse than terrorism, murder, rape, or forced slavery. So they broke this man by threatening to put him in jail for the rest of his life (124 years is a life sentence).

If he was smarter, he would have gotten a job as a banker and actually stole shit and destroyed people's lives. In that case he would be immune from prosecution.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994425)

Why is this hidden........ its the most appropriate comment on this subject and will be all week!

Re:Thou shalt not steal (5, Informative)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994571)

Why is this hidden........ its the most appropriate comment on this subject and will be all week!

Because, like your comment, it was posted anonymously. If you want your posts to be more visible keep an account and log in. If you don't, as you can see, all of the competent mods with strong stomachs (or a love of the trollers art) on Slashdot browse at -1 [slashdot.org] and someone will pick up a good post in a few minutes. Occasionally if someone finds your comment interesting then they will reply to you which will also make it more visible. If plenty of people then metamod [slashdot.org] , the good moderators also get more mod points.

If you really need to be anonymous then you should be posting through tor (watch out for browser leakage; run your browser in a context that knows nothing about you) and just register new accounts from time to time. If you are just posting casually then don't worry.

BTW. I agree it's a pretty good and pointed comment.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996293)

(or a love of the trollers art) on Slashdot browse at -1

Proper trolls run at +5, not -1.

Living under the bridge is so full of fail.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42997753)

Given my nick and the moderation on my post I will have some difficulty arguing with you :-)

Re:Thou shalt not steal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994433)

The people let it happen.

Problem though (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994457)

"plead guilty to all counts of bank fraud and identity theft offences"

It doesn't matter what you're guilty of, if you actually plead guilty. If they had me in court, threatening to imprison me for a hundred years of more, I wouldn't plead guilty. Argue the bastards down to something manageable (ie, less than a lifetime) or make them PROVE their charges. Don't agree to a plea bargain that effectively ends your life.

Re:Problem though (5, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994625)

It's important to remember he "faces up to 124 years in prison"; not "he will get 124 yeas". Likely he has some plea bargain already agreed reducing that considerably. Presumably he has already got that agreed down to the level where the prosecutor will recommend 20 years or less and has some set of conditions which lead him to come lower.

Leaving plea bargains completely with prosecutors (US prosecutors can decide exactly which crimes to prosecute for; US judges have strict sentencing guidelines which depend on that choice) is what converts the US criminal law system from a "justice system" into an enforcement system. In almost every other country the Judge is allowed to review everything. If an unreasonable guilty plea has been made he can ignore it or reduce the sentence completely. If the prosecutor has ignored certain crimes to get a settlement, the Judge can even sometimes reinstate those. This reduces proprietorial discretion from something around 1000% (Sabu is a supid git, but IMHO it's worth maximum 5 years even if you think crimes against stupidity should be strongly punished; probably really a few months) down to about 20-50%. This makes prosecutors think seriously about doing their job and not just going out for publicity. That's what went wrong with Aaron's case [wikipedia.org] . Imagine your friend with a newborn kid makes a small mistake (curiously wonder what that SQL string is in your bank login; check it before you realise what you are doing) and gets a shit like Ms Ortiz [wikipedia.org] . Imagine she begins to believe that the only way she's going to see her kid again before the kid grows up is if she says who taught her how to do that. Imagine it was you tried to teach her how to secure her web server.

If you are a US voter, for the love of god (or whatever it is you worship) write off to your congressmen and explain why Aaron's case was wrong. Try to fix at least the computer legislation if not the system of plea bargains.

Re:Problem though (4, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996195)

It's sad because prosecutors are agents of the court not of the executive. The mentality associated with the job is that they are agents of the executive. The prosecutor is not an enforcement tool of a legislative his discretion means he has no obligation to prosecute under an unjust law. His success is not measured in how many people he managed to have punished. The success of the prosecutor is defined by the instances in which he prevents a miscarriage of justice by not bringing charges. The prosecutor essentially has the same nullification powers as a jury but on a larger scope.

The system was built to stop unjust laws in their tracks. If congress passed a law limiting free speech for example. They lack the power to see anyone actually imprisoned. First that law must be enforced by the executive. The executive could block enforcement altogether but congress has granted itself micro "oversight" of the executives budget so it strong arm the executive into doing what it wants. So then the unjust law goes to more localized agents of the people with a smaller sphere of influence but who can be "checked" only by the people themselves. The prosecutor can nullify an unjust law in his jurisdiction. If he does not, the people are reserved the power to overrule government entirely but only on a case-by-case basis, as a jury. The jury interprets facts and the judge the law but the jury also has the obligation to judge the merit of application of the law and factor that into their decision.

In this way the people in the form of their prosecutor and directly in the form of their juries were SUPPOSED to be proof against all three branches of government. The courts haven't decided that nullification powers don't exist but they have decided that they have no obligation to inform juries of them. In fact the judges have decided they can legally lie in instructions to the jury and will declare a mistrial if they discover a jury is aware of their nullification powers.

As a citizen this is your most important civil obligation. To protect the peers in your community and thereby to protect yourself.

Re:Problem though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42997759)

No, a prosecutor is a member of the executive branch. US attorneys work under the Attorney General, a cabinet member, and the head of a executive branch agency, the Department of Justice. Additionally, while US Attorneys require the Senate's assent for their position, they can be fired at-will by the President. Assistant US Attorneys can be fired at will by the Attorney General. The President pretty much has the power to make prosecutors as political as he wants.

