Teenage jounralist could get 15 years in jail for online protest.

[Soushi]

15 years? Seriously? I mean, I was at odds with Anonymous' methods most of the time, but come the fuck on. All she did was bring a site down for a while, which is, quite frankly, absolutely meaningless. No personal information was stolen, the site wasn't brought down permanently, it was just some dumbass DDoS thing. Whoopdefuckingdoo. The potential sentence is outrageous.

That's what happens when you have an organization like the FBI and the US department of justice who think that they have some reputation to uphold. The war against anonymous has been an utter disaster, with very few arrests and almost zero progress being made. The FBI and most other anti-crime organizations around the world are extremely weak compared to Anonymous and their resources. They are looking to catch and punish someone, anyone who they can get their hands on. Yes, it is outrageous, but as long as someone gets punished, justice is a secondary concern. They are willing to look totally tyrannical if it means they don't look utterly useless.

So, they're looking to avoid seeming useless by dishing out unnecessarily harsh punishments to 15 random members of a loose collective with tens if not hundreds of thousands of members? That just makes them see even MORE desperate and useless.

I didn't say it made sense, it just seems to be the way its going. the unfortunate truth is that the FBI is going to take out all their frustration on whomever they can get their hands on. In this war, Anonymous is far more powerful than the FBI and the Us Department of Justice (and any government for that matter) in terms of their chosen battlefield. In any war situation, across history, the losing side has always tried to tout even the most minor of victories as 'the turning of the tide', that's all this really seems to be. They will jump and scream and call for thumbscrews and hot oil, and it will all end up being for naught.
Now, 15 years is the absolute maximum, so she probably won't get anywhere near that. And heaven help them if she does, they think anonymous is a pain now, just wait until you have them REALLY pissed off at you. Honestly, this kind of thing may even help anon's cause, not only is it free publicity, but they will seem more like 'crusaders for justice' fighting against the 'overbearing powers that be'. To even consider prison time for something like this is just plain silly.

 

[spartan231490]

This wasn't just some harmless online protest. She was hacking, as a part of anonymous. I have absolutely no sympathy. yeah, it's kinda bull that the CEOs can get off with less than a year, but I'm all for this chick being made an example of. Anonymous isn't some group of crusading internet heroes. They are mostly either spoiled brats whining cuz it's not legal to steal music and movies, or hackers just looking for an excuse to polish their skills so they can go ruin someone's life. I'm glad they're throwing the book at her.

 

[viranimus]

Laziness on my part snip

Im not saying they can or should. What I am saying that the only failing is that the websites that are victimized are just being inundated with more traffic requests than what they can handle. That is NOT damaging their computers or servers. That is NOT hurting the company in question. And it infinitely more damaging to have the individual targeted and attacked with suspension of inalienable rights than it is to disrupt a corporations revenue stream. Thats what I was trying to get across and I am getting weary of watching people who would willingly turn over their freedoms to try to demonize someone that committed no crime.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Good lord the amount of people in this thread saying stupid stuff like 'the law is the law' and 'she broke it she needs to be punished' is mind numbing. I expected more of you escapist.
It's one thing to be law abiding but it's quite another to follow the law blindly and not question it or whether it is fair or just. Just how is putting a person in prison for any amount of time justifiable for the 'crime' of knocking out a website for a few hours? Who has died or suffered because of this? No one that's who.

You could argue that PayPall hasn't even lost any business because of it. It's not like anyone who was trying to use the PayPall website at the time of the attacks will see the site is down and think 'Oh no PayPall is down, that's it I'm disgusted with this and am never coming here again' Nope people do what they always do when a service is not available at the moment...come back later when it is!

She should get the fine and nothing more. Why ruin a young persons future with a criminal conviction? Especially when it was a victimless crime.

Incidentally, i would like to ask how the people who say that this girl should go to prison for being a part of the DDoS attacks should have protested. Considering in the real world a peaceful protest does exactly the same thing as DDos does in the digital world if it is successful.

 

[kasperbbs]

Don't you know? As long as you have the money, you can get away with ANYTHING, including paying someone to kill someone who won't let you get away with anything.

That's why CEO's can get away with anything and a teen trying to do good can get 15 years.

Welcome to democracy. Hey, at least we follow the "Golden Rule", which is: He who has gold makes the rules.

How is ddosing paypal 'doing good' ?

 

[NightRavenGSA]

wasn't there a court case ruling that an IP can't be used to prosocute a person or something like that?

 

[JMeganSnow]

What annoys me about this is that CEO's who fruaded millions can get off with less than a year, but a person trying to do good gets punished.

1. Madoff was sentenced to *150* years in prison, and that's the only high-profile "fraud" case in recent years. Most "fraud" cases of this nature involve no fraudulent claims whatsoever, they simply "violated" some kind of regulatory law which, due to the ex post facto nature of anti-trust law, they couldn't know was applicable until they ran afoul of it.

