7 ms·

Australian youth faces 10 years jail for accused Anonymous hacks

32 points by maskofsanity 14y ago

b0ttler0cket 14y ago
Wow...to think that he would be 27 before he ever got out. I wonder how it's possible for the government to penalize a 17 year old with 10 years of prison. That's the equivalent of a class c felony in the US, which can be applied to sexual assault, arson, and kidnapping. To think that a computer crime where not even any "sensitive personal or financial information was stolen" can be considered at par with kidnapping is harsh.
friendly_chap 14y ago
Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. We geeks are especially at risk. ("Look at that github profile, he even has the codes, hacker, hacker! Burn!") Doesn't it make for a warm feeling in the tummy to know that you can spend the rest of your life being the best friend of Jammal, sharing a cell and a bed with him, without doing something illegal? Fortunately we developers are hard asses who are used to murder, rape, and robbery. Oh wait...
- shantanubala 14y ago
  > Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. The article was really brief and vague. Are you sure this is the case? From what I understand, the title is not completely descriptive: the kid has a maximum possible sentence of 10 years if he is convicted. "The suspected hacker faces a maximum of 10 years jail time if convicted and will face court again on May 17." I obviously have no way of really knowing what exactly happened without more information, but just assuming that random programmers are at risk for getting arrested is a bit of a stretch -- even if there is a "New World Order" as you say, it needs good programmers too... It will be interesting to see what actually happens at the end of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sentence to community service and parole for some time.
  - friendly_chap 14y ago
    As I see it there is an ongoing propaganda to brainwash the masses about how hacking is a sin against life, and how we should routinely handle out prison sentences for it, so they can ruin the life of anybody at will, without consequences. Especially, nowadays, when tech savvy people has more ways to spread rebellious views than the general population, this is a good control mechanism for those in power.
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    You are saying the same thing the person you are criticising is. He said "can throw you in prison for 10 years" You say "maximum possible sentence of 10 years" Exact same thing. Be in the accused's position, and then argue the difference.
    - shantanubala 14y ago
      Maybe this is a bit of a misunderstanding? I wasn't refuting the "10 years" -- that's a fact. I was simply pointing out that you can't really know what's going to happen based on 10 sentences of extremely vague details in an article. I was refuting this: > Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. That statement assumes that he will be convicted and the judge will deliver a severe sentence, which is not necessarily a valid assumption since there's barely any information provided. It's possible he may simple get a community service sentence with parole, since he is 17. And yes, the government "can" throw you in jail if you are found guilty and if the judge decides to, but neither of those "if's" have been decided yet.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. Emm, how is this different than the "Old World Order"? I mean, then, they could put you in prison at will, period (the king, the local sheriff, the lynching mob, etc). They didn't even need any evidence to be verified.
DigitalSea 14y ago
"The AFP did not give a timeframe for the attacks but said it did not believe any sensitive personal or financial information was stolen." Each and every day Australia starts to look more and more like the United States (no offence to those who live in the US). I live in Australia and find it highly alarming that a youth who didn't steal any personal or financial information could be sent away for 10 years, comparatively you could rape someone in Australia and if you plead guilty you would get sentenced to basically the same amount of years. How does a victimless computer crime which potentially only resulted in a little bit of downtime and wasn't malicious in that information was stolen equate to the same as raping someone? It doesn't add up.
- qwertzlcoatl 14y ago
  Ignorance regarding the subject at hand leads to exaggerated sentences like this. Or they deliberately hand out these extreme sentences to make an example for future geeks trying to test their limits.
- Shaanie 14y ago
  If the crime resulted in downtime or in any other way inconvenienced someone else, it wasn't a victimless crime. Disregarding semantics, I completely agree that the potential punishment is not at all proportional to the crime in this case.
hjay 14y ago
It's really disgusting that there is a huge amount of teenagers who are capable of racking up sentences of 10+ years like these, while adults who commit rape, arson, etc end up with the same sentence. Sure we see a few cases like this every month or so, but if all the teenagers committing similar acts were actually caught; whether it be of malicious intent or just pure curiosity, the numbers would be staggering. Things really need to change, and the law needs to put more effort into understanding these breaches, along with how easily obtainable this kind of knowledge is on the internet.
aspensmonster 14y ago
Nice to see the the article has basically no useful information content besides a list of charges. Is there any further context to this?
roel_v 14y ago
Aaaand... watch the nerd indignation rise in this thread - 'omg they're putting him away for 10 years!'. Reporters use the maximum statutory sentences to report on yet-to-be-convicted people for maximum headline sensationalism. Very seldom will somebody, especially a first-time offender, actually be sentenced that. For example, in my jurisdiction the maximum statutory sentence for rape is 12 years; yet prison terms of a few years are common. The reasons the maximums are set so high is to allow leeway for the judge for especially egregious cases.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Do you know why? Because the actual sentences these folks tend to end up with are often similar to folks convicted of homicide, rape, violent robbery, etc. One of the Steubenville rapists was sentenced to around 2-4 years, for example. And he is the same age as the accused here. The idea that the punishment for rape should be similar to the punishment for white collar crimes where no one was materially injured is preposterous. The system is broken in a very fundamental way and jabbering on about the subtleties of the difference between maximum and expected sentences is not contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way, in my opinion.
  - dchichkov 14y ago
    I'm curious, how can you discourage kids from hacking into core infrastructure and accidentally breaking things? It is very natural for kids and teens to test their boundaries and try to get as much access and control over any system that they could get into. And from a kid perspective it doesn't feel like a particularly dangerous or wrong thing to do. Hacking into stuff feels just like an elaborate and very rewarding game. Game that requires specialized knowledge and skills, but a game nevertheless. I think we all remember the feeling. But in reality this is not a game. Damage that can be done by an accident involving a such a game/hack that goes awry can be catastrophic. That includes loss of life and likelihoods of a large number of people. Examples? Say, can a hack interfere in a subtle way with remote surgery? Or with hospital power supply? Or chemical plant? The answer is unfortunately, yes. Our systems a networks are not secure enough and not kid-proof. And probably will never be. So there must be some policy that discourage kids from hacking into stuff that matters. And yet it should be friendly, because it is preposterous to put people in jail for 'games' that are very unlikely to cause any harm most of the time.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
downandout 14y ago
Of the charges he faces, one sticks out to me: "possession of data with intent to commit a computer offence". That sounds absurdly broad and is another of these catch-all laws that enables prosecutors to press charges against almost anyone with a computer. Have uTorrent on a hard drive? You are in possession of data with the intent to commit a computer crime. Intent is arguable, of course, but in Australia that may well be enough to get you arrested and have search warrants issued that could lead to other problems if you happened to be on the radar of law enforcement. I was under the impression that the US had the market cornered on this type of nonsense. Apparently we have competition.