Re:Problem though (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996219)

My solution to that is making lies by the government employees illegal. What they do is lie about their chances in court "we have you dead to rights" and how much they realistically expect you to be sentenced to. I read a paper by someone at University of Chicago that discussed how plea bargaining is torture (not the torture of physical pain to get a wanted result, but punishing someone until they confessed). But the courts have repeatedly defended the right of police and prosecutors to lie and "badger" (so long as it isn't "coercion") to extract a confession.

Re:Problem though (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994689)

Sucks if you loose. And in reality they do not need to prove anything. They just need to convince the judge.
And if it is a high profile case, they have it a lot easier.

Re:Problem though (0)

Velex (120469) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995479)

Ok, Mr. internet tough guy. Whatever. This Hector guy is obviously just a pussy and has a dick a fraction the size of yours. We get it.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (5, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994541)

Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.

But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.

And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994615)

The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994951)

The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

The real question is why was he willing to rat out his own side? Did he not know he could go to jail for a really long time?

Re:Thou shalt not steal (3, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996759)

It's easy to talk a tough game about how "I'll take those motherfuckers down with me if they try to bust in" or how you'll never bow to the "sonuvabitch fascist corporate bootlicker prosecutors" in Internet chat rooms. Turns out the rate of following through when the motherfuckers show up with body armor, stun grenades and heavy rifles, or the sonuvabitch is actually in your face threatening to destroy your life, is rather a bit lower.

See also: Enthusiasm for war from actual veterans who've served vs from chickenhawks in the Bush administration.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995379)

its essentially the same tactic the RIAA was trying. settle with us before trial, or we will F you over good, even if you win the trial you will be bankrupt from lawyer fees.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

Lesrahpem (687242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996181)

The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

In addition to that, many people fail to realize that sentencing modifications made in a plea bargain are generally not binding. The prosecution can recommend whatever, but the actual sentence is entirely up to the judge.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996605)

Worse is how they get people to testify against others by offering them time off their sentence. They can't offer you 100,000 dollars to testify against someone but they can say "testify that you saw him shoot the victim and we'll drop your sentence from life to 10 years." Hell I'd rather have the 10 versus life than a million dollars. It is buying testimony no matter what they say. If I'm on a jury all a bought testimony is good for is corroboration of viewable facts at best.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994947)

Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.

But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.

And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime. Turning snitch because you're afraid of life in prison still makes you a snitch.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995095)

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom. [simplejustice.us]

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995229)

Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

Damn, the ACs are out with good comments today. Just to strengthen his case, you may even know you are committing a crime. For example as we can learn from the "Don't talk to the police video" did you know possession of a lobster can be a crime [youtube.com] . In fact policemen may show that you are a criminal just because you were confused.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (2)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995399)

Three Felonies a Day:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 [amazon.com]

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. ...

None of that matters in context (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004039)

Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

Damn, the ACs are out with good comments today. Just to strengthen his case, you may even know you are committing a crime. For example as we can learn from the "Don't talk to the police video" did you know possession of a lobster can be a crime [youtube.com] . In fact policemen may show that you are a criminal just because you were confused.

Sabu claimed to be a vigilante hero. He claimed to be fighting for causes greater than himself. When shit hit the fan he was a complete fraud. There is no reason to ever respect Sabu in that context.

If you're a vigilante you're going to go to prison. It's something all vigilantes must know. It might be for 124 years or for months, but you'll be convicted of something eventually and you'll go to prison. If you're not prepared to go to prison then don't be a vigilante, it's damn simple.

Sabu wanted to be a hacktivist hero (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004001)

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom. [simplejustice.us]

Hacktivist heroes tend to go to prison. Some of them go to prison for a long time. He chose the path he was on when he knew the risks. When you take on the most powerful interests in the world you can't turn snitch.

Julian Assange shouldn't be surprised if he ends up in prison. Bradley Manning probably wasn't surprised to end up in prison. That is where you go when you get involved in vigilante action. But to claim to be a vigilante hero on one hand but then turn on other vigilante heroes out of fear of going to prison? That is a traitor, a snitch, and there is no point in making excuses for that.

You're right if you piss off the prosecutor or get involved in political protests you could be facing all of that. That is why immature kids shouldn't get involved in stuff without fully thinking it through. Sabu didn't think it through because he was a dumbass kid who got in over his head. If he would have taught it through then he would have known just by taking part in certain ops and being involved with certain groups, he had a higher probability of going to prison, a high probability of being the target of extrajudicial vigilantes, etc. You don't go pissing off large corporations, and expect never to get caught, never go to to jail, never to have your life or family attacked. Sabu knew and when it was his turn to take a sacrifice for his team he turned snitch.

Unproportional punishment (1)

WoOS (28173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995145)

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:

  • Pickpocket someone - Have to pay penalty or a short visit to the prison (depending on how often caught)
  • Threaten someone to rob them - Potentially get into prison for few years
  • Kill someone to get their money - Go to prison for a very long time

Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even higher level than killing means the next group of crackers will make sure to erase their tracks, even if it means killing a few people here or there. It's not going to make punishment worse for them but increases their chance to get away.
And the US will finally have their home-grown terrorists it has always been waiting for.

