4 ms·

20 years seems a little too much for the crime that doesn't involve violence. 2 or 3 years and a solid fine should be fair punishment in my opinion.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
paulmd 7y ago
US prison sentences are ridiculously long in general. In principle the key word is supposed to be "up to", the judge is supposed to use their discretion. In practice, it's used as a lever to force plea deals. If you waste the government's time and money with a trial, you probably still won't win, but now you will be doing up to 20 years. Sign here and spare us the trial and you'll get 5 years. Of course then you have the people who are truly innocent but are forced to plea out anyway at threat of spending a significant chunk of their lives in jail... There is also the view that extreme prison sentences are supposed to be a deterrent and thus are unfair by nature. If know you are at risk of spending 20 years in jail, you won't do the crime. Of course in many cases criminals do not really consider the risk of getting caught, and likely wouldn't know the exact penalties for a given crime anyway...
- distances 7y ago
  > There is also the view that extreme prison sentences are supposed to be a deterrent and thus are unfair by nature. If know you are at risk of spending 20 years in jail, you won't do the crime. Of course in many cases criminals do not really consider the risk of getting caught, and likely wouldn't know the exact penalties for a given crime anyway... I'm pretty sure it has been proven multiple times over that harsher sentences don't reduce crime. They serve just as retribution.
  - edoo 7y ago
    The prison industry is huge. The prison guard union even lobbied against decriminalization, it is nuts. Most every jail releases inmates right after midnight so they can charge the state for a full extra day. It is a business.
- kebman 7y ago
  American tax payers stand to save a lot of money by adopting the Scandinavian model for their prison system, particularly because of the use of much shorter sentences, and heavier use of fines (a lash to the pocket is often a far better deterrent than a long prison sentence). This opens up for better rehabilitation, and much less recidivism. In turn that means shorter queues which means a clear cut in the expenses needed to maintain all those prisons. In the end, it's a win-win for the state, tax payers and the prison inmates themselves. Only prison wardens would disapprove. ;)
MaulingMonkey 7y ago
While I'm more for rehabilitation than retribution, $10M - rough value of the stolen IPs - is a staggeringly large amount of money, around 4x the average lifetime earnings of a college graduate. $10M can save a lot of lives, and $10M missing from shareholder's accounts and not going into employee benifit plans for healthcare etc. might very well end some. Framing that as nonviolent... is correct by the letter of the law, but it's not the way I'd frame it first and foremost.
- SolarNet 7y ago
  I think the better framing is the amount of fraud, abuse, and second hand criminal activity this person enabled. His violations of the regulations allowed criminals to piggyback off of that and get away with crimes more easily.
SolarNet 7y ago
At some point it involved violence. It's one of those things where he provided a service that did not follow the regulations that were in part placed there to prevent crime. His violations of these regulations allow other criminals to piggyback off of him by using his services. Spammers, VPNs, and other services which criminals can use - especially with forged IP address ranges - to commit crimes. He is a middle man, and by not following regulations, he assisted all of those crimes. Consider craigslist, they are protected by safe harbor laws because they comply with regulations and laws, even though criminal activity passes over their servers, it's a level that is deemed acceptable by society for the service they provide (given they are well regulated). When laws like FOSTA/SESTA get passed and change those regulations, some services will shut down (because they are no longer complying). Which is why he probably deserves a larger sentence (though others have pointed out the ridiculousness of the US sentencing system and I don't disagree).
- meowface 7y ago
  >At some point it involved violence. >Spammers, VPNs, and other services which criminals can use - especially with forged IP address ranges - to commit crimes. How are these violence?
  - SolarNet 7y ago
    > VPNs and other services. Drug cartels, pedophile rings, etc.
    - codedokode 7y ago
      But you have to prove that those IP addresses were used for crime. Maybe the purpose was only to earn money from reselling them.
      - SolarNet 7y ago
        And we can't. Because this person failed to follow the regulations that allow for that to be proven. It's like if I ran a car rental business, and I stole license plate numbers from random cars or made them up, and then kept no records. And then when convicted and charged you were like "but you have to prove that those license plates were used for crime". How? The whole point of the crime was to obfuscate and prevent that very action of tracking the license plates. Which is why he isn't going to jail for any additional criminal acts. But he is getting a very long sentence for the crime he committed because his crime was particularly egregious in enabling other crimes and preventing them from being discovered or tracked.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