32 points by maskofsanity 14y ago

Wow...to think that he would be 27 before he ever got out. I wonder how it's possible for the government to penalize a 17 year old with 10 years of prison. That's the equivalent of a class c felony in the US, which can be applied to sexual assault, arson, and kidnapping. To think that a computer crime where not even any "sensitive personal or financial information was stolen" can be considered at par with kidnapping is harsh.

friendly_chap 14y ago

Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. We geeks are especially at risk. ("Look at that github profile, he even has the codes, hacker, hacker! Burn!") Doesn't it make for a warm feeling in the tummy to know that you can spend the rest of your life being the best friend of Jammal, sharing a cell and a bed with him, without doing something illegal? Fortunately we developers are hard asses who are used to murder, rape, and robbery. Oh wait...

shantanubala 14y ago
> Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. The article was really brief and vague. Are you sure this is the case? From what I understand, the title is not completely descriptive: the kid has a maximum possible sentence of 10 years if he is convicted. "The suspected hacker faces a maximum of 10 years jail time if convicted and will face court again on May 17." I obviously have no way of really knowing what exactly happened without more information, but just assuming that random programmers are at risk for getting arrested is a bit of a stretch -- even if there is a "New World Order" as you say, it needs good programmers too... It will be interesting to see what actually happens at the end of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sentence to community service and parole for some time.
- friendly_chap 14y ago
  As I see it there is an ongoing propaganda to brainwash the masses about how hacking is a sin against life, and how we should routinely handle out prison sentences for it, so they can ruin the life of anybody at will, without consequences. Especially, nowadays, when tech savvy people has more ways to spread rebellious views than the general population, this is a good control mechanism for those in power.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  You are saying the same thing the person you are criticising is. He said "can throw you in prison for 10 years" You say "maximum possible sentence of 10 years" Exact same thing. Be in the accused's position, and then argue the difference.
  - shantanubala 14y ago
    Maybe this is a bit of a misunderstanding? I wasn't refuting the "10 years" -- that's a fact. I was simply pointing out that you can't really know what's going to happen based on 10 sentences of extremely vague details in an article. I was refuting this: > Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. That statement assumes that he will be convicted and the judge will deliver a severe sentence, which is not necessarily a valid assumption since there's barely any information provided. It's possible he may simple get a community service sentence with parole, since he is 17. And yes, the government "can" throw you in jail if you are found guilty and if the judge decides to, but neither of those "if's" have been decided yet.
coldtea 14y ago
>Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts. Emm, how is this different than the "Old World Order"? I mean, then, they could put you in prison at will, period (the king, the local sheriff, the lynching mob, etc). They didn't even need any evidence to be verified.

