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!

Jeremy Hammond of LulzSec Pleads Guilty To Stratfor Attack

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the overcharging-wins-another-court-case dept.

Crime 192

eldavojohn writes "After facing 30 years to life imprisonment and pleading not guilty to charges last year, Jeremy Hammond has pleaded guilty to his alleged involvement in Anonymous' hacking of Stratfor. The self proclaimed hacktivist member of LulzSec, who has compared his situation to that of the late Aaron Swartz, explained his reasoning in his plea: 'Today I pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This was a very difficult decision. I hope this statement will explain my reasoning. I believe in the power of the truth. In keeping with that, I do not want to hide what I did or to shy away from my actions. This non-cooperating plea agreement frees me to tell the world what I did and why, without exposing any tactics or information to the government and without jeopardizing the lives and well-being of other activists on and offline. During the past 15 months I have been relatively quiet about the specifics of my case as I worked with my lawyers to review the discovery and figure out the best legal strategy. There were numerous problems with the government's case, including the credibility of FBI informant Hector Monsegur. However, because prosecutors stacked the charges with inflated damages figures, I was looking at a sentencing guideline range of over 30 years if I lost at trial. I have wonderful lawyers and an amazing community of people on the outside who support me. None of that changes the fact that I was likely to lose at trial. But, even if I was found not guilty at trial, the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country. If I had won this trial I would likely have been shipped across the country to face new but similar charges in a different district. The process might have repeated indefinitely. ... I did what I believe is right.'"

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

New strategy in criminal law? (5, Interesting)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#43843457)

Charge someone that you know is guilty of one thing with a ridiculous array of charges that you know he is not guilty of, on the chance that he'll take your plea "deal" and avoid the possibility of being convicted (wrongly) on the BS charges.
Sounds rather like patent trolling.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843487)

The reason it sounds like patent trolling is more because it sounds like extortion. They leveraged the law to force him to plea. If he hadn't he could have spent years going around the country until someone convicted him. I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#43843625)

... that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.

Yes, yes it is. No, no it will not be. TPTB like it that way.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (3, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year ago | (#43843659)

The reason it sounds like patent trolling is more because it sounds like extortion. They leveraged the law to force him to plea. If he hadn't he could have spent years going around the country until someone convicted him. I don't know much about him or if he deserves his conviction or not but that seems like a flaw in the justice system that should be fixed.

They have evidence he broke the law on numerous occasions. A murderer being charged for multiple murders isn't a loophole.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43843697)

Even if this is true (that they have bulletproof evidence), given the fact that this tactics is often used against people who later turn out to be innocent, it ought to be banned in general anyway.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year ago | (#43843811)

Even if this is true (that they have bulletproof evidence), given the fact that this tactics is often used against people who later turn out to be innocent, it ought to be banned in general anyway.

Why should we encourage crime sprees? If I know I will only get charged with one instance of a crime, I'm going to rob a dozen 7-11s instead of one. You should not be rewarded for committing more crimes.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (3, Insightful)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#43843937)

But should we punish someone with jail time who can repeatedly prove that they didn't do it? If the trials were all within a few days, it would be a small price to pay, but its more likely that that suspect would remain in jail for months or years to prove himself innocent in each case.

Re: New strategy in criminal law? (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#43844297)

Giving judges Cross-jurisdiction merging of cases could fix this. That way a "crime spree" is treated as a crime spree. I believe the judge cannot even take into account the cases from other jurisdictions. It would also prevent this type of prosecution abuse. Unfortunately it may mean witnesses have to make rather long trips.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (3, Insightful)

DarkTempes (822722) | about a year ago | (#43844443)

We can definitely say that the United States' current methods and laws are not working.

We have the largest prison population in the world (and the largest per capita). For the supposed land of the free I think that says volumes.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1)

tattood (855883) | about a year ago | (#43844627)

Why should we encourage crime sprees? If I know I will only get charged with one instance of a crime, I'm going to rob a dozen 7-11s instead of one. You should not be rewarded for committing more crimes.

