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!

LulzSec Hackers Sentenced To Short Prison Terms

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the off-to-the-gulag dept.

Crime 104

mask.of.sanity writes with news of the jail sentences for three members of LulzSec. From the article: "Three members of the hacktivist group LulzSec have been sentenced to a total of six years in prison. Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis and Mustafa al-Bassam were charged with attacks on the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Sony, Nintendo, 20th Century Fox and governments and police forces in a 50-day spree in the summer of 2011. Davis was sentenced to 24 months in a young offender's institution and he will serve half of the sentence. Al-Bassam received a 20-month sentence, suspended for two years and 300 hours unpaid work. Ackroyd was given a 30-month sentence; he will serve half. Cleary also pleaded guilty to possession of child abuse images following a second arrest on October 4, 2012. He will be sentenced at separate hearing." The Guardian has a short article on the remaining loose ends in the story of LulzSec.

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

Six years is not a short term (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743851)

Considering rape is a maximum of five years, this is way out of scale.

Re:Six years is not a short term (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743885)

It's six years if you add up the maximum time for all three sentences combined. Two of them will only have to serve half of their time and the other one is getting no prison time at all. That seems pretty fair to me.

Re:Six years is not a short term (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744471)

That's a pretty stupid way to announce it...

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

BenJury (977929) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744663)

It is, I've no idea why the British press do this. (Maybe they do it elsewhere as well, I dunno.)

Re:Six years is not a short term (3, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745203)

It is, I've no idea why the British press do this. (Maybe they do it elsewhere as well, I dunno.)

Profit. This is the most profitable way to put the news.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43749605)

I don't understand how it raises profits. Is it because the infamous Average Joe doesn't want to add up the sentences himself but cares about the total sum for some reason? Or do bigger numbers sell more papers? If the latter, maybe they should try something like "...sentenced to a total of one hundredth of 600 years."

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about a year and a half ago | (#43750291)

More drama == more eyeballs == more revenue

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43747079)

I've never seen it done that way in the US.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43753177)

No, the US press never does anything like this at all.

"Aaron Swartz faced 30 YEARS IN PRISON* for just downloading some papers! Of course he killed himself because of these charges!"

(* - well, except prosecution had offered a plea bargain that would have put him in prison for "months")
(* - well, except even if he refused the plea, prosecution had expressed their intent to seek about 1/5 of the maximum penalty)
(* - well, except 30 years is the MAXIMUM penalty under the law he could have gotten if he were found guilty and the judge decided to impose the maximum possible penalty under the law - very unlikely given the circumstances.)
(* - but other than these caveats, we totally stand by our statement that he "faced 30 years in prison!")

He faced "30 years in prison," the way I face "certain death by terrorism" when I leave my home every morning - when somebody's playing up a highly unlikely outcome with incendiary language, ask yourself what their agenda is - it sure as shit isn't "reporting the news."

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

RobocopsDad (2809731) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743887)

6 ÷ 3

Re:Six years is not a short term (5, Insightful)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743931)

at least they didn't download some music or a movie while they were doing this. They may have had to pay millions in restitution as well...

Re:Six years is not a short term (4, Insightful)

228e2 (934443) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743933)

Next time, read more than the first sentence in your quest to get first post.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743937)

Considering the millions of dollars of damage they did you think it is out of line?

Re:Six years is not a short term (3, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744151)

Don't you mean billions of dollars? If you're going to pull figures out of your ass you might as well go big.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744045)

It's 6 years in total, for 3 people, and they are only going to serve half (or, in one case, less) of their sentences assuming they can keep their shit together.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

eneville (745111) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744063)

It's out of scale because they provided a humorous service to the internet.

Re:Six years is not a short term (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744079)

Which is exactly what the criminals were hoping you'd say. Rather than say "each received sentences of 15-24 months," it packs more punch to word it ambiguously, and leave people feeling sorry for these punk kids who "got sentenced to up to 6 years in prison! For minor crimes!"

"24 months in a young offender's institution and he will serve half of the sentence" = 12 months in juvie. Poor kid, he'll have to leave his mom's basement for a year.

"20 month sentence, suspended for 2 years and 300 hours unpaid work" = keep out of trouble, and do 300 hours of community service over the next 2 years, and he doesn't go to prison at all.

"30 month sentence, he will serve half" = 15 months in prison. The harshest of the penalties, and still a pretty fucking light sentence.

