Stratfor Hacker Could Be Sentenced to Life, Says Judge 388
dgharmon writes with this excerpt from rt.com: "A pretrial hearing in the case against accused LulzSec hacker Jeremy Hammond this week ended with the 27-year-old Chicago man being told he could be sentenced to life in prison for compromising the computers of Stratfor. Judge Loretta Preska told Hammond in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday that he could be sentenced to serve anywhere from 360 months-to-life if convicted on all charges relating to last year's hack of Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor, a global intelligence company whose servers were infiltrated by an offshoot of the hacktivist collective Anonymous. Hammond is not likely to take the stand until next year, but so far has been imprisoned for eight months without trial. Legal proceedings in the case might soon be called into question, however, after it's been revealed that Judge Preska's husband was a victim of the Stratfor hack."
Nullified (Score:4, Insightful)
8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Insightful)
If he's been arrested, it can take as long as is reasonably necessary before trial begins - and he's already been charged. If the lawyers spar a bit (discovery, pre-trial motions, change of venue, etc), then it only adds to the time spent in lock-up while waiting.
The whole Casey Anthony thing [wikipedia.org] had her locked up for about as long, and she was found not guilty of the murder charge** - there was nothing mentioned or made of the time served while waiting for trial, IIRC. /P
***(IMHO the bitch did it, but legally she was found not guilty. Such is the system...)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would someone do this? I presume it's to give the defense time to prepare a better case or review evidence?
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Informative)
The way it works is you need to see what the prosecution is going to bring against you, which they have to disclose to you in advance of the trial. Then you have to construct a defensive strategy based on what you now know the prosecution has. Demanding a speedy trial is risky because although you would give the prosecution less time to build their case against you, you would also deprive your lawyers of the enough time to mount a good defense. It's only advised if you know the prosecution's case is weak.
Also, in many cases the defendant is on bail anyway. That's not the case with Jeremy Hammond. He was denied bail. Given the sentence he could be facing (and his general disregard for authority), he's a flight risk.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Interesting)
Disregard for authority?
It's sad just how much now is characterized as "authority," including corporations.
Okay. You don't know Hammond.
I do. He's a blight on society.
The man has no respect for any form of authority whatsoever. His ideal form of "government" is that he's allowed to do whatever he pleases, regardless of who it hurts, and suffers no consequences. But everyone else has to play by whatever rules he decides on at the moment. And his number one crime? Daring to tell him "no".
He preaches about "social justice". Too bad he doesn't believe a word of it.
The thin veneer of charisma, that has some deluded idiots portraying him as some sort of "Robin Hood" figure, only barely covers his thug's mentality.
He hasn't done any of this for any greater purpose. He's doing it because he feels that someone has done him wrong. And he'll use any means to get back at any and everyone for his discomfiture.
That being said. If the article is right about the judge's ties to the case, she needs to recuse herself.
Do it by the book so he has zero recourse in even the appearance of impropriety.
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've just described how 80% of the people who call themselves libertarians on slashdot see themselves. Thankfully they are too timid to put their deluded "tough talking" into practice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Libertarians believe humans should be free to do whatever we want as long as it does not bring harm to other humans.
Grow up.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Because Libertarians believe they can do what they want so long as it doesn't impact someone else or cost someone else (who isn't willing to foot the bill) money.
People who smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes? Problem.
Drunk drivers who crash and kill people? Problem.
Jeremy Hammond talks about equality. Always with the notion that special, gifted him is somehow "more equal".
This is the guy who went into a 0-Day security group and was trying to tell the regulars they should "hold the best stuf
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't say you SHOULD trust me. I never claimed to be non-partisan in this.
At one time, he happened to drift into my circle of hacking and security people.
We were friendly, but we'd made it clear from the get go that he wasn't "taking over" or using the group as a bully pulpit for his particular brand of politics.
We'd already had the FBI scrutinizing us for another idiot who'd been in the group several years prior. And none of us wanted that kind of heat again.
