4 ms·

Sounds like you are in full agreement that a young guy that received no monetary reward should be punished for the rest of life for a program he wrote in 10 hou

by SeanDav 14y ago

Sounds like you are in full agreement that a young guy that received no monetary reward should be punished for the rest of life for a program he wrote in 10 hours. Also you seem to be in complete agreement that the prosecutors got it right on this one, as it seems sure you would agree that they got it right on the Aaron Swartz case. We all know that the government gets it completely right on these cases, right? /sarcasm

rayiner 14y ago
His crime was not writing a program in 10 hours. His crime was, as the jury convicted him of it, writing a program for someone he had a lot of reason to suspect was a criminal, knowing that he intended to use it for criminal purposes. I think after all that, and after failing to cooperate with police even after he became aware of the full extent of the crimes he aided,* I think two years in low-security prison is not an unduly harsh sentence. If it was just the program, it would be a whole separate matter. But as much as the article wants you to think that, if you read the whole second page, you can see that the evidence the jury had in front of them painted a different picture. As for being punished for the rest of his life--the government didn't do that. The government punished him for two years, for aiding in a crime that resulted in tens of millions of dollars in fraud. The fact that people don't want a guy like that working for them after serving his time is somewhat unfair, but also pretty understandable. *) The article makes "not snitching on your friends" out to be some noble thing, but it's not and that's not how civilized societies work. If this were guys at Enron and not hackers, Wired would never be so sympathetic to that kind of bullshit.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  "Failing to cooperate" and "not snitching" are two different things. By all accounts, he cooperated fully, and even accepted responsibility. What he didn't do, was snitch. Being a snitch is reprehensible. He was more than reasonable.
- SeanDav 14y ago
  Having to pay 171 million in restitution is pretty much a life sentence don't you think? I don't think anyone here is saying there should have been no punishment or consequences, but do you seriously think his sentence is proportional to his crime?

by SeanDav 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

His crime was not writing a program in 10 hours. His crime was, as the jury convicted him of it, writing a program for someone he had a lot of reason to suspect was a criminal, knowing that he intended to use it for criminal purposes. I think after all that, and after failing to cooperate with police even after he became aware of the full extent of the crimes he aided,* I think two years in low-security prison is not an unduly harsh sentence. If it was just the program, it would be a whole separate matter. But as much as the article wants you to think that, if you read the whole second page, you can see that the evidence the jury had in front of them painted a different picture. As for being punished for the rest of his life--the government didn't do that. The government punished him for two years, for aiding in a crime that resulted in tens of millions of dollars in fraud. The fact that people don't want a guy like that working for them after serving his time is somewhat unfair, but also pretty understandable. *) The article makes "not snitching on your friends" out to be some noble thing, but it's not and that's not how civilized societies work. If this were guys at Enron and not hackers, Wired would never be so sympathetic to that kind of bullshit.

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
"Failing to cooperate" and "not snitching" are two different things. By all accounts, he cooperated fully, and even accepted responsibility. What he didn't do, was snitch. Being a snitch is reprehensible. He was more than reasonable.
SeanDav 14y ago
Having to pay 171 million in restitution is pretty much a life sentence don't you think? I don't think anyone here is saying there should have been no punishment or consequences, but do you seriously think his sentence is proportional to his crime?