Re:Unproportional punishment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995469)

i think the real problem is that each individual crime adds to the sentence and with computers if you steal a database with 1000 credit card numbers it often counts each stolen number as an individual crime and so suddenly 30 days in jail for stealing a credit card, now gets you 30,000 days.

the problem appears to be that the criminal code can't handle computer crimes properly. The current laws seem to be like if you charged a bank robber for each account that they had to withdraw the money from in order to give him the big sack of money.

it sounds like this person probably deserves jail, however not a life sentence.

Sabu was a fake vigilante and a snitch. (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004065)

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:

  • Pickpocket someone - Have to pay penalty or a short visit to the prison (depending on how often caught)
  • Threaten someone to rob them - Potentially get into prison for few years
  • Kill someone to get their money - Go to prison for a very long time

Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even higher level than killing means the next group of crackers will make sure to erase their tracks, even if it means killing a few people here or there. It's not going to make punishment worse for them but increases their chance to get away.
And the US will finally have their home-grown terrorists it has always been waiting for.

If you're a real vigilante then you have to be prepared for anything the prosecution can dish out. Life in prison, accusations of crimes you never committed, being set up or framed, or just serving the time based on the vigilante actions you did. The point I have to make is, if you're willing to break the law because it's so politically important then you should be willing to go to prison for the same reason. You should not fear prison if you're serious about it.

And if you're not serious about it then you shouldn't be doing it and you shouldn't be encouraging kids to get involved. Sabu was not serious, and he encouraged kids who aren't serious to get involved in shit which was serious so that he could save himself from his own mistakes. He's a coward and snitch.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (2)

znrt (2424692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995589)

so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more.

couldn't resist:

SCRUTINIZER'S POSTLUDE

Eventually it was discovered
That God
Did not want us to be
All the same
This was
BAD NEWS
For the Governments of The World
As it seemed contrary
To the doctrine of
Portion Controlled Servings
Mankind must be made more uniformly
If THE FUTURE
Was going to work
Various ways were sought
To bind us all together
But, alas SAMENESS was unenforceable
It was about this time
That someone
Came up with the idea of TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
Based on the principle that
If we were ALL crooks
We could at last be uniform
To some degree
In the eyes of THE LAW
Shrewdly our legislators calculated
That most people were
Too lazy to perform a
REAL CRIME
So new laws were manufactured
Making it possible for anyone
To violate them any time of the day or night,
And
Once we had all broken some kind of law
We'd all be in the same big happy club
Right up there with the President,
The most exalted industrialists,
And the clerical big shots
Of all your favorite religions
TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
Was the greatest idea of its time
And was vastly popular
Except with those people
Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,
So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT...
Which is one of the reasons why
Music
Was eventually made
Illegal

FZ / Joe's Garage

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

kevmeister (979231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996531)

Hey, folks. No one ever said that he was threatened with a 124 year sentence. He was certainly threatened with a long sentence, but that 124 years is just the press taking the list of charges filed, looking up the maximum sentence for each, and adding them. His lawyer certainly knew that, no matter what, a 124 year sentence was never a possibility and I seriously doubt the prosecutor ever even mentioned such a term.

Among the things likely with no plea bargain at all is that the judge would have sentences for many of the charges run concurrently and it is very unlikely that the maximum sentence will be made for many or any of the charges.

Yes, he was threatened with a long sentence, probably a much longer one than what he would have received, even without a plea deal, but the 124 years is a mirage created by the press.

Re:Thou shalt not steal (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995093)

While I agree a 124 year life sentence is excessive, hacking is still a crime and should be punished. Making false comparisons to terrorism, murder, rape, or forced slavery doesn't make hacking any less of a crime.

It would be more appropriate to compare it with burglary, espionage, vandalism, conspiracy, or theft and appropriate for the justice system to treat it that way during sentencing. Of course in today's climate... they did.

Lock him up for life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994343)

Sabu is an oxygen thief, he ratted on his mates - for that he should be locked up for life.

It wasn't free (5, Insightful)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994367)

He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.

Re:It wasn't free (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994649)

which gets us to how courts don't do shit anymore.

you're either guilty of something worth 124 years in the prison or you're not(obviously a sentence like that is _not_ what had been in mind for the activities he had done). justice shouldn't be a game for prosecutors to play with to get max score(max amount of people doing max amount of time).

He's a snitch, an informer, an ignoble fraud. (1, Flamebait)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994871)

He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.

There is no other word for someone like Sabu. Sabu is a snitch. It does not matter what excuse he used to snitch, he's a snitch. He turned on his own to avoid prison, there is nothing respectable or trustworthy about such a person. His word his shit and he has no honor or self respect.

Whether you agree with the Antisec philosophy or not, whether you agree with the Lulzsec philosophy or not, Sabu represented and talked up a philosophy he didn't believe in. He encouraged others to break the law in a philosophy that when time came for him to serve prison time to prove he believed in, really never believed in.

Nothing is worse than a traitor and Sabu is a traitor to his cause. I'm not even someone who agrees with his cause, but I don't like bullies or traitors.

Re:He's a snitch, an informer, an ignoble fraud. (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995025)

Even worse that slime sought and groomed minors to commit crimes for him and also to be the fall guys for the crimes he committed. The FBI also went on to seek and groom more minors into criminal activity with all the profound stupidity of those who see their promotions before any principles of justice.