paulmd 7y ago

US prison sentences are ridiculously long in general. In principle the key word is supposed to be "up to", the judge is supposed to use their discretion. In practice, it's used as a lever to force plea deals. If you waste the government's time and money with a trial, you probably still won't win, but now you will be doing up to 20 years. Sign here and spare us the trial and you'll get 5 years. Of course then you have the people who are truly innocent but are forced to plea out anyway at threat of spending a significant chunk of their lives in jail... There is also the view that extreme prison sentences are supposed to be a deterrent and thus are unfair by nature. If know you are at risk of spending 20 years in jail, you won't do the crime. Of course in many cases criminals do not really consider the risk of getting caught, and likely wouldn't know the exact penalties for a given crime anyway...

distances 7y ago
> There is also the view that extreme prison sentences are supposed to be a deterrent and thus are unfair by nature. If know you are at risk of spending 20 years in jail, you won't do the crime. Of course in many cases criminals do not really consider the risk of getting caught, and likely wouldn't know the exact penalties for a given crime anyway... I'm pretty sure it has been proven multiple times over that harsher sentences don't reduce crime. They serve just as retribution.
- edoo 7y ago
  The prison industry is huge. The prison guard union even lobbied against decriminalization, it is nuts. Most every jail releases inmates right after midnight so they can charge the state for a full extra day. It is a business.
kebman 7y ago
American tax payers stand to save a lot of money by adopting the Scandinavian model for their prison system, particularly because of the use of much shorter sentences, and heavier use of fines (a lash to the pocket is often a far better deterrent than a long prison sentence). This opens up for better rehabilitation, and much less recidivism. In turn that means shorter queues which means a clear cut in the expenses needed to maintain all those prisons. In the end, it's a win-win for the state, tax payers and the prison inmates themselves. Only prison wardens would disapprove. ;)

MaulingMonkey 7y ago

While I'm more for rehabilitation than retribution, $10M - rough value of the stolen IPs - is a staggeringly large amount of money, around 4x the average lifetime earnings of a college graduate. $10M can save a lot of lives, and $10M missing from shareholder's accounts and not going into employee benifit plans for healthcare etc. might very well end some. Framing that as nonviolent... is correct by the letter of the law, but it's not the way I'd frame it first and foremost.

SolarNet 7y ago
I think the better framing is the amount of fraud, abuse, and second hand criminal activity this person enabled. His violations of the regulations allowed criminals to piggyback off of that and get away with crimes more easily.

SolarNet 7y ago

At some point it involved violence. It's one of those things where he provided a service that did not follow the regulations that were in part placed there to prevent crime. His violations of these regulations allow other criminals to piggyback off of him by using his services. Spammers, VPNs, and other services which criminals can use - especially with forged IP address ranges - to commit crimes. He is a middle man, and by not following regulations, he assisted all of those crimes. Consider craigslist, they are protected by safe harbor laws because they comply with regulations and laws, even though criminal activity passes over their servers, it's a level that is deemed acceptable by society for the service they provide (given they are well regulated). When laws like FOSTA/SESTA get passed and change those regulations, some services will shut down (because they are no longer complying). Which is why he probably deserves a larger sentence (though others have pointed out the ridiculousness of the US sentencing system and I don't disagree).

meowface 7y ago
>At some point it involved violence. >Spammers, VPNs, and other services which criminals can use - especially with forged IP address ranges - to commit crimes. How are these violence?
- SolarNet 7y ago
  > VPNs and other services. Drug cartels, pedophile rings, etc.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    But you have to prove that those IP addresses were used for crime. Maybe the purpose was only to earn money from reselling them.
    - SolarNet 7y ago
      And we can't. Because this person failed to follow the regulations that allow for that to be proven. It's like if I ran a car rental business, and I stole license plate numbers from random cars or made them up, and then kept no records. And then when convicted and charged you were like "but you have to prove that those license plates were used for crime". How? The whole point of the crime was to obfuscate and prevent that very action of tracking the license plates. Which is why he isn't going to jail for any additional criminal acts. But he is getting a very long sentence for the crime he committed because his crime was particularly egregious in enabling other crimes and preventing them from being discovered or tracked.