I don't think that is what is happening. You can certainly get charged with multiple charges of the same crime. It would be like if you robbed a dozen 7/11 stores in a dozen states, but they could only prove that you robbed one. You can either go to trial in 12 states, or take the plea bargain for just one robbery, and save yourself the 11 other trials.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844085)

But one computer break-in that happened to span multiple datacenters does not mean multiple charges and jurisdictions...

There's a difference...

To use your murder analogy, a person massing around 3.2 million tons, stretching across 6 states is murdered (chokes on a chicken mcnugget) - now the murder charge can't really be sent to trial in all 6 states as it's only one murder (or wrongful death).

More AG games to get a win regardless of whether or not they break the law to get it.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43844237)

They already allow estate taxes to be collected by multiple states that each claim you domicile there.

But the fact that the murder weapon was manufactured by a corporation may prevent a prosecution.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43843769)

He probably does, I know he's already served 2 years in Federal for hacking, prior to this as well as multiple arrests for protesting.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43844199)

It's only a flaw if you're a member of the public.

If you're part of the establishment it's a feature.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (2)

waspleg (316038) | about a year ago | (#43843515)

You're correct. It is. The only part that is incorrect is the "new strategy" part; this isn't a new tactic.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year ago | (#43843517)

This is not, by any means, a new strategy. Bad defense attorneys have been able to identify this tactic and get erroneous charges thrown out quickly for many years. The kid is simply trying to shift blame.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843559)

It's not a new strategy, it's the way the American government has always done business, coercion.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843637)

Came for the standard patent trolling first comment.
Wasn't disappointed.

Come on people, be more creative.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a year ago | (#43844349)

So people being creative disappoints you?

One side of the story... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843675)

I do have to point out that his statement is rather blatently self-justification and self-serving. Yes, indeed, he sounds like a sweet-well intentioned innocent, and the evil government is the villain, when he tells the story.

Re:One side of the story... (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#43843903)

Yes, there is certainly some self-serving element. I think he's probably guilty of something as well.

However, consider if you actually felt that you were innocent, and I don't mean "activist innocent", I mean you didn't actually do anything illegal. If the government decided that they wanted you in jail, they'd just have to start stacking charges on you and get you up to 30 years or so. Then you have to decide if you can win or not, charge by charge, AND you have to decide if you can pay for it.

The problem is, it is *way* too easy for the government to use this tactic, and tactic is what it is. It is tantamount to forcing a plea of guilty despite the fact that prosecutors are not sure that they could win the case. Instead of the search for truth, it becomes bullying of the worst form.

All I can say is: think twice about doing anything where you will end up on the wrong side of an Assistant US Attorney. Their job is to convict you, and they will not hesitate to use overkill to do it.

And for the rest of us.... think about how to make this go away. It is an understatement to say that it won't be easy to do, but in an age of increasing Federal presence, it is critical that these processes are firmly under control or there will be serious trouble going forward.

Re:One side of the story... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844077)

Yes, there is certainly some self-serving element. I think he's probably guilty of something as well.

However, consider if you actually felt that you were innocent, and I don't mean "activist innocent", I mean you didn't actually do anything illegal. ...

That's not relevant here, since he admitted to being the hacker sup_g. (in any case, the evidence was pretty overwhelming; this was not really in question.) And it's not his first offense.

Re:One side of the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844277)

All I can say is: think twice about doing anything where you will end up on the wrong side of an Assistant US Attorney.

Yes folks, you heard it from tnk1: Think twice before you break the law. Because you could get in trouble.

Next, he'll tell us how not standing in the rain can prevent you from getting wet.

Re:One side of the story... (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43844681)

He did not say "before you break the law." He said, "before you do something to end up on the wrong side of an Assistant US Attorney." These are two different things.

Re:One side of the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844267)

Yes, when the government tells the story, he's the root of everything evil that has happened since the beginning of time, and the sole cause of all of the world's financial woes.

Neither may be right, but we'll never hear the truth, because the truth would be embarrassing to the government and the corporations that run it.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843723)

As a taxpayer, I support this strategy.