Right now the FBI and Hector Xavier Monsegur are stuck with each other. The FBI trying to excuse their joint criminal activity to the judges and now the FBI are stuck pushing a hugely reduced sentence for nothing, for all the joint criminal activity they finished with the same number of lulzsec members they started with and found 'Anonymous' not to be some giant hacking organisation with tens of thousands of members but just an idea. Yet the FBI are stuck with Hector Xavier Monsegur else they will not be able to recruit quislings and back stabbers in future.

Re:He's a snitch, an informer, an ignoble fraud. (4, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995779)

Cops discard snitches when they are done with them, like used rubbers.

Even the ones that get witness relocation end up working a schlub job in some shithole rust belt town. Hector doesn't have anybody trying to kill him so he will just be left to his own devices. I'm guessing another felony inside of a year. This time some state rap.

Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994377)

I'll most likely jail you in the morning.

Re:Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994471)

HE'S A TRAITOR!!!

Re:Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994493)

You keep-a using that word. I do not-a think it-a means what you think-a it means.

Re:Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994501)

HE'S A BETRAYOR!!!

Re:Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. (2)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994677)

Well; given the LulzSec manifesto statement

This is the Internet, where we screw each other over for a jolt of satisfaction. There are peons and lulz lizards; trolls and victims.

you could argue that he's just continuing what LulzSec started. Does anyone know if any of LulzSec ever rejected that part of their manifesto? I mean, given that they all seem to have been identified despite attempts to hide [wikipedia.org] shouldn't they all ask us to laugh at their security?

Re:Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995133)

Awesome movie. I can't believe only two of us caught the reference.

When you retire, can you bequeath your user ID on me, Dread Poster Rogerborg?

As Firefly put it: (1)

BanHammor (2587175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994385)

Mal: You called the Feds.
Jayne: I got pinched!
Mal: Which is what happens when you call the Feds.

Not now, but when his case is heard at least.

Anyone else find the system disturbing? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994435)

The system “works” by getting people who may or may not be guilty to “cooperate”. If you “cooperate” it means your helping to convict other people who may or may not be guilty. The way they get you to “cooperate” is by intimidation. They pile on every conceivable charge and you can't feasibly defend against everything financially. The reason only rich people get off is because they can afford to fight (pay a good lawyer for a near indefinite period of time).

Re:Anyone else find the system disturbing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994441)

It doesn't matter if the other people did the crime. What matters is that you give testimony to that effect. People who are or may be linked to the crime or another crime should not be able to give testimony on behalf of the prosecution.

It's just torture by legal threat. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994523)

And, just like torture, the torturer gets whatever information the one being tortured thinks they want to hear.

However, the USA has long since decided that this is not a problem.

Re:Anyone else find the system disturbing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994557)

It doesn't matter if the other people did the crime. What matters is that you give testimony to that effect. People who are or may be linked to the crime or another crime should not be able to give testimony on behalf of the prosecution.

Statistics actually bear this out, the vast majority of people who turns states evidence (and even more so the people who do so from within jail to attempt to get leniency) lie their asses off.

You can't make a deal if you don't know anything important, so by and large people looking to get out of doing time, just make shit up.

The system isn't new. (3, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994929)

If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.

So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side? Either you're with Antisec or you're not. The posers are the problem. Sabu was like the agent provocateur who would encourage people to commit crimes so the authorities could have something on them and pressure some of them into becoming traitors.

Re:The system isn't new. (0)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995111)

We have The Internet now. And that means nobody is accountable to anybody, anywhere, for anything.

And we're proud of it.

Re:The system isn't new. (2)

tburkhol (121842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995155)

If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.

So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side?

There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.

Re:The system isn't new. (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003893)

There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.

I haven't sold anyone out. I simply refuse to involve myself with people who offer life in prison as part of the friendship. Sabu knew who and what he was involved with. He chose to get involved with what he got involved with. He pretended that he was dedicated and fully committed to what he claimed to be with. He's a fraud, a traitor, and a snitch. Don't pretend to believe in a cause you won't go to prison for. If you're not pretending then you'll be prepared to face the consequences. So when you say something like: "actual, real-world penalties." you imply that it was just a game to Sabu. That is the problem I have with Sabu, he got himself in so deep to wind up in a leadership position and he wasn't even serious enough about it to be willing to go to prison? If he was so damn concerned about his child he should have thought about that before risking his life and his child getting involved with Antisec. You're presenting a picture of Sabu as a person who had no expectation of ever getting caught, who never considered he might have to go to prison and would never see his kid again, who wasn't prepared to take any loses yet was willing to take risks? He's a pathetic snitch and the word was invented for people like him.

If you do the crime, do the time. Don't pin it on other people to save yourself. If you do then you're a snitch and coward. No excuses.

And not everyone is like Sabu. There is no making excuses for his behavior by claiming he was weakened, or by acting like the government made him snitch. He cannot hide behind his child. He chose to become a snitch to save himself because he didn't plan on going to prison. Sabu is a snitch and it's that plain and that simple. A serious person would go to prison for their own crimes and not drag other people into prison for their decisions. If you agree to commit your life or your honor to a pledge or common interest(like Antisec or whatever he claimed to be fighting for in his ops), then you don't have the right to change your mind at the last minute just because you might go to jail.