When he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted, he started vandalizing our meeting place and the surrounding community.
Do the research yourself. Unless you're already bought into the whole "Free Jeremy" thing, it's pretty obvious what sort of person he really is.
And, as I said. Even disliking the man the way I do. I want him to get an open and impartial hearing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that some of the things revealed by the Stratfor hack shouldn't be prosecuted as well.
The problem is, Hammond's antics have now tainted the evidence.
Also, while hacks on groups you happen to dislike gives you a nice feeling of schadenfreude, think about someone coming into your home and busting up your shit because they disagree with you.
That, rather than some high-minded ideal of "justice" is behind this hack (and many of Hammond's other crimes). He dislikes what they say or represent (or w
Can you actually read English? (Score:3, Interesting)
..because YOU Advocate Excessive Punishment. This guy fucked up and deserves one or two years jail, not life.
Reread what I said. In no way, shape or form do I "advocate excessive punishment" (you don't really need to capitalize every word in the phrase).
I said he deserves a fair and impartial trial with no taint of impropriety.
As to "he fucked up".
The man is a SERIAL fuckup. He's already fucked up and been charged for his "fuckups" multiple times. He keeps doing it.
He didn't go into this blind. Not knowing the consequences of his actions.
He ALREADY spent TWO YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON for a similar hack (again, b
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Informative)
It's not uncommon for corporations to put their cases in courts that best suit them, they just hope you'd never find out and even then, there is rarely any repercussion for anyone involved in the scam, it's just retried under a different judge that best suits them. You can see that not only with patent cases in Texas but similar discoveries have been made in most of the high-profile RIAA cases where it has been discovered that judges were directly involved with RIAA companies.
The way it works in the US, they can even fund entire campaigns anonymously (through PAC's - see how Stephen Colbert did it) for a specific judge (as they are voted in) to take the bench while they are building a case.
The US government in all branches all the way to the President, Congress and Supreme Court is simply bought and paid for already 4-8 years in advance. Clinton, Bush, Mittens, whoever is even considered to be next is already on the pay roll.
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has proven time and again, that justice is served only to those who own the system.
Authority is no longer derived from the consent of the governed. No one consented to this.
There is no legal basis for the existence of US government. Resistance is inevitable and necessary. You are already in violation of law, without any special effort on that account. [amazon.com] It may as well mean something.
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Insightful)
I was with you until you went Full Retard:
> There is no legal basis for the existence of US government.
Governments exist to make and enforce laws, not because of laws. Regardless of your feelings about the legitimacy of a government, in absence of a government there are no laws to speak of, so it doesn't make any sense to say that a government requires a legal basis to exist.
Perhaps you meant that there's no ethical or philosophical basis for the existence of the US government, but even then, republics are set up so that you can replace the people in the government without armed revolution. If you can't build enough support for an electoral majority, then you're just a bunch of annoying anarchists trying to impose your will on a large group of people who don't want it. Call the government tyranny of the majority if you want, but overthrowing a democratically elected government is tyranny of the minority, which is even worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The purpose of the American Revolution was to establish, by law, Government for, by, and of, the people. The precedent necessary and in assumption were those of English Common Law and Magna Carta, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
> The alternative to this proposition? "If the government does it, it's not illegal." How 21st century. :-)
That's reading an awful lot into what I said. It's completely possible for a government to make laws and then break them itself -- the fact that they're breaking their own laws doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes the government dysfunctional.
While it's possible to have a government without Rule of Law, it's not possible to have Rule of Law without a government. Laws are just a concept. Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Does an illegitimate government have to keep writing checks?
There's several million welfare recipients who consider that government very legitimate. About 2 million inmates are also locked up by the states that rely on federal funds. Start taking away the poor's carrots and start releasing murderers and rapists, and I'm pretty sure that the rights of a computer cracker will be the least of your worries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US revolution was a funny thing. While the french started to question who should govern, and what are the limits on his power, the US went a step ahead, and decided that no government has the right to exist, unless the Constituion grants it that right.