You are a shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844131)

I can smell through it.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (4, Informative)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43843749)

I know the guy, from his activity at HackThisSite from long ago, I doubt these are trumped charges or multiples intended to get him on one. He has been charged and has server 2 years already for hacking back then it was for stealing a database with over 5000 credit card accounts in it. I wouldn't doubt this as well.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/233208/stratfor-hacker-could-be-sentenced-to-life-says-judge
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/14/232217/lulzsec-member-pleads-not-guilty-in-stratfor-leak-case
Jeremy has a long history of run ins with the law, I doubt this will be his last. I distanced myself from both him and the site years ago due to his volatile political stance and open opinions on hacktivism.

For a site that was touted as a safe place to learn computer and internet security it was obviously a recruiting ground for hacktivism.

And Bill Ayers have never been jailed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844209)

Hacktivism is OK as long as you are on the right side of the dictatorship.

Re:And Bill Ayers have never been jailed (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43844431)

If that's the case you would think someone would do their best to stay off the radar. Not in their sights.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844589)

I used to play around on HTS. I didn't realize (or remember enough to actually go look it up) that it was the same Jeremy Hammond. I don't have anything to add really, but it's cool to know. Thanks buddy.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (2)

Necroman (61604) | about a year ago | (#43843799)

It is much easier for a prosecutor to throw a bunch of charges at someone and hope for some them to stick. The US's double-jeopardy prevents a defendant to be tried for the same crime twice. Where exactly the line is for what is considered double-jeopardy isn't always clear, so the prosecutor has a better chance of getting a conviction if they change someone with all possible crimes they are guilty of from the start.

If you want top stop the state from throwing a bunch of changes at someone, double-jeopardy laws need to be changed. But changing those laws so neither side of the law can easily abuse them is a difficult thing to do.

As others have said, if a lot of the charges were indeed bogus, a defense attorney should have been able to get them thrown out.

Re: New strategy in criminal law? (2)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#43844373)

Part of the problem (part!) Is the ability for blatantly guilty criminals to get off. So in the past theh HAD to stack charges to get a conviction. See John Gotti Sr a la "the teflon don." He was blatantly guilty, used witness intimidation and threats, and was a horrible human being overall. It still took 4 trials. Or vinny the chin, or any number of mobsters. Sure they committed far worse crimes, but the fundamental problem was the same. To be fair I have no idea how to balance it.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844465)

they are guilty of

They might be guilty of..

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (3, Informative)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43843845)

You moron...

"Now that I have pleaded guilty it is a relief to be able to say that I did work with Anonymous to hack Stratfor, among other websites"

He even admitted his guilt in TFA.

So establishing his guilt, yes the sentence is way out of proportion with the crime, and yes this is a tactic way too often used by prosecutors to "scare" a defendant into a plea bargain. The problem here is the underlying law allowing for the possibility for a 30 year conviction, while it seems like DA is doing their job in an unjust manner, they are doing their job within the confines of the law. Best option is still to not get caught.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about a year ago | (#43844311)

The best option is to not to break the law. The second best thing not to do is brag about it to your online buddies if you do violate the law. And the 3rd best option is to start realizing that it is becoming damn hard to hide your online footprint if some law enforcement agency really wants to track your ass down.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year ago | (#43844325)

#4. Have your own country and your own military, preferably with biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (2)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | about a year ago | (#43844529)

The best option is to not to break the law.

Since there are more laws on the books than any one person could learn or know, in addition to the volumes of judgements interpreting and/or refining them, this is not a practical option for most. Not breaking the law requires knowing the law. Not getting caught, does not. Therefore, the best option is to not get caught (whether intentionally breaking the law or not). Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the future.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43844723)

He knew exactly what he was doing, maybe not the full extent of the consequences, but he should've known he was breaking at least some law and creating some sort of repercussion. Going public to his friends is where he f'ed up. So you statement:

Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the future.

Is best applied to things somebody is unsure of, in which case it is very good advice. It does however go against social human nature, so I'm pretty sure some people are just incapable of it, but then again those people usually aren't looking for trouble either.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843939)

That's how the Federal Government has prosecuted for decades, they just don't advertise it.

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (1)

uberbrainchild (2860711) | about a year ago | (#43844011)

As long as the district attorneys can stay as close as possible to that 100% conviction rate everyone will be safe from these "bad guys" who are not like us

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (5, Informative)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#43844143)

It's not new in the least.

It's a standard feature of the legal system. You can claim many things, they can even be mutually exclusive, and the court case is there to check which ones hold up.