Don't get involved with actions if you can't handle the consequences. That applies to Sabu, Bradley Manning, anyone. If you knew the consequences before you got involved, and you choose to turn traitor (as was the case with Sabu), then no one should feel sorry for you. You threw your old life, beliefs, everything, under the bus to save yourself. That means you cannot be counted on to stick to any beliefs or your own rules. Remember, Sabu was claiming other people were snitches and while he was doing that he was snitching and entrapping people.


Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.

This quote is exactly the kind of weakness I mean. If you're an activist, a hacktivist, willing to risk prison for your beliefs by breaking the law, then you really have no business putting your kid on such a pedestal. You cannot be both a hacker dedicated to a cause in one moment and then on the other hand dedicated to your child. If you dedicate yourself to your cause, it eventually will outrank the child. Sabu if he had any common sense would have retired from hacking and hacktivism when he had the kid if he knew that eventually he would be arrested and the kid would be abandoned or leveraged. I mean it's common sense here, either you seriously believe in your cause or you don't. Sabu was never serious about his cause.

I'm not going to claim that no one could be broken.Over time if you lock someone in a dark room and torture them enough they will break and tell you whatever you want them to say. I'm saying Sabu was broken by choice, easily, and totally. He's was not morally or ideologically tricked, he was not doing it out of some misguided love of country or for any moral reasons, he did it because he feared going to jail and feared what would happen to his kid. He's a classic snitch. Not everyone involved turned snitch, as a result the people who actually believed in the ideology and morality are made to suffer to protect fraud Sabu from prison.

I'm not endorsing the beliefs either. But if it were something I believed in enough to break the law then I believe in it enough to go to prison. If I have a child and I don't want prison then I wouldn't break the law or be around people who break the law.

Re:Anyone else find the system disturbing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42996135)

This is how the US works, and it's what Americans generally support, so if you're an outsider should respect it and tolerate it. Ha! I can't write any more it's too silly, I just want to know why this logic is always modded +5 Insightful when posting about Middle Eastern dictatorships, Russia, and China, but never for the US.

Hacker's so good... (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994459)

... he even hacked justice!

Re:Hacker's so good... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994481)

Did someone hack your brain and turn you into a total fucking retard, or were you born that way?

Re:Hacker's so good... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994771)

Your mother fucked my brains out.

He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (5, Insightful)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994479)

The sentences reported in press releases when someone is indicted are derived by adding up for each charge the maximum sentence that it is possible for anyone to get for that charge, and then that total is reported. That is nowhere near what the person actually faces in almost every case. There are three things under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that greatly reduce the sentence they actually face.

First, the maximum sentence for a given count is only possible for the most severe instances of that kind of violation.

Second, priory convictions are taken into account. To get the maximum sentence, you have to pretty much be a career criminal.

Finally, felonies are divided into groups. If you are charged with multiple felonies from the same group for the same underlying acts, you will only be sentenced for one of the felonies in the group.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are non-binding, so it is possible for a judge to sentence someone to more than the guidelines call for, but such sentences are almost always reduced on appeal to something in accord with the Guidelines. I've not seen anything in the Sabu case that would make it an exception to this.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994495)

So what you're saying is.

Don't worry about excessive penalties, because they're never used, unless they are used, or they're even gone beyond, but it won't happen, unless it does, but it probably wont.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994611)

Maybe.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995387)

Things in the legal world are not cut and dry. They need flexibility to deal with people who commit the same crimes but under different circumstances, and it's impossible to write all those circumstances into law.

Ex: how would you sentence:
1) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they were crazy
2) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they knew the target was going to kill their family
3) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they were paid to do it
4) someone who committed a premeditated murder because of gang-related reasons
5) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they just like to kill

Madoff 150 years ? (1)

burni2 (1643061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994507)

Well in reality he was facing 320 years but guidelines brought down the sentence.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (2)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994627)

It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.

This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend themselves.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994957)

It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.

This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend themselves.

The problem is once he cooperated then according to game theory it becomes a situation where everyone else involved has to now cooperate or all the time would be piled on them instead. The first person to cooperate changes the game for everyone else. Sabu cooperating changed the options for everyone else who now has to worry that Sabu could have toward authorities that they did way more than they actually did. At the same time some people might be completely framed by Sabu and now they either cooperate or go to prison for years on something they didn't even do.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995515)

Thats why you have a lawyer that explains to you how things work. Most people plea because they are actually guilty and realize that it is in their best interest to do so. Prosecutors don't just pull random people off the street and charge them. Investigators collect evidence which they present to the prosecutor. Then the prosecutor decides if there is enough evidence to present to a grand jury / judge. It is only after the judge / jury looks at the evidence and decides that there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crimes that an indictment is handed down. After conviction the judge picks a sentence based on guidelines created by elected representatives in Congress. Even when you plea, it is the judge that actually determines the sentence, not the prosecutor. There are checks and balances throughout the whole thing.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996735)

No, wrong!

Thats why you have a lawyer that explains to you how things work. Most people plea because they are actually guilty and realize that it is in their best interest to do so.

Plenty of people have pled to charges they are innocent of or to charges that are harsher than they deserve because they fear a much more unreasonably harsh outcome of a trial that they don't have the resources to defend themselves at. The whole plea bargain system should be done away with. Prosecutors should use discretion in determining charges and more cases should go to trial. In the case of someone who is guilty why should they get a deal for nothing more than making it easy for the investigators and prosecution by not going to trial?