Rape can get you imprisoned up to and including a life sentence in the UK [cps.gov.uk] , Not sure where you get that there's a "maximum of 5 years" for rape. In fact, the most lenient of the "starting points" and "typical ranges" list 5 years at the LOW end of the punishment, before aggravating/mitigating factors are considered.

tl;dr: fuck your idiotic ignorance of the law.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744131)

"30 month sentence, he will serve half" = 15 months in prison. The harshest of the penalties, and still a pretty fucking light sentence.

I doubt he'll even have to serve it in prison. They'll probably stick him in some county jail for "1 year + 5 month" term. They tend to do that for people convicted of "white collar" crimes who receive sentences for two years or less.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744139)

Sorry, brain not in gear yet. That should be "1 year + 3 month".

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744217)

County jail is worse than prison. And these are federal crimes, so they'll probably spend it in a federal prison.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744237)

Are you on crack? Prison is far worse than county.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744277)

Maricopa County is real bad

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744361)

So is San Quentin.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744581)

And as long as you're not stupid enough to live in such a hickish place, it's probably not the case.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744633)

OR drive by it. Arizona Motto: "Come on vacation, leave on probation"

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

MugenEJ8 (1788490) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745379)

Yes, yes it is.

Re:Six years is not a short term (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744399)

Prison is for long term stays. They have a library, exercise facilities, chapel (if you're into that sort of thing). County is for holding people. They provide only the absolute minimum necessary to keep the person alive, if you're lucky.

Check out this thread [prisontalk.com] from people with experience on both sides. I'll quote:

I did 370 days in the county before getting my time and going to prison. My jail time was 10 times worse than my prison time. We were locked down 23 hours a day, only got out to shower, etc. There were no plug-ins in the cells, so no TV. No mirrors, not even the metal ones. Terrible food. No barber service ( I gotone haircut in a year ). 10 minute phone calls once a week. 15 minute visits once a week (through glass). The jailer went home about 5PM every day, shut & locked a big steel door between the cells & front end of jail, only the dispatcher was there & he wasn't supposed to leave his radio. Cells were about 7ft X 8ft for 2 men. There were also 6 man cells. Lights were so dim you could barely see. They kept it so cold you had to stay under blankets most of the time. We never got outside, no exercise yard. After about 10 months of this, I got a change of venue & went to another county. It wasn't quite as bad there, but no way it was up to standards. Give me prison any day. (If you gotta go !):eek:

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744439)

You are far less likely to be assaulted, raped or killed in county jail and the inmates are kept separated by colour (severity of crime). In prison, you're thrown in with all of the major criminals, many of whom are serving life sentences.

I have spent a week in a county jail. Most of the time was spent chit-chatting with the other people in the same pod and reading books.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

MugenEJ8 (1788490) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744601)

Are you on crack? Prison is far worse than county.

Sorry, but not always accurate.

When I was in county they served some of the nastiest food I've ever seen. Everyone kept saying how much better the food was in state...

I'll take prison over county any day, It's honestly the difference between molding bread/fruit and freshly baked pizza. The inmates likened it to the US Army v. US Navy when it comes to rations. The longer you're away from civility, the better the meals have to be. Even the inmates that worked in the kitchen were retentive about how food was prepared and served.

Re:Six years is not a short term (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744605)

This is England. There's no such distinction.

Re:Six years is not a short term (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745363)

But there are distinctions made among prisoners that determine where you end up. . .

Prisoner security categories in the United Kingdom [wikipedia.org]

Assuming you make it so far as prison . . .

In soft-bellied Britain, it's hard to stay in prison for long. Even getting into jail is difficult [telegraph.co.uk]

Might be a tougher ride in the future.

Do prisoners get a cushy ride in British jails? [express.co.uk]

Re:Six years is not a short term (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43746237)

But there are distinctions made among prisoners that determine where you end up. . .

Of course, but that's in terms of security. Not severity of punishment. Though I'm sure the harshness does vary in practice, I'd imagine most of that is who you have to share the prison with. Maximum security murderers or minimum security computer hackers and politicians...

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43749613)

Mod this man up. The categories are relevent.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745179)

Yeah, they'll probably get locked away at Leavenworth with Bradley Manning, man! Because the US government is crazy in their overreach in prosecuting harmless 'criminals'!

Oh wait, no, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, either.

They were tried & sentenced by a court in London, so it's pretty fucking unlikely that: a) these are 'federal crimes' and b) they'll spend their time in a 'federal prison.'

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745319)

And these are federal crimes, so they'll probably spend it in a federal prison.