It applies to both sides, as well. Defendants routinely claim that a) they didn't do it, b) they were intoxicated when doing it and c) it was an accident. The geek in you winces that these can not all be true, so how can you claim them all - but to a lawyer, that's not even worth mentioning.

"Assault by Lawyer" (1)

lkcl (517947) | about a year ago | (#43844411)

it's more than that: it's actually a criminal offense, known in the U.S. as "Assault by Lawyer". if you repeatedly sue someone, for example, such that they are made bankrupt by the legal fees of doing nothing more than defending themselves, it's actually a criminal offense. could someone please get word to this guy's legal team about this please?

Re:New strategy in criminal law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844429)

That's been 'the norm' for two decades at least.

Lies? (3)

moonwatcher2001 (2710261) | about a year ago | (#43843543)

" the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country"

How can they claim this without giving the person a list?

Re:Lies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843623)

Rule 1: The government lies.

Re:Lies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843787)

he claimed the government claimed that there were eight other outstanding indictments against me from jurisdictions scattered throughout the country.

There, fixed it for you.

--but with that said, given that he stole 75,000 credit card numbers (along with the associated security code numbers) and that $700,000 was charged to these stolen cards before the theft was discovered and the cards cancelled, yes, I expect that there could be some potential charges of theft in state jurisdictions.

Re:Lies? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843975)

The problem is not that he charged $700,000 before it was detected. The problem is the system sucks and the people who should be held responsible are the ones responsible for connecting us. They are not designing secure standards which would severely thrwart most of this type of fraud. Instead they design new and even LESS secure systems that are "easier" to use. That's just wrong. Blame the people who are actually responsible for the insecurity. Not the ones who are taking advantage of it. No. Those people taking advantage of it have done no worse than those taking advantage of capitalism in general. And I'm saying this as a business owner whom is extremely suspetable to this type of fraud and have lost quite a bit of *real* low margin merchandice over it. What makes me mad is companies place the blame on 'hackers' and 'criminals' who tend to be the weaker parties. Thats just screwed up. It's like blaming grandma cause she didn't save up enough during her life time. Yet- grandma didn't have that opertunity to do so becaus they system didn't educate girls when she was growing up or let them hold decent jobs.

Re:Lies? (1)

Nermal (7573) | about a year ago | (#43844099)

"Blame the people who are actually responsible for the insecurity. Not the ones who are taking advantage of it."

Skip the false dichotomy and embrace the power of 'and'. Just because somebody sold me a crappy lock doesn't absolve a person who breaks into my house of responsibility for his or her choice to do so. We don't have to pick just one to hold accountable.

Re:Lies? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844115)

Blame the people who are actually responsible for the insecurity. Not the ones who are taking advantage of it. No. Those people taking advantage of it have done no worse than those taking advantage of capitalism in general.

Yeah, totally! Don't blame the guy who raped the woman, blame the woman for wearing the mini skirt. She shouldn't have been wearing it if she wasn't DTF.

You fucking idiot.

Re:Lies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844347)

It does not matter if my front door is open, and you can clearly see my million dollar diamond sitting unattended on the floor just inside the door. If you take something that is not yours, you are responsible for your crime, not anybody else.

Not the contractor who didn't build my house of hermetically sealed foot-thick titanium panels that prevent anybody from entering or leaving. Not the lock maker who didn't make a lock that automatically closes the door and engages the completely impenetrable lock of its own volition. Not even ME, for not securing my possessions better. It's YOUR responsibility, because it's YOUR decision to break the law and commit the crime.

Stop making excuses for criminals.

Re:Lies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843635)

claim [google.com]

Re:Lies? (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43843735)

Because Habeus Corpus is dead. Murdered in an attempt to "be tough on crime." I think these convictions will do very little to deter other anonymous splinter groups.

Reminder that what this guy leaked that he's being prosecuted for: The company stratfor was using their government sponsored spying program to also spy on companies in order to provide Goldman Sachs with insider information through a foreign owned subsidiary, in order to dodge US insider trading laws.

Then the government arrests him, and not them.