You should study it if you are interested on the subject. Their revolution is quite interesting.
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Funny)
I was with you until you went Full Retard:
That's a yellow card for Improper Use of Terms.
The proper term is Full Metal Jackass.
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. 12-year-olds, like f*cking Jean Jacques Rosseau [wikipedia.org].
"The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled."
"Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void -- is, in fact, not a law."
"The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If he had been held for 8 months without being charged with a crime, then yes, you could say that his constitutional rights have been violated. But I don't think that's the case here ....
Re: (Score:3)
8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.
Under ordinary circumstances, you would be correct. However, in issues of National Security, I don't think the speedy trial legal clauses apply but I'm not a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ooh, National Security. Convenient excuse, that. Stratford should have paid attention to securing it's own shit instead of crying to the FBI. Oh well. At least their reputation is in the gutter where it belongs.
National Security? Give up the drugs! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Interesting)
???
He was indited in March, where he went to court, There was no bail request from his lawyers, so he waits for the courts schedule to open for the case, which was July 23rd, where he did request bail but was denied. In that inditement the prosecution request time to gather evidence, which comes to now, when the scheduled opens and time is up for the prosecution. In the constitution he is given right to a speedy trial, but what does that mean? Well normally when ever the courts have the ability, or laws set by the state, but in this case this is his third time in court so he has not been waiting, so no his constitutional rights have not be violated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause [wikipedia.org]
but how were the actions of Hammond a good thing for people to hold up, The attitude of I do not agree with you so I will destroy your property is a childish way to act, and the conspiracy theories surrounding this case make it hard to tell truth from fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you still have a job if that happened to you, and you were innocent? How about a family?
God.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is almost universal that the defendant waives their right to a speedy trial on the advice of their attorney. Otherwise, their attorney would have to put on a defense far sooner that they would be ready.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For obvious reasons, I'll post as an AC, but be well aware that speedy trials are not always the rule. I was accused of a serious crime. I spent 14 months in jail awaiting my trial. Fourteen months in jail because I was denied bail. I was acquitted of all charges. But of course, there are still those who believe that because I was arrested, I had to be guilty. The Police only arrest guilty people. So I just had a good lawyer. Not true!
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Insightful)
Imprisoned until proven innocent, unless the defendant is rich enough to afford bail, is the law. Servers him right for embarrassing wealthy people.
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Insightful)
Servers him right for embarrassing wealthy people.
Yes, people who became wealthy by making us poor, telling us there were terrorist boogiemen in the closet and under our beds, and then selling us snake oil cures like "enhanced" airport security scanners that give us cancer. Then they decide to start setting up cameras everywhere to record license plates, facial pictures, fingerprints, shopping habits, facebook profiles, private e-mail accounts... everything they can get their hands on. Why? To protect us against the boogiemen, of course. And not a single terrorist to show for it... but you know what can be shown for it? Marketing companies. Insurance companies. So-called "deep" background checks run against mid-level managers who know just enough to be dangerous, but not rich enough to be complicit and loyal to their corporate overlords without their knowledge. You can buy access to anyone's complete private data collection, just put a dollar in the jar over there labelled "For National Security Use Only".
This guy may have been stupid, and doubly-so for getting caught... But there's an old latin proverb: "Every misfortune is to be believed when directed against the unfortunate." He's poor. They could tell us he raped thousands of young, nubile school girls before setting fire to the local orphanarium and then passing out drunk in the street... and we'd believe him... because he's poor. It's what we expect from poor people.
Re: (Score:3)
At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.
Re: (Score:2)
At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.
Is the choice between a speedy trial and indefinite detention? Or can the defendent waive it for a period of time of his specification after which he can choose to extend it or start the trial?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be beyond my knowledge. Can only attest to what i have experienced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See you've been modded up to 5 while remaining an Anonymous COWARD. Hey mods, "Insightful" doesn't mean the same as, "I agree with you! Right on!" (which there is no mod status for)
The arrested who can't bond out (either too expensive or no bond available) commonly site in jail for several months - 8 months isn't unheard of. Add to the fact that most attorneys will advise a waiver of speedy trial in order to prepare their client's case. (Who is in better shape in a speedy trial: a single attorney with a sin
Re: (Score:3)
If you do not know the law. Please don't post like you do. As you just come off like an idiot.