Doubtful, unless the US tries to extradite them from the UK. Despite one of the targets being the USAF they would still face some opposition in the face of the McKinnon debacle.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43746053)

They are British. County/federal doesn't apply

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744591)

The headlines on slashdot are not leading AT ALL. Now be a good little tool and think outrage like the poster intended you to.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745125)

15 Months is a light sentence? That's over 3% of his remaining (expected) life span. I guess you could consider it light compared to what other people get in a police state ... but saying something isn't bad because it is the lesser of evils doesn't seem right.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745239)

Yes, 15 months is a light sentence.

Sending criminals to jail is not a bug, it's a feature. Stop trying to make it out like this is some sort of judicial and governmental overreach - these kids were caught breaking the law, they stood trial, and they were found guilty. They will spend a very small amount of time being incarcerated for their crimes, and when they are out, they will hopefully have learned that behaving like a criminal results in punishment, and so avoid behaving like a criminal again.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43750159)

Very small amount as in "it doesn't completely destroy their life", which makes complete sense if you are united stationarian who's gotten used to life sentences over stealing fucking bubblegum.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43753453)

No, very small amount as in, "I spent 4 years at college, these guys will barely spend two semesters worth of time imprisoned." (And come out of jail with a semester or two worth of credits from a distance learning program, unless their numb cunts.)

It doesn't completely destroy their life - it doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to "completely destroying their life." I really wish this notion that "it's okay to be a criminal, we won't really punish you in any way that's inconvenient for you," would end.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43771773)

I said it didn't do that. 10 years would and the difference is only of a magnitude here.
Besides, you have to be complete idiot if you think college and prison are comparable.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43747211)

Wheat gets you a life sentance in the uk?

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43750357)

You must be thinking of cereal killers ,,,,,,,,kaching!

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43749689)

I know someone personally (not a friend, but went to school with them) who hit and killed someone with his car driving 60mph in a 30mph zone.

Not a single day spent in prison.

So to be fair, you can do things that are, in the grand scheme of things much more awful, and still get a much lighter sentence.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43749835)

How long have you spent in prison?

Re:Six years is not a short term (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744195)

Considering a trillion dollars worth of security fraud goes completely unpunished, this is way out of scale.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744327)

"It is not necessary for us to think we can do only one thing and suspend everything else."
- Barack Obama

Re:Six years is not a short term (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744667)

The 2008 financial crisis caused the destruction of far, far more wealth than *ALL PROPERTY CRIME PUT TOGETHER*. If we chose to do "only one thing and suspend everything else", that is prosecute the criminals behind the 2008 financial crisis, and ignore all other property crimes, we'd still be ahead of where we are now.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745291)

Great, first figure out what portion of the "trillions of dollars" lost during the crisis were lost as a direct result of *criminal activity.*

Then we can talk about punishing the specific people responsible, instead of lashing out at anybody who "makes more than a million dollars a year!" as if being financially successful automatically criminalizes you.

Re:Six years is not a short term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43749225)

Don't worry, you'll get yours eventually capitalist pig dog!

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43750329)

The 2008 financial crisis caused the destruction of far, far more wealth than *ALL PROPERTY CRIME PUT TOGETHER*. If we chose to do "only one thing and suspend everything else", that is prosecute the criminals behind the 2008 financial crisis, and ignore all other property crimes, we'd still be ahead of where we are now.

but it was destruction of value which never was in the first place, doh.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744225)

None of them are serving 6 years, the sum of their sentences is 6 years. Did you bother reading the summary?

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744363)

Rape has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the UK

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744373)

Well it is actually an average about 2 years of punishment, with most of them getting time out.

But if you think about it how much time should you really put someone in jail for in a white collar crime.
The idea of a Jail is more about keeping dangerous/people who will run away people in a place where they cannot escape to create more harm to the community.

For punishment a year or two in jail, is often enough to get the idea what you did was wrong, enough time to break you. Especially for kids where a year seems like a much longer time then it would be for someone in their middle adult years.

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745209)

How is your post even remotely insightful when its terribly wrong?

Under federal law, the punishment for rape can range from a fine to life imprisonment. The severity of the punishment is based on the use of violence, the age of the victim, and whether drugs or intoxicants were used to override consent. If the perpetrator is a repeat offender the law prescribes automatically doubling the maximum sentence.

--From Wikipedia

Re:Six years is not a short term (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about a year and a half ago | (#43772915)

He's wrong, and though you're right in spirit, you're wrong too, as this took place in England.