Re:Lies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844593)

Because Habeus Corpus is dead. Murdered in an attempt to "be tough on crime." I think these convictions will do very little to deter other anonymous splinter groups. Reminder that what this guy leaked that he's being prosecuted for:

...was credit card numbers. And the security codes associated with them.

If he wanted sympathy, he picked the wrong way to go about it.

Re:Lies? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43844661)

stratfor was also breaking the rules of credit card conduct.

was stratfor ever fined for it for damages? fuck no.

Re:Lies? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year ago | (#43843777)

They can claim anything they want (not always, but often). You shouldn't necessarily believe them if they don't provide evidence, though.

lulzsec is not the good guys (4, Interesting)

D1G1T (1136467) | about a year ago | (#43843583)

The more I read about what these guys were doing--and I mean the stuff they've admitted to, not just been accused of--the more I think they are getting what they deserve. Breaking into someone's network to get at information that the public should know is political. Breaking into someones network and racking up charges on personal credit card numbers is criminal. They're like the idiots that smash store windows during street protests.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843663)

Exactly. "Anonymous" (sic) basically destroyed the company in this case. No comparisons to Aaron Swartz are relevant.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43843747)

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (3, Insightful)

Infernal Device (865066) | about a year ago | (#43843819)

I'm not seeing anything on their page that is, on the face of it, illegal. Certainly, they seem to be getting near the edge of the law, but if they don't cross the line, there's nothing there.

They may be immoral, but the moment you start legislating morality, you open up a can of worms that can't be unopened.

Stratfor may be kind of dumb in some areas, but that doesn't make them a bad company.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843847)

but the moment you start legislating morality

We already do: murder, rape, theft, and other such things are illegal. They likely wouldn't be if most people had no problems with them (if we even had a society in such circumstances).

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#43844117)

but the moment you start legislating morality

We already do: murder, rape, theft, and other such things are illegal. They likely wouldn't be if most people had no problems with them (if we even had a society in such circumstances).

That is the most asinine thing I have read all day. Murder, rape, and theft all violate the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: Namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have no right to deprive people of their ability to decide who they have sex with, whether someone else gets to live or die, or whether or not they get to keep their property. Your rights end where mine begin.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844395)

Declaration of Independence?

I think you missed the point. The rules you follow in social life are based on morals as defined by your cultural background, evolved over centuries of social interaction. The rights you cite are valid in places that do not care about the Declaration of Independence. The laws we follow are codified morals.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (2)

Cigarra (652458) | about a year ago | (#43843921)

They may be immoral, but the moment you start legislating morality, you open up a can of worms that can't be unopened.

What are you talking about? Law is nothing but codified morals.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43844673)

they weren't doing many illegal things. they were bullshitting about having good intel on many things though, but just bordering on fraud.

however, stratfor was going against regulations by storing those cc numbers. they had no real reason to store them and the credit card companies should have sued them for breaking the rules.. and for damages for 30 years.

Hammond Versus Barrett (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#43843687)

The more I read about what these guys were doing--and I mean the stuff they've admitted to, not just been accused of--the more I think they are getting what they deserve. Breaking into someone's network to get at information that the public should know is political. Breaking into someones network and racking up charges on personal credit card numbers is criminal. They're like the idiots that smash store windows during street protests.

I agree they are not the good guys. But I also think it's important to mete out justice based on who was doing what. I hope in street protests when windows are smashed that the vandals are correctly identified and brought to justice. Similarly, I hope they find who are responsible for the credit card thefts [rt.com] but it appears Hammond is not and there are reports he did not benefit personally from this intrusion:

Barrett Brown of Dallas, Texas is expected to stand trial starting this September for a number of charges, including one relating to the release of Stratfor subscribers’ credit card numbers. He faces a maximum of 100 years in prison.

More here [dallasobserver.com] .

Who Decides? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843791)

Breaking into someone's network to get at information that the public should know is political

Who decides what the public should know? You? What makes you special? The perp in this case? Why does he get to decide?

You can't break the law just because you think you know better than the law.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843801)

Do you feel the same way about Stratfor? Sometimes it takes a not-so-pure person to bring the evils of another to light. Hiding behind heroism and righteousness isn't going to fix that.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43843813)

"Good guy" and "bad guy" status is not as mutually exclusive as you might think. The "idiots that smash store windows during street protests" sometimes organize to do something more productive, things you'd consider to be more "political."