He could have waived time.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Waiving+Time [thefreedictionary.com]
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Insightful)
He is charged with a crime as bad as crossing the border and shooting a couple of police officers - top of the scale zone D federal crime (which is where the 360 months to life lies). The MINIMUM fine for such an offense is $25000 - my guess is bail is $10 million or more. With politicians and judges obviously in the corporations pockets, stealing from them has become worse than mass murder or shooting cops.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the person is a threat to public safety
the person is a threat to public order
the person is likely to flee prosecution.
Re:Nullified (Score:5, Informative)
There are fixed time limits. And yes people get released all the time when the prosecution isn't ready to move forward. Generally it is the defense that wants more time. Just to pick a famous example Donny Rogers who was arrested and held on a murder charge had to be released because he went for the speedy trial and the state couldn't process the evidence in time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I personally think quality matters way more than quantity, big government is fine if it's good government. And it is more answerable to the people- AFAIK stuff like FOIA don't work against corporations, and citizens have little say over who leads those corporations.
Re:Nullified (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
May US people don't seem to like the idea of the government doing things they don't want done regardless of the value of the thing being done, it's constitutionality or popularity. These people generally define any such things as "big government", whereas everything they do approve of is "small government". It's how every libertarians hero Ron Paul can be pro "small government" while simultaneously supporting the right of the government to tell you who you can or cannot marry, among other things. There are
Life? (Score:5, Insightful)
Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.
Re:Life? (Score:5, Informative)
Well now you know what the judicial system thinks.
That's not about corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are virtual entitty. He tried to fuck with "priveledged" people, so he must be severely punished in order to demonstrate the power to other peasants. Sending a message is more important than any peasents' business.
And I'm not being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Per the SCOTUS, corporations are people -- just like Soylent Green.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'll try to catch you up since you've obviously been in a comma for a while. Reagan won, his VP's son trashed the economy and started a couple wars, and in between the clan industrialized a few of their pet projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex [wikipedia.org]
Re:Life? (Score:5, Funny)
I would rather be in a comma than be in a colon.
Re:Life? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Life? (Score:5, Insightful)
Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.
Read: Don't mess with our intelligence services.
Re: (Score:3)
Murderers don't always receive life sentences. I wasn't aware the "life" of a corporation was more important than the rest of us.
Read: Don't mess with our intelligence services.
but it wasn't even an intelligence service, but a fucking corporation telling people that they were one. legally it should be on the same level as hacking your local McD. though chances are you'd have access to more cc's and bank codes if you owned the local mcd's pos systems. yet the judge seems to treat it like it was a defense contractor, which it was not.
it was just shit borderline fraud operation due to the analysis being of the quality it was and that was the thing exposed - and stratfor should never
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure a hacker won't have any trouble surviving 360 months in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
meanwhile rapists and murders get off in 5-10
truly is a corporate run government.
Re:not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Scam people out of their life savings (Score:5, Insightful)
and get bailed out. Maker some intelligence company look like chumps and get life in prison. I know its the states but what happened to the punishment should fit the crime?
Hacking is now Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crabtree notes that Hammond ... has also since been added to a terrorist watch list.
So hacking into a Corporation will now get you labelled as a Terrorist and could land you life in prison.
Seems that being a plain ol' armed robber and/or murderer would net you far less severe a punishment.
Seems that if a crime happens on the internet, the punishment is automatically increased 10 fold from it's brick and mortar counter-parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the company he hacked does and if the government considers them a part of the US computer network infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that if a crime happens on the internet, the punishment is automatically increased 10 fold from it's brick and mortar counter-parts.
Well, the last thing we want is for these newfangled e-criminals to compete unfairly and ruin the tried and true business model of all those struggling mom-and-pop criminals out there.