Prosecutors don't just pull random people off the street and charge them. Investigators collect evidence which they present to the prosecutor. Then the prosecutor decides if there is enough evidence to present to a grand jury / judge. It is only after the judge / jury looks at the evidence and decides that there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crimes that an indictment is handed down.

No, you missed a very important step in the process. Once the investigators and prosecution determine they have something to charge a defendant with they go back to the defendant and threaten them with what they have and the worst case scenario to try to scare them into cutting a deal. The investigators want it to close cases quickly which helps their career paths and the prosecutors want it because it's an easy win that also benefits their personal aspirations. These deals are cut in interrogation rooms and holding cells way before anyone gets in front of a judge to consider anything other than bail.

Also, prosecutors may not pull random people off the street and charge them but cops certainly do. Maybe you've never lived in a place like Oakland or LA where cops can and do stop and search (almost exclusively non-white) people for literally nothing more than walking down the street. I can assure you that it happens all the time. Why do you think it is so hard for people who live in these places to stay out of the system or to get out of it once they're in?

Even when you plea, it is the judge that actually determines the sentence, not the prosecutor.

By the time it goes to a judge the deal is done and the judge's signature on the plea deal is a formality. Have you ever heard of a judge ruling that the terms of a plea agrement are unreasonable or unfair and sending it back to the prosecution to come up with something better? I haven't.

He's a pathetic snitch who will have no friends (2, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994885)

When he arrives at prison he will have a target on his back. He will have no friends and will have to be put in the protective custody section of the prison. In that section of the prison he will again have no friends because most of the people there are snitches or sex offenders. People who don't believe in anything, people who can't be trusted.

If you're willing to break the law for some cause, whether it be Antisec, Lulzsec or whatever the hell else you claim to do it for, then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that cause. If you're not prepared to go to prison for that cause then don't break the goddamn law. Part of protesting is going to prison. Part of being an activist if you're doing it as social activism is to be willing to go to prison, potentially for life. If you're not then get another profession.

Re:He's a pathetic snitch who will have no friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994943)

Fuck that and fuck you, you ignorant bootlicker. That mentality is exactly what keeps people in chains. How about we live in a society where activism doesn't entail being shot dead on the street for protesting medicaid changes, or taxes, or video game bans? How about we aspire to something better than being serfs.

Re:He's a pathetic snitch who will have no friends (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994969)

Fuck that and fuck you, you ignorant bootlicker. That mentality is exactly what keeps people in chains. How about we live in a society where activism doesn't entail being shot dead on the street for protesting medicaid changes, or taxes, or video game bans? How about we aspire to something better than being serfs.

If you're too weak in the knees to face the consequences of your actions then you should choose a different course of action.

If you're willing to break the law as an activist then be prepared to go to prison for as long as necessary. That is something that hacktivists and activists need to start thinking about and planning for.

Re:He's a pathetic snitch who will have no friends (1)

Lesrahpem (687242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996167)

If you're willing to break the law as an activist then be prepared to go to prison for as long as necessary. That is something that hacktivists and activists need to start thinking about and planning for.

Part of what is being protested here is the legal system itself and the (often) ridiculous sentences it doles out. Yes, activists should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions, but should not be expected to be quiet about them.

Re:He's a pathetic snitch who will have no friends (-1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995123)

'Activism' isn't a profession. It's something kids do in their 20's.

Mostly upper-middle-class kids who can afford to be adventurists for a few years.

Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42997947)

...and what was the horrible thing he did, again?  That he's even facing federal charges at all?

He was railroaded just like Aaron Swartz (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994565)

"If he was smarter, he would have gotten a job as a banker and actually stole shit and destroyed people's lives. In that case he would be immune from prosecution."
Well said AC and I could not agree with you more!

I don't like rats but also cannot condone criminal activity if that indeed happened. I don't know the full truth about that and suspect that very few people ever will.

However, here's another prime example of how the US maximizes it's leverage by amassing as many charges and counts as possible to intimidate citizens into giving up their rights and giving the government whatever they want. I cannot support the policies of my country and that is why 7-years ago I left. I bought my plane ticket the night GWB was re-elected and have been living in Thailand ever since. My tax $ will not go to support a government that uses it to maintain a world hegemony and to persecute it's citizens with heavy-handed intimidation tactics. The signs of it becoming a police state are all over the place, if it's not one already. I never imagined that when I read 1984 I would live to see the day where something like that would come to pass yet, here we are.

Obviously it's not possible to fix the system at the ballot box anymore, the corporations have rigged the system so citizens have no power or voice. The only option left is to vote with your feet and your wallet because $ is the only thing that matters anymore in the US. Many of you are able to work from anywhere in the world and make a living. Your money will go much farther in a foreign country and you will have a high standard of living and a much higher quality of life.

I recommend getting out while the getting is still good because when, not if, the shit really hits the fan other countries will not want US refugees and you'll be stuck.

I'm a man without a country and that weighs heavy on my mind. It sucks to not be able to feel proud of where I come from anymore but I have found a lot of like minded good people living here and we take comfort with each other where and when we can.

Re:He was railroaded just like Aaron Swartz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994661)

I did the same in '05 and have not been back since. I did one lecture, by invitation, on first aid and rope rescue after a death at anti logging enviro protest and next thing I know an old college friend at the US attorneys office came to visit my house and lets me know the feds are scrounging for anything to charge me with and already had a tap on my phone and net. Fortunately I had a second citizenship, a portable skill set, and saved money to restart my life; options most people lack.
It is not George Bush who ruined America, it is the idiots who want every politician to be tougher on the criminals and who dream to be a 1%er so make sure that the wealthy have unchecked power. That and the suicidal decision to give corporations far more civil rights than natural humans.
Let me tell you it is bad everywhere but at least I have some civil rights now, though I still fear the influence the US has over allied nations in both the civil and criminal realms.