The Boston Tea party: Some hooligans in the US in Boston dressed up as native Americans and dumped the tea cargo into the harbor. That was vandalism. It wasn't to protest just one thing either, there were multiple issues the protesters were upset about. I suspect that were something similar to happen today, Fox would give them the same treatment they gave the occupy wall street movement. "It's vandalism! And what are they even upset ABOUT? They can't even tell us that (at least not in few enough words to fit on a bumper sticker.)"

Anyway, they can be thieves and window smashers and still have valid political motivations. And what they've done is illegal no matter what their motivations.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843947)

The Boston Tea party: Some hooligans in the US in Boston dressed up as native Americans and dumped the tea cargo into the harbor. That was vandalism. It wasn't to protest just one thing either, there were multiple issues the protesters were upset about. I suspect that were something similar to happen today, Fox would give them the same treatment they gave the occupy wall street movement. "It's vandalism! And what are they even upset ABOUT? They can't even tell us that (at least not in few enough words to fit on a bumper sticker.)"

"Taxation without representation" seems to fit nicely.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43844399)

Except it wasn't just that, according to the wiki page [wikipedia.org] (the full extent of my knowledge on the subject)

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protesters were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent. Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights... Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business. Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act. Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods

It reminds me of occupy wall street. They were upset at more than one thing. Fortunately, the media in those days catered to people who had an attention span longer than ten words.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844157)

I think you meant to say that MSNBC would give them the same coverage that they give the Tea Party...

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about a year ago | (#43844061)

30 years though? I could go into a 7-11 - shoot the clerk and rob the store and get less time.

Maximum [Re:lulzsec is not the good guys] (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844645)

30 years though? I could go into a 7-11 - shoot the clerk and rob the store and get less time.

Well, 30 years is the maximum, not necessarily what would be imposed.

However, since this is, if I'm counting right, his fourth offense-- I'm not even sure he was off probation for his previous break-in-- and his statement, which didn't include anything even remotely like "I'm sorry and won't do it again," will almost certainly be entered as evidence in his sentencing hearing, he may get something rather on the higher side than the lower side.

Re:lulzsec is not the good guys (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844511)

Yeah but 30 years is just stupid for anything short of murder or stuff like crimes against humanity.

Not at all like Swartz (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843597)

Unlike the LulzSec crew, Swartz was not politically motivated and did not do anything "black hat". Comparing the two sets of CFAA charges are like comparing someone who got a speeding ticket to someone who got a DUI, since they're both moving violations.

Re:Not at all like Swartz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843817)

I'm not going to argue if what AS did was illegal or not. Instead, I'll argue intent: wasn't his intent to release all of the copyrighted materials that he obtained illegally?

Once again, I'm not arguing that his intent was reasonable grounds for his charges. I'm arguing that his intentions weren't entirely within the bounds of the law, either.

Re:Not at all like Swartz (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844001)

The papers were public domain.

Re:Not at all like Swartz (1)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#43844223)

His intent was to unlock public domain court case records from behind a government-sponsored paywall and serve them up to the public.

Instead, I'll argue intent: wasn't his intent to release all of the public domain materials that he obtained legally?

of course, its his second offense.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843645)

i believe in a free and transparent government! in order to support my belief, I have elected to break into near random websites and then state that it is tied to the government through some form of contorted logic, the government has no case because it all depends on an informant of questionable credibility and its irrelevant that as it turns out he was totally credible in this instance. More over, I feel free to talk now without divulging my tactics, nevermind that this is my 2nd conviction for the exact same thing and there were 8 other indictments outstanding and that my tactics are quite obviously not to be desired by anyone seeking to stay out of jail. Also, I did it for the good of humanity, afterall i was going to use stolen money to donate to charities, whom of course would be grateful to have random fraud investigations intermingling with their legitimate transactions.

In other words, I deserve all 10 years until I learn to stop being a dimwit.

Question (3, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43843721)

I wonder when Stratfor is going to be prosecuted for engaging in corporate espionage? Never, because most Fortune 500 companies and government intelligence agencies rely on this private corporation to know what is going on in the world. Can we say "too big to fail?"