Let's hope they learned a lesson (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743879)

Don't get caught

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743909)

And don't believe people who tell you that you're anonymous.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743961)

I'd imagine the FBI got Sabu to flip when they caught wind of him leading to other arrests is how these things typically work.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743939)

... when you're target is corporate or government.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744419)

The best way to not get caught, is to not do it.
A very few hackers can actually make themselves untraceable. For the most part most of them just don't get hunted down because no one wants to put the resources to find them. Even with tough talk from Corporate Execs, and government officials, They usually just check to make sure the guy wasn't obviously dumb. But if they get hit hard enough to make tracking them down worth it, they could dig down and catch many more hackers who think they are doing a good job, while in truth they just ignored.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745001)

The best way to not get caught, is to not do it.

I think you are losing perspective of the original article. Yes, crime is bad, mmm-Kay?
But when such hackers do get caught, their punishment should be commensurate with the (real) damage to society not some bullshit "ooooh, crime with computer, +20 years automatically" rule

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745619)

I think you are losing perspective of the original article. Yes, crime is bad, mmm-Kay?

"mmm-Kay"? What the fuck is that?

Pathetic.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43747121)

south park.... it's a show?

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43748287)

He doesn't have cable in his parent's basement you insensitive bastard!

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43748645)

I do have cable. But since I'm no longer 14, I've moved on from South Park.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43769737)

Too bad you haven't moved on from sucking cocks.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43748537)

Yes, crime is bad

Not necessarily.

Re:Let's hope they learned a lesson (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43751449)

Not necessarily.

I would say that crime is always a problem: if people are doing bad things, then that is a problem and if people doing reasonable things are crimianlised then that too is a problem.

Cleary who? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743889)

He's not mentioned in the summary.

Re:Cleary who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743929)

He's not mentioned in the summary.

Yes he is, in the last sentence of the quoted section. "Cleary also pleaded guilty to possession of..."

Re:Cleary who? (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743999)

Right. "Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis and Mustafa al-Bassam were charged" and as a result of this "Cleary also pleaded guilty to possession [...]"

So the missing detail here is "Who's Cleary"? Everyone else gets to have a full name while Cleary is just the fourth crewmember who beams down wearing a red shirt and gets eaten by a monster.

Re:Cleary who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744161)

Maybe he just wishes to remain anonymous.

After all, if he had, he probably wouldn't be looking at an ass-raping in jail for kiddy porn.

Re:Cleary who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43750289)

How do you even know it's that?

This is the UK, a moronic country that classifies naked drawings of anime characters as CP.

Re:Cleary who? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744405)

He "posessed images of child abuse". Perhaps this redshirt was the monster.

Re:Cleary who? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744917)

...and that certainly is using a euphemism to make it sound less bad than it is.

Re:Cleary who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43748407)

child porn. there, made it accurate for you.

Re:Cleary who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744065)

lol

Re:Cleary who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744261)

Ryan Cleary. Apparently some Canadian political journalist.

Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744187)

See, this is why Anons wear masks and hide their identity. When you split off and try to form a name for yourself, and get a little fame, you narrow the search field. it makes it much easier to find and identify people like that.

In the modern day, you must be able to disapear in the masses.

Short prison terms? (5, Interesting)

Shimbo (100005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744303)

These aren't short prison terms by UK standards. It's uncommon to get sentenced to more than two years for computer crime. [computerevidence.co.uk] Ryan Cleary, who got the longest sentence, apparently ran a large botnet for hire, when he wasn't doing it for the lulz. Bot herders tend to get treated relatively severely (rightly so IMHO).

Re:Short prison terms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744389)

He also had bad images, nothing lulz about that.

Re:Short prison terms? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744391)

Yeah, sneezing on someone can get you thirty years in prison in the US.

Re:Short prison terms? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744983)

You forget to disable the hyperbole filter before posting. You best be careful with that, miss. Were you to post on the wrong topic, you could find a constable at the door, and yourself up on charges.

. . . the very same words can be proof of two entirely different hate crimes. Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary "moderation" he's been knighted by the Queen. The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was "immoral," was "not acceptable," "spreads disease," and "damaged the very foundations of society." A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard's "community safety unit" for "hate crimes" and "homophobia." Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a "barmy doctrine" growing "like a canker" and deeply "homophobic." In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for "Islamophobia." Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia. Two men say exactly the same thing and they're investigated for different hate crimes. ---- GAGGING US SOFTLY [steynonline.com]

Re:Short prison terms? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43746267)

Those quotes are not "exactly the same thing," and Mark Steyn does not appear to be a very balanced commentator. Did you actually want to try a hand at a more serious debate or are we just sharing quotes from grumpy Torontonians?

Re:Short prison terms? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43748001)

you seem to be the very sort of whining fascist Mark Steyn is describing.

Get off the bandwagon.