Re:He was railroaded just like Aaron Swartz (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994691)

I don't blame GWB exclusively or even primarily, it was just the final straw that broke the camel's back. Clinton and congress did plenty to contribute to the state the country is in and it all started decades ago. GWB probably is my least favorite president, certainly in my lifetime, and I was just taking a jab at his dumb ass but I really did go to the computer and buy my ticket right after Peter Jennings announced he was re-elected. I had started planning to leave quite some time before that.

Yours is a good post. It's too bad you felt you had to post as AC but I think I understand why you did and don't blame you.

Re:He was railroaded just like Aaron Swartz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42994779)

Yeah right, you talk about politics but you and I both know the sweet, sweet Thai ladyboys and/or child prostitutes is real reason you are in Thailand.

Re:He was railroaded just like Aaron Swartz (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994783)

I'm a man without a country and that weighs heavy on my mind. It sucks to not be able to feel proud of where I come from anymore

Where you came from is your past. Where you came from is your family. You can still be proud of that.
A country (or a nation, if you like) means nothing. It is just a political line on a map.
You can not be proud of things where you have no influence. You can be satisfied or even happy that they are there, but you can not be proud of them.

When people ask me what my nationality is, I ask them what it would matter if I told them. I give them several options they can select from:
Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian, Argentine, European, Spanish, American, Polish, African, Indonesian, ...

The answer that they give is always that it does not matter, so why ask the question in the first place?

Re:He was railroaded just like Aaron Swartz (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996247)

I'm a man without a country and that weighs heavy on my mind. It sucks to not be able to feel proud of where I come from anymore

Where you came from is your past. Where you came from is your family. You can still be proud of that.
A country (or a nation, if you like) means nothing. It is just a political line on a map.
You can not be proud of things where you have no influence. You can be satisfied or even happy that they are there, but you can not be proud of them.

You're quite right about that and thank you for reminding me.

The answer that they give is always that it does not matter, so why ask the question in the first place?

My answer would be that it does matter but, I wish it didn't.

In my experience I have only been able to form close friendships with other expat Americans that share a similar belief system and set of values as me. That has not been for lack of trying either. I have acquaintances and colleagues from all over the world and, despite being quite well traveled when I arrived, being around them has taught me more than I ever imagined about how little I know of the world and other cultures. Despite this learning, debate and exchange of ideals, which definitely is a bonding experience, if I was in trouble and needed real help the call would go out to a fellow countryman. It's something that the vast majority of expats I know also experience and agree with me on.

With all the weirdoes and sickos that come here for all the wrong reasons, like Mr. AC troll above, you become very careful and selective about who you make friends with. That may be more of an issue for Thailand than other countries but I'm in touch with a lot of expats in other countries too and it definitely is a factor everywhere. Also, people come and go a lot so one must prioritize who they put the time in with to form close friendships.

It may be possible for where you come from to not matter when you're on holiday or for casual friendships and acquaintances but when it comes to making real, long-term, friendships it does come into play.

One thing that is much better here than in the US is that never is the first question from someone you just meet, "So, what do you do?" and I'll take "Where do you come from?" over that one any day.

Thanks for your reply, I have a feeling that you're the kind of person I could be good friends with. :)

Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994909)

How can you prepared Sabu to Aaron Swartz? Sabu is more comparable to Albert Gonzalez from the Shadowcrew. He was turned into a snitch too http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html [nytimes.com]

It's really simple, if you believe in something enough to break the law in protest then you have to be prepared to take on the ultimate consequence of life in prison should that be the consequence. There should be no setting people up, no snitching on other who are on your side. If you're fighting for a cause you truly believe in with all of yourself then you cannot snitch, you cannot set other people up who believe in the same cause and fight you do, that is the ultimate traitor.

Sabu was the ultimate traitor. He claimed to believe in a set of beliefs he did not really believe in. He helped to entrap young and impressionable idealists. A lot of people call Adrian Lamo a snitch but what Adrian Lamo did wasn't snitching. Adrian Lamo never claimed to be the leader of Wikileaks, never asked Bradley Manning to contact him and give him classified materials, never even seemed like the type of person who you'd want to try that with. Sabu on the other hand seemed to be in with Wikileaks, seemed to truly believe in Antisec, was encouraging people to conduct illegal activities all while setting them up to be entrapped?

Sabu is the ultimate scumbag traitor. He didn't do it because he thought he was protecting other people as in the case with Adrian Lamo, he didn't do it out of some sort of selflessness or for any moral reason, he did it for pure selfishness. He did the crime but he didn't want to do the time and would rather entrap his comrades than serve his own punishment when caught. He was like Judas.

Re:Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995063)

You will never get modded up on this forum. Only snitches and faggots w/o any sense of honor live here.

Re:Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42997041)

Couldn't care less about being "modded up" so no problem here.

Re:Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995137)

He did it because he fucking grew up and realized the adventurism was about to start having consequences.