Re:Question (1)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43843783)

Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of everyone, in every government intelligence agency, laughing at you.

Re:Question (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43843815)

They can only laugh if they look up from auditing my taxes to see if I can be thrown in jail.

Re:Question (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year ago | (#43844147)

which indeed they are doing it to weed out political opponents.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844261)

Sorry, I can't hear it over the sound of their Nazi marching hymns.

Those also had a stable happy 1000-year Reich... oh wait!

compared his situation to that of Aaron Swartz? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843809)

I'm sorry but he's no where close to the situation of Aaron Swartz. Aaron Swartz is a selfish asshole who killed himself to make retards feel sorry for him. Aaron Swartz is an hero (the bad kind). I guess this guy is having delusions of grandeur that he actually made a difference in the world - comparing himself to someone who did not make a difference in the world.

Holy fuck we live in a messed up selfish world of I'M SOOOO IMPORTANT LOOK AT ME reality

Re:compared his situation to that of Aaron Swartz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843911)

Aaron Swartz is an hero (the bad kind)

Would you please just go back to 4chan, you sack of shit? You and your dysfunctional, ignorant ilk do not belong here.

Re:compared his situation to that of Aaron Swartz? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844451)

Actually, slashdot is overwhelmingly populated by dysfunctionally ignorant twats. Luckily, not all of them are self-righteously obtuse like you.

what about Chinese? (0)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#43843827)

What will the Chinese get for hacking into our military computers? Nothing. that's what. The US government protects Chinese, but not US citizens.

Not British Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843857)

Interesting .. Here in the UK, we've just had 4 oxygen-wasters (gangsta wannabes) get an average of 15 years each for knifing a 15-year old to death in a London street. And a hacker gets 30 years?!? WOW.

If only he screwed people out of trillions... (3)

yayoubetcha (893774) | about a year ago | (#43843899)

Number of people indicted and tried in the largest banking and financial market manipulation in history: 0

That leaves plenty of time for going after hackers.

COmmute to time served. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843963)

No way, commute to a fair time like 10 days,
    and give credit for extra time served.

Seems only fair for the next time.

Guess the Lulz are on the other foot now ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844083)

LOL !!!!

Most disturbing; buffered charges (3, Informative)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43844183)

So, inflating charges is one thing, but I guess I have a much bigger problem with the idea that the government can buffer some of the inflated charges for later and keep you in a state of permanently accused and tried. I've heard of this for serial killers, where they only bring 1/2 of the cases in one block in case they don't get the conviction or the convict is released at a later date. I have no clue how you address this, but it sounds like a horrible precedent. A really unscrupulous DA could trickle out charges one at a time and keep you in court for life for all kinds of offenses.

Slightly OT, but I just watched a movie called American Violet about disreputable DAs in Texas who were piling on charges with sometimes innocent poor people, getting them to plead out under the threat of YEARS in prison, then collecting money from the Feds for successful drug convictions.

The most logical solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844299)

Jump into a Chinese embassy to obtain political asylum, claiming political persecution by U.S. government.

Re:The most logical solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844523)

Jump into a Chinese embassy to obtain political asylum, claiming political persecution by U.S. government.

But then you'll be in China, whose justice system has its own unique brand of suckage.

I think this is a fair resolution. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about a year ago | (#43844205)

Taking Hammond's crime, his criminal history, his messed-up psychology, and the altruistic component of his motivation all into account. . . this looks like a fair resolution to me.

I hope Hammond learns his lesson THIS time. I feel sorry for him, he's really smart and really a moron at the same time. He could to a lot working within the law.

Feds could've ripped his guts out. Maybe THIS federal prosecutor thinks a little more about justice and a little bit less about winning.

Mr. Hammond should have gone into politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43844213)

I will be proud to have him as my commander-in-chief.

Relieved (2)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a year ago | (#43844447)

I briefly conflated "Jeremy" and "Hammond" to mean two of the Top Gear presenters, and I almost had a heart attack. I really need to stop watching that show...

Surprise! (0)

rbanzai (596355) | about a year ago | (#43844695)

Criminal acts sometimes have personal consequences.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?