4 ms·

In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison What is it with the US justice system throwing the book at hackers. Is there something deep and Freudian that I

In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison What is it with the US justice system throwing the book at hackers. Is there something deep and Freudian that I'm missing?

jerf 17y ago
Did you read the article? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question since your quote is from near the end. But seriously, after doing all that stuff, is your suggestion that he should... what... get off with a stern verbal warning? Because that's not just hacking into the local payroll computer, "poking around", and harmlessly leaving. Those are, like, crimes. In fact, if you fill out the quote you cut off: "Last January, he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of conspiracy to commit fraud and intimidate a federal witness. In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison." He didn't even plead guilty to any computer-related change, though perhaps he plea-bargained them away (article doesn't say). He was warned before he was of age. What more do you want, exactly? "Throwing the book at hackers" was when you could get 400 years for (essentially) "annoying the phone companies", or get hit with a umpty millions in "damages" for hacking into a computer vaguely in the vicinity of valuable data. Or get hit with that for trying to report a vulnerability, or even just accidentally stumbling onto something. Those days are, if not over, certainly on the wane. It's not being charged with things you actually did, then convicted of them, then sentenced in accordance with that just like any other non-hacker.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  This is the problem with the US justice system - it's about vengeance rather than any utilitarian benefit.
  - calcnerd256 17y ago
    The threat of vengeance can provide some utilitarian benefit.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      It may. But it may also engender more problems than it solves. Don't forget that the burden of maintaining the prison system is on the shoulders of the rest of society. America has an absolutely amazing number of people in prison at any given time, also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world.
      - endtime 17y ago
        >also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world. That implies that the imprisoning is arbitrary, which it isn't. If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. You think so ? Three strikes law ? Minor drugs infractions ? stuff like this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_police_entrapment_sting/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_poli... Think again: http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548 http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548
        jibiki 17y ago
        The second link is very interesting. What crimes against "public order" are people committing? Wikipedia suggests that prostitution, statutory rape, and DUI are all in the category. (I would guess that DUI comprises the bulk of their public order crime number then, but maybe they count that under drug crime instead?)
        ahoyhere 17y ago
        > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. In most first-world countries, you won't be imprisoned for having minor amounts of marijuana; you won't get strip searched at middle school if they suspect you have Midol; you won't be labeled a sex offender for life for having oral sex with a fellow teenager who happens to be 3 months (1 year on paper) younger than you; you certainly won't get arrested and have your children taken away for taking a picture of yourself breastfeeding your baby. Let's not even talk about the trumped up criminality of not-for-profit copyright infringement. On the other hand, these things all happen in the US on a seemingly regular basis.
  - jerf 17y ago
    Again, though, what's your alternative? "Oh, gosh, do you promise to stop?" "Yes, your honor." "OK, you're released. Have a nice day!"? You're simply alluding to a vague argument that, if you spell it out, will probably sound very silly. I understand and acknowledge that there are different reasons a penal system could be based on (deterrance vs. vengeance vs. simple separation of criminal from law-abider). But under none of those reasons is this a terribly "throw-the-book" punishment. Are you simply against the idea of a prison system in general? Are you for legalizing harassment of witnesses? What? Spell it out.
    - nopassrecover 17y ago
      That statement was more about the parent's attitude than the article in question - yes we need a deterrant for harassing witnesses because without it we cannot have a legal system. I don't think prison is the answer except when we decide that the person in question believes themselves above the law/is too great a risk. We do need some sort of means of deterrant and stripping one's liberty should be strong enough - to introduce someone into a enclosed society (prison) where rape, violence and drug abuse may as well be decriminalised seems too much for most crimes. People commit crimes because either a) they don't think they'll be caught, b) they don't care if they get caught or c) they're insane. People that respect the law rarely do so because of the threat of punishment.
- asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
  I'm not saying he isn't guilty. I'm saying 11 years is a very long time. 2 or 3 or hell even 5 years in a prison full of non violent criminals. With good attention making sure he doesn't fall back into crime when he gets out, best he should have a job waiting for him in Verizon or law enforcement. And Gary Mckinnon shouldn't do time either. He should get more like detention and again best have a job waiting for him. And Adrian Lamo should have gotten a stern talking to and a job offer. Simply because these kids are brilliant, non-violent, and socially inept, doesn't mean we should be putting them jail.
  - gnosis 17y ago
    If someone broke down your door and threatened you and your family with a gun, would you call that a "non-violent crime"? That's what happened to this kid's victims. Sure, the kid wasn't personally breaking down doors and pointing the weapons, but he effectively ordered it. He is responsible for that violence. He and his victims were just lucky that no one actually got killed because of his actions, as does sometimes happen when the police invade completely innocent people's homes by mistake.
eli 17y ago
I agree that 11 years is stiff. I'd say he needs some serious mental health treatment more than a long prison term, but then I feel that way about many crimes. He did some pretty heinous stuff. Causing someone's house to be invaded by an armed SWAT team is no prank. And intimidating witnesses has to be taken very seriously or the whole justice system breaks down.
- gaius 17y ago
  I don't see how causing someone's home to be invaded by a SWAT team is so different from sticking a gun in their face yourself. What if it had gone wrong and someone actually got shot? 11 years is light.
rms 17y ago
It's not just hackers; the US justice system has serious problems from top to bottom.