Only a very, very few get to graduate up into being a Stalin or a Lenin. All the other 'revolutionaries' get killed, or imprisoned, or plowed under, or they fucking grow up.

Re:Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42996375)

He did it because he fucking grew up and realized the adventurism was about to start having consequences.

Only a very, very few get to graduate up into being a Stalin or a Lenin. All the other 'revolutionaries' get killed, or imprisoned, or plowed under, or they fucking grow up.

This is true. Pity shame that, by definition, failed revolutionaries get far, far less press in the present and history book space in the future than the extremely few who "succeed" (for certain definitions of "succeed"). So those few successes become the model, ignoring the overwhelming majority that should be serving as the warning.

Re:Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995273)

Rational civil disobedience only works in the presence of a rational criminal justice system. If you stand on a picket line, you expect to be charged with creating a public nuisance or disturbing the peace and to spend a week in jail. You do not expect to be charged with making terroristic threats and 25 years in prison. If you post credit card numbers on the internet, you expect fines and 10 years, not two consecutive life sentences. The criminal justice system allows such insanely disproportionate charges in the name of cost-effectively pressuring people into admitting their "actual offense," but it's an extremely effective form of coercion that can easily compel people into lying and betraying. And the public knows that Law&Order-like prosecutors wouldn't even bring charges against someone who wasn't guilty of something.

Re:Aaron Swartz wasn't a snitch (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996411)

I'm not comparing the actions of Sabu with Swartz and I know far less about the details of the Sabu case than I do about Swartz. I was only pointing out that the heavy handed treatment from the prosecution was pretty much the same in both cases.

Who knows, had Sabu and Swartz not been intimidated by the prosecution telling them they were going to throw them away for the rest of their lives they might have chosen different courses of action than becoming a snitch and suicide. The system sucks and until that is fixed it's hard to blame people for their actions when they are being mentally tortured by draconian prosecution tactics without any real recourse to defend themselves. This sort of thing never happens to people who have millions to defend themselves with and that simply is not equal justice under the law.

Obligatory grammar-nazi point... (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994653)

The past tense of plead is pled or pleaded (both are acceptable). The word "plead" (unlike "lead") only has one pronunciation.

Nothing says "rat" like a deferred sentence (1)

msobkow (48369) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994681)

'nuff said

Re:Nothing says "rat" like a deferred sentence (2)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994923)

'nuff said

It's basically confirmed and carved onto his forehead now. He's a rat. He snitched to avoid doing time. And he didn't just snitch, he actively helped to entrap his comrades which means he either never really believed in what he was preaching, or he simply doesn't value the lives of the others who risked their futures for that agenda. It's disgusting really to do that.

If you're going to believe in something then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that. If you're not prepared to go to prison then you don't believe in shit and shouldn't be posing as a hacktivist. It's not a surprise that Sabu is a fraud and a poser, but it is a surprise that he is a traitor to the lengths that he went. He was trying to sucker people into his black hole so that as many people with his beliefs would go to prison as possible.Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, would you want someone to infiltrate your church, or whatever community group you're involved with and start baiting you and others into doing illegal stuff so that your group and you yourself have to go to prison and have your life ruined?

Re:Nothing says "rat" like a deferred sentence (1)

nickserv (1974794) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996433)

I wish I had mod points for you. +1

Frivolous charges (1)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995213)

People should be able to sue the DA for frivolous charges. Between this guy and Aaron Schwartz it is pretty clear that the DA/cops have so issue with just making up bullshit charges to harass and scare people. I would even go so far as to call it extortion in some cases. There should be consequences for doing this.

you don't want to be a prison snitch and if you do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995225)

you don't want to be a prison snitch and if you do have to some hard time they will put on the same prison yard with all of the sex offenders.

snitches get stitches (0)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995289)

but was granted a six-month breather back in August 2012 after the U.S. government asked the District Attorney to consider adjournment of Monsegur's trial 'in light of the defendant's ongoing cooperation with the Government.

Remember kids, you too can win six months of freedom at a time by selling your friends and your soul!

Uncle Sam wants you! To report terrorists that don't support $current_leading_party !

argh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995353)

Isn't anyone else outraged that "aka" in the story title is badly capitalized?

Sabu vs APT1 (1)

tanawts (786512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42995385)

Really...? You have real threats out there like APT1, and the most useful thing you can think to do is threaten 124 years of prison to try and shake out folks who are doxing, and ddosing??? US Gov: You're doing it wrong.

coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995965)

throw him in jail. hes the true anonymous coward, selling everyone out. fuck em

u.s no different than soviet union (2)

Vince6791 (2639183) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996545)

All humans are born self serving, narcissistic, assholes but some eventually grow out of it. A country is just an ideology with virtual borders and regardless of political ideology that fuels the government, eventually, it will fail due to corruption and human rights abuse. Well, people fight back.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro(filthy rich) were and 1 still is a pure Capitalist con artist who duped millions into a feudal system(pure capitalism) aka communism and socialism(far from the real socialist systems), turning the majority into serfs just like here in the U.S where the rest of us are living off the scraps the rich throw away or trickle down economics. Or what i like to call trickle down, pee pee on the people.

Was anybody ever prosecuted over the near economic collapse? Housing bubble crisis triggered by wall street, banks, Fannie Mae, which left 1.5 million without a home, 401k's destroyed? Was there an investigation on Bush's lies that lead to the Iraq and basically middle east invasion? Nope.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?