Re:Short prison terms? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43748149)

I'm all ears if you actually want to have a conversation. Here, I'll start:

Saying homosexuality is "immoral" is an attack on homosexuality, and saying Islam is "a barmy doctrine" is an attack on Islam. These are not "exactly the same thing," and they deserve different responses. Unless Steyn was selective quoting things to make his stance look weaker? Neither GALHA nor Iqbal restrained their words to strictly objective observations; GALHA in particular could have avoided flak by citing Iqbal's statements and underlining that they are intolerant. That doesn't require any ad hominem attacks, much less accusations that all of Islam is "barmy" (i.e. crazy.)

So what, exactly, do you think you're talking about?

Re:Short prison terms? (1)

abirdman (557790) | about a year and a half ago | (#43747283)

The most important thing is to keep the investigators busy and let them have plenty of investigating to do.

Re:Short prison terms? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744475)

And none of these guys got sentenced to more than 2 years in prison. It's a misleading summary. It's less than 6 years if you add up all of their terms together.

Re:Short prison terms? (5, Insightful)

golodh (893453) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744959)

Agreed. I consider the sentences just about right and very fair.

Only in the US could this be considered a "light" sentence, but then this is where we (collectively) are into "lets-always-mete-out-totally-disproportionate-punishment-to-individuals-hoping-that-it-might-make-others-think-twice".

Not every country shares US values of callously destroying individuals to give the Law a veneer of menace.

Re:Short prison terms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43748405)

Callously destroying individuals is a good description of some of what lulzsec was engaged in.

They don't need to be 'destroyed', in turn, but it definitely has to be clear that these type of destructive bastards are not 'kids being kids'. I do not see such a balance in these sentences.

You do realize, that the intentionally media-frenzy inducing nature of lulzsec's actions is having profound consequences on the political discourse (against civil liberties), across the entire anglosphere?

Re:Short prison terms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43748661)

Callously destroying individuals is a good description of some of what lulzsec was engaged in.

And now we must do the same thing so that we appear Tough On Crime (TM)? No. Now, I think it's about time for you to vanish.

Re:Short prison terms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43749569)

Perhaps you can find a less KGB-ish wording than "it's about time for you to vanish" next time.

Manual for growing bad hackers (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744567)

So, if you wonder how the good hackers become bad hackers and start to work for money.....here it goes.

Re:Manual for growing bad hackers (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about a year and a half ago | (#43746827)

The hackers making money don't brag about their exploits. The hackers making money do not trust anyone they might correspond with on the Internet. The hackers making money are way more talented than these script kiddie knuckleheads who basically used known exploits against systems not up to date with the latest security patches.

That's... Surprisingly Reasonable (2)

SoTerrified (660807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744921)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think the sentences are reasonable. However, given how insane recent sentences have been for any computer related crime, I fully expected all of them to get 50 years with billions of dollars of fines.

Re:That's... Surprisingly Reasonable (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43749675)

They could still be extradited to the US. That could still happen.

Hopefully not given that they've been charged, found guilty and sentenced here already.

I wont hold my breathe though, I bet this isn't the end for them knowing how badly broken our extradition agreement with the US is.

Re:That's... Surprisingly Reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43750985)

Don't worry, after they get out, they'll each be showered with job offers by intrusion prevention product companies. So let's tally it all up:

1. Be an asshat on the Internet
2. Violate many laws in many jurisdictions internationally
3. Get caught over a year later
4. Spend a few months as a guest of the Queen's Government (or not, in the case of one)
5. Get employed by the companies that make products that you worked around in order to accomplish step 2.

Obama Gov Implosion Gains Big MO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43748015)

It's only Thursday and What A WEEK !

IRS Melt Down -- more to come Friday and Monday. Popcorn a popp'n !

Benghazi -- Why was HillBilly so intent on killing the 'Ambassador' and making it look like incompetence ?

DoD Sex Scandals a Roll'n like a M1-A Tank !

Boston What ? The Boston PD is really pulling some duzzies with the 'Note' from the 'Boat'; Hay BPD wrote the book on planting fabricated 'evidence.'

And what about the Blond Wig in Moscow ? Did the CIA really pay this jerk real money ? This Week's 'Real Looser' Award Winner for sure.

Is Obama Nixon ? Hell NO ! Obama is a transvestite disparately trying to Impersonate Nixon. Yet, Obama can still enjoy a prison cell that Tricky Dick avoided ! What ? Oh Yea ! Tricky Dick was evil, Obama is just a putz surrounded by 1.6 million putz's !

Yuk yuk

PS. Glad the Boyz got off light !

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?