In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison What is it with the US justice system throwing the book at hackers. Is there something deep and Freudian that I'm missing?

jerf 17y ago

Did you read the article? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question since your quote is from near the end. But seriously, after doing all that stuff, is your suggestion that he should... what... get off with a stern verbal warning? Because that's not just hacking into the local payroll computer, "poking around", and harmlessly leaving. Those are, like, crimes. In fact, if you fill out the quote you cut off: "Last January, he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of conspiracy to commit fraud and intimidate a federal witness. In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison." He didn't even plead guilty to any computer-related change, though perhaps he plea-bargained them away (article doesn't say). He was warned before he was of age. What more do you want, exactly? "Throwing the book at hackers" was when you could get 400 years for (essentially) "annoying the phone companies", or get hit with a umpty millions in "damages" for hacking into a computer vaguely in the vicinity of valuable data. Or get hit with that for trying to report a vulnerability, or even just accidentally stumbling onto something. Those days are, if not over, certainly on the wane. It's not being charged with things you actually did, then convicted of them, then sentenced in accordance with that just like any other non-hacker.

nopassrecover 17y ago
This is the problem with the US justice system - it's about vengeance rather than any utilitarian benefit.
- calcnerd256 17y ago
  The threat of vengeance can provide some utilitarian benefit.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It may. But it may also engender more problems than it solves. Don't forget that the burden of maintaining the prison system is on the shoulders of the rest of society. America has an absolutely amazing number of people in prison at any given time, also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world.
    - endtime 17y ago
      >also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world. That implies that the imprisoning is arbitrary, which it isn't. If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. You think so ? Three strikes law ? Minor drugs infractions ? stuff like this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_police_entrapment_sting/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_poli... Think again: http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548 http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548
        jibiki 17y ago
        The second link is very interesting. What crimes against "public order" are people committing? Wikipedia suggests that prostitution, statutory rape, and DUI are all in the category. (I would guess that DUI comprises the bulk of their public order crime number then, but maybe they count that under drug crime instead?)
      - ahoyhere 17y ago
        > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. In most first-world countries, you won't be imprisoned for having minor amounts of marijuana; you won't get strip searched at middle school if they suspect you have Midol; you won't be labeled a sex offender for life for having oral sex with a fellow teenager who happens to be 3 months (1 year on paper) younger than you; you certainly won't get arrested and have your children taken away for taking a picture of yourself breastfeeding your baby. Let's not even talk about the trumped up criminality of not-for-profit copyright infringement. On the other hand, these things all happen in the US on a seemingly regular basis.
- jerf 17y ago
  Again, though, what's your alternative? "Oh, gosh, do you promise to stop?" "Yes, your honor." "OK, you're released. Have a nice day!"? You're simply alluding to a vague argument that, if you spell it out, will probably sound very silly. I understand and acknowledge that there are different reasons a penal system could be based on (deterrance vs. vengeance vs. simple separation of criminal from law-abider). But under none of those reasons is this a terribly "throw-the-book" punishment. Are you simply against the idea of a prison system in general? Are you for legalizing harassment of witnesses? What? Spell it out.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    That statement was more about the parent's attitude than the article in question - yes we need a deterrant for harassing witnesses because without it we cannot have a legal system. I don't think prison is the answer except when we decide that the person in question believes themselves above the law/is too great a risk. We do need some sort of means of deterrant and stripping one's liberty should be strong enough - to introduce someone into a enclosed society (prison) where rape, violence and drug abuse may as well be decriminalised seems too much for most crimes. People commit crimes because either a) they don't think they'll be caught, b) they don't care if they get caught or c) they're insane. People that respect the law rarely do so because of the threat of punishment.
asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
I'm not saying he isn't guilty. I'm saying 11 years is a very long time. 2 or 3 or hell even 5 years in a prison full of non violent criminals. With good attention making sure he doesn't fall back into crime when he gets out, best he should have a job waiting for him in Verizon or law enforcement. And Gary Mckinnon shouldn't do time either. He should get more like detention and again best have a job waiting for him. And Adrian Lamo should have gotten a stern talking to and a job offer. Simply because these kids are brilliant, non-violent, and socially inept, doesn't mean we should be putting them jail.
- gnosis 17y ago
  If someone broke down your door and threatened you and your family with a gun, would you call that a "non-violent crime"? That's what happened to this kid's victims. Sure, the kid wasn't personally breaking down doors and pointing the weapons, but he effectively ordered it. He is responsible for that violence. He and his victims were just lucky that no one actually got killed because of his actions, as does sometimes happen when the police invade completely innocent people's homes by mistake.

eli 17y ago

I agree that 11 years is stiff. I'd say he needs some serious mental health treatment more than a long prison term, but then I feel that way about many crimes. He did some pretty heinous stuff. Causing someone's house to be invaded by an armed SWAT team is no prank. And intimidating witnesses has to be taken very seriously or the whole justice system breaks down.

gaius 17y ago
I don't see how causing someone's home to be invaded by a SWAT team is so different from sticking a gun in their face yourself. What if it had gone wrong and someone actually got shot? 11 years is light.

rms 17y ago

It's not just hackers; the US justice system has serious problems from top to bottom.