DigitalSea 14y ago

"The AFP did not give a timeframe for the attacks but said it did not believe any sensitive personal or financial information was stolen." Each and every day Australia starts to look more and more like the United States (no offence to those who live in the US). I live in Australia and find it highly alarming that a youth who didn't steal any personal or financial information could be sent away for 10 years, comparatively you could rape someone in Australia and if you plead guilty you would get sentenced to basically the same amount of years. How does a victimless computer crime which potentially only resulted in a little bit of downtime and wasn't malicious in that information was stolen equate to the same as raping someone? It doesn't add up.

qwertzlcoatl 14y ago
Ignorance regarding the subject at hand leads to exaggerated sentences like this. Or they deliberately hand out these extreme sentences to make an example for future geeks trying to test their limits.
Shaanie 14y ago
If the crime resulted in downtime or in any other way inconvenienced someone else, it wasn't a victimless crime. Disregarding semantics, I completely agree that the potential punishment is not at all proportional to the crime in this case.

hjay 14y ago

It's really disgusting that there is a huge amount of teenagers who are capable of racking up sentences of 10+ years like these, while adults who commit rape, arson, etc end up with the same sentence. Sure we see a few cases like this every month or so, but if all the teenagers committing similar acts were actually caught; whether it be of malicious intent or just pure curiosity, the numbers would be staggering. Things really need to change, and the law needs to put more effort into understanding these breaches, along with how easily obtainable this kind of knowledge is on the internet.

aspensmonster 14y ago

Nice to see the the article has basically no useful information content besides a list of charges. Is there any further context to this?

roel_v 14y ago

Aaaand... watch the nerd indignation rise in this thread - 'omg they're putting him away for 10 years!'. Reporters use the maximum statutory sentences to report on yet-to-be-convicted people for maximum headline sensationalism. Very seldom will somebody, especially a first-time offender, actually be sentenced that. For example, in my jurisdiction the maximum statutory sentence for rape is 12 years; yet prison terms of a few years are common. The reasons the maximums are set so high is to allow leeway for the judge for especially egregious cases.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Do you know why? Because the actual sentences these folks tend to end up with are often similar to folks convicted of homicide, rape, violent robbery, etc. One of the Steubenville rapists was sentenced to around 2-4 years, for example. And he is the same age as the accused here. The idea that the punishment for rape should be similar to the punishment for white collar crimes where no one was materially injured is preposterous. The system is broken in a very fundamental way and jabbering on about the subtleties of the difference between maximum and expected sentences is not contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way, in my opinion.
- dchichkov 14y ago
  I'm curious, how can you discourage kids from hacking into core infrastructure and accidentally breaking things? It is very natural for kids and teens to test their boundaries and try to get as much access and control over any system that they could get into. And from a kid perspective it doesn't feel like a particularly dangerous or wrong thing to do. Hacking into stuff feels just like an elaborate and very rewarding game. Game that requires specialized knowledge and skills, but a game nevertheless. I think we all remember the feeling. But in reality this is not a game. Damage that can be done by an accident involving a such a game/hack that goes awry can be catastrophic. That includes loss of life and likelihoods of a large number of people. Examples? Say, can a hack interfere in a subtle way with remote surgery? Or with hospital power supply? Or chemical plant? The answer is unfortunately, yes. Our systems a networks are not secure enough and not kid-proof. And probably will never be. So there must be some policy that discourage kids from hacking into stuff that matters. And yet it should be friendly, because it is preposterous to put people in jail for 'games' that are very unlikely to cause any harm most of the time.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

downandout 14y ago

Of the charges he faces, one sticks out to me: "possession of data with intent to commit a computer offence". That sounds absurdly broad and is another of these catch-all laws that enables prosecutors to press charges against almost anyone with a computer. Have uTorrent on a hard drive? You are in possession of data with the intent to commit a computer crime. Intent is arguable, of course, but in Australia that may well be enough to get you arrested and have search warrants issued that could lead to other problems if you happened to be on the radar of law enforcement. I was under the impression that the US had the market cornered on this type of nonsense. Apparently we have competition.