Re: (Score:3)
> So hacking into a Corporation will now get you labelled as a Terrorist
> and could land you life in prison. Seems that being a plain ol'
> armed robber and/or murderer would net you far less severe a
> punishment.
Good thing he isn't black and wasn't smoking a joint when they caught him, or else he would have some of the worst debuffs the american justice game has to offer.
So what are you in for? (Score:5, Insightful)
I uh..hacked a computer network..
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I murdered a couple of families on the eastern seaboard, luckily all I got was life. You? I uh..hacked a computer network..
Remember, Peacekeepers have no sense of humor.
abuse of power (Score:2)
nepotism
plain and simple
stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"
prosecute them
Re: (Score:2)
stratfor is a den of well-connected douchebags engaging in questionable activities and charging way too much for their "services"
Services of all well-connected douchebags are not cheap. You pay for their connections. Sometimes the information is well worth the money. If you don't like the price you can always deploy your own network of spies, or you can resort to tasseography [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
your cynicism means what exactly do you think? how do accept the unacceptable?
you fight for what's right in this world. or you're a shitbag. you choose
Legal precedence scare tactics (Score:2)
This would give the government a very scary legal precedence to scare script kiddies with.
Missed from post, Calls for judge resignation (Score:5, Informative)
u.s no longer check's and balances (Score:3, Interesting)
So when the U.S government hacks into foreign government servers and causes damage it's patriotic but a u.s citizen it's criminal. What about government monitoring every aspect of the web including your emails(email and mail same shit) without a court warrant. Anyway, the judge violated parts of the Title 28 of the United States Code, The judge by law cannot take a case where his own family member is involved in which it might affect his decision making he/she no longer impartial, and it showed. The hacker was held for that long with no bond or speedy trial, decision made by the judge, it's illegal. If this is the fault of the patriot act or ndaa for holding him without trial we are all fucking screwed. Unfortunately, when high officials abuse human rights they get fired and never see jail time. This whole government is acting like a fucking monarchy, like they are all kings or fucking special. Government will never work because people are corrupt by nature this is why we should build machines with impartial behavior built in their cpu to rule us all.
Re: (Score:2)
So when the U.S government hacks into foreign government servers and causes damage it's patriotic but a u.s citizen it's criminal.
Yes. The state is empowered to do many things you aren't. For example if you hold people against their will that's kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment, they get to openly run a prison system.
The hacker was held for that long with no bond or speedy trial, decision made by the judge,
That's not true. The hacker waived his right to a speedy trial. That right rests with the
US no better than China (Score:5, Insightful)
360 months (30 years) to life? Who the fuck has seen the inside of a jail cell, for any of the numerous unending scandals behind the financial crisis, that have impoverished and will impoverish many more people still? Who has seen the inside of a jail cell for engaging in war crimes, in a war of aggression, that after WWII was enshrined as one of the principle most evil acts a country can undertake? Who has seen the inside of a jail cell, for illegally spying on their citizenry, or for sanctioning that? For murdering other countries citizens (and even some of their own) in drone strikes?
Fuck off with this utter bullshit; this guy was caught and should spend time in prison for what he did, but the length of the sentence they are going after is hideously gratuitous; this is the totally unaccountable elite trying to make an example out of someone, for giving enough of a shit to fight back, and reveal information that embarrasses that elite.
I don't pretend that this guy or Anonymous in general work with noble intentions, it's plainly obvious many of them do it just because they like the attention and drama of high-profile hacks, and useful information gained is often incidental, but there's a lot to be said for the civil disobedience aspect of these attacks on establishment institutions; much of the information gained from Stratfor provided a valuable service to the public interest, and this guys attack should be treated as an act of civil disobedience, meriting the same level of outrage defense, of someone getting a similarly gratuitous sentence for trespassing while protesting.
This is a government that already massively invades everyones privacy through surveillance, and is trying to gratuitously expand their attacks on peoples privacy through massive expansions on monitoring the whole Internet in the US, with the legal ability to invade anyones online and personal lives.
If they're going to try and invade peoples privacy to such a huge degree, people should fucking fight back and legitimize digging dirt on government and connected establishment institutions through hacking, as an act of civil disobedience; if they want to invade peoples privacy and lives, but try to remain opaque and unaccountable, people should fucking well force transparency onto them, and be ready to face the legal consequences, and defend those that get caught up in gratuitous cases such as these.
Equal protection under the law? What's that? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Jeremy Hammond actually did commit the crimes of which he is accused (and remember he is legally entitled to the presumption of innocence), then he deserves to be punished. But it's very difficult to think of any situation where life in prison would be appropriate for what is basically a small-scale hack of the type that happens dozens if not hundreds of times every day. Stratfor is a company with 70 employees. The local library where I work has more employees than that, and probably more patrons than Stratfor has customers. If someone hacked our databases, do you think the authorities would investigate the complaint as seriously, much less try to sentence the hacker to life in prison? If someone hacked into the poorly-secured credit card data from a small restaurant and did the same amount of damage, would the authorities be treating him or her as Public Enemy No. 1? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Hammond is being pursued with such vigor not because he broke the law, but because he committed offenses against politically powerful people, the clientele of Stratfor. (According to Wikipedia, "the company's publicity list includes Fortune 500 companies and international government agencies.") While this may not be surprising, it's a clear violation of the Constitution and needs to be fought against.
Re:breaking and entering (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the guy is getting unfairly treated (and charged, etc), but your logic sucks - no matter how flimsy the door, it's still B&E.
The fucked-up part is, physically breaking and entering into the datacenter would likely have gotten him less potential jail time than busting in digitally.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking the possible penalties are more related to the sensitivity of the items taken, and less related to the method of obtaining it.
Re: (Score:3)
It is in a state with crowded jails and early release for not violent crime. It would be time served if he went to court today. Ironically, he would have had his day in court, had it been physical B&E, 4-5 months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
But if a billion dollar corporation is behind that flimsy door you are not going to get a slap on the wrist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, is this not a conflict of interest? I feel a mistrial coming up.
Re: (Score:2)
But we'lve already heard the system, and its supports for justifying breaking whatever rules if the accussed is high profile, and politically relivant.
Does it sound like a little bit of history repeating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
except no one died in stratfor hacks. And its been established they were done at the
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't do the crime.
Baretta is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Even simpler - if you let some people game the system against you and one day you end up on the receiving end, open wide. The democracy is like the security -- it is a process, not a state. The moment the citizenry relaxes its vigilance (and back muscles) is the moment its freedomz are under attack (and democracy is anally raped).
Yours, dirty K.O.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it, they NEED to keep him in jail for at least 10 years : this is the only way to be sure that his "dangerous" knowledge about the interwebs will be obsolete enough to be harmless !
JUSTICE !
Oh come on, it will be sooner than that
give him community service (Score:2)
give him community service or make him work work off the damage
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Why waste time and money putting non-violent criminals in jail? Temporarily seize their assets, put them in crappy low cost housing, then put them to work at minimum wage (think affordable nursing homes). Have them work 9-5, and in house arrest the rest of the time. No TVs, no computers, no phones. Easy and cheap compared to prison - they even have to pay for the food and housing.
Any breach of the rules could of course result in a trip to the 'real' prison.
Re: (Score:2)
in a real prison you get TV (more then just the free OTA stuff) and can make high cost phone calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Those nasty dreadlocks he's sporting are a crime by themselves.
Re:Soviet vs American justice (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir are simply a sadist.
Even without experiencing the horrible torture you propose, you are already as cruel and depraved as if you had.
Or how about we just not have political prisoners? (Score:2)
Is that really too much to ask?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people break under pressure. Other people, well, they snap. You going to take the chance on which one Hammond is?
This is without going into the particularly virulent sadism you seem to exhibit. Some people, just want to see some poor sod burn, eh?