2. Vandalizing people's property is not "doing good" no matter how much you happen to disagree with them.

 

[mad825]

Journalism 101: Don't get involved with anything which you aren't in/cannot control. I.E Zombefying your computer network to a group that's infamously known to break computer laws.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Good lord the amount of people in this thread saying stupid stuff like 'the law is the law' and 'she broke it she needs to be punished' is mind numbing. I expected more of you escapist.
It's one thing to be law abiding but it's quite another to follow the law blindly and not question it or whether it is fair or just. Just how is putting a person in prison for any amount of time justifiable for the 'crime' of knocking out a website for a few hours? Who has died or suffered because of this? No one that's who.

You could argue that PayPall hasn't even lost any business because of it. It's not like anyone who was trying to use the PayPall website at the time of the attacks will see the site is down and think 'Oh no PayPall is down, that's it I'm disgusted with this and am never coming here again' Nope people do what they always do when a service is not available at the moment...come back later when it is!

She should get the fine and nothing more. Why ruin a young persons future with a criminal conviction? Especially when it was a victimless crime.

Incidentally, i would like to ask how the people who say that this girl should go to prison for being a part of the DDoS attacks should have protested. Considering in the real world a peaceful protest does exactly the same thing as DDos does in the digital world if it is successful.

What is there is question? Hacking into a company is a felony, she is well aware of this and chose to do so anyway. No one ruined her life. She willingly thought attacking companies' websites because they cut support to a site she happened to fancy was legitimate and a "just cause!" You further disregard the ramifications a simple suspension of service can result in. Paypal, Visa, Mastercard lost any form of service during the time their property was maliciously attacked. Many of them, especially Paypal run via online transactions and nonetheless have to rectify any potential damage due to her hacking. Likewise, she could have done significant damage, but ultimately was not given the opportunity or perhaps thought better of it.

Your ideal is essentially a skewered variation of punishing the victim likely because they are large conglomerates that can sustain the loss. Would you so willful bend the law if she did this to city block? In any case, jail time is irrelevant since even if a mere fine is given. There are grounds for a lawsuit from each company, who could sue for well beyond anything she is capable of affording if they so choose.

No. how about we just leave anonymous to act as they see fit, knowingly committing crimes. Yep, that sounds like a worthwhile objective.

 

[Ickorus]

Peaceful protest my arse, what she and the rest of Anonymous did was basically the internet equivalent of a riot, as such she should be charged in the same way a rioter would be, no harsher and no more lenient.

Not saying I don't feel for her situation but this is just how the law works, you break it and bad stuff happens to you.

Also note it's up to 15 years, not simply 15 years.

 

[evilneko]

Indeed. She committed a crime. She should do the time, just like the rest of the worthless skript kiddies the Feds busted.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/journalism-student-faces-15-years-for-alleged-anonymous-hacktivism/

What annoys me about this is that CEO's who fruaded millions can get off with less than a year, but a person trying to do good gets punished.

Sure, they aren't arresting any at HBgarey for conspiracy, or going after REAL threats from REAL hackers, or trying to be more transparent, nope, let's spend thousands of dollars arresting some 16-year old for peacful protest, put here in a jail cell that could house a murder.

God I hate my country at times.

It doesn't matter if you think her actions were noble (which they weren't), she still broke the law. The courts have every right to prosecute her for her actions.

Also, the key word here is "could" get 15 years. I seriously doubt they'll give her the maximum sentence for this. Even if they did, there's a good chance she'll get out early for good behavior.

On a related note, I think you need to brush up on your understanding of the word "hacker:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hacker

See, but she is charged with "conspiracy to commit Intentional Damage to a Protected Computer"

A DDOS attack doesn't damage a computer in any way, it's non-physical thing. In addition, if you recall, HBgary conspired to spread false information, and to commit (illegal) acts to smear and disrupt wikileaks.

THEY are not being charged.

It's the equailvent of a group of people holding a protest in front of a building, blocking anybody from entering. That same type of stuff was done in civil rights movements.

Let me get this straight:

The "teenager" is 20.
Her "peaceful protest" was a DDoS attack.
While she's faces "up to" 15 years, she hasn't actually been sentenced to that much. And, as it's the maximum sentence, it's actually quite unlikely she'll serve that much.

In short, is there anything about the OP that isn't misleading or meant to be inflammatory?

Sorry, I typed that late at night, I was tired, I made a mistake about her age.

I used "peaceful" because it was indeed peaceful. As I stated above.

I see nothing wrong with this. The "go after the real hackers" card doesn't fly with me. This person broke the law and got caught. She gets arrested. Simple as that. A cop who catches a small-time shoplifter doesn't let the thief go because there may be someone else across town robbing a bank.

See, but SHOULD it be illegal?

Just because something is aganist the law doesn't mean it should be.

Some of you seem to think pretty harshly.
Sure what she did was a crime and all, but this is fifteen years in prison for taking a website offline for a little while. She's facing longer time in prison than a lot of freakin' murderers do for something that was pretty much harmless.

THAT is my main concern here.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am not saying she SHOULD have done it, or that it is right, merely that she is being charged for something that she didn't technically do, and the people who actually did do it, are NOT being charged.

Do I have to explain why this is?

 

[Twilight_guy]

You call taking down Paypal out of vengeance "peaceful protest"? Nobody was hurt but by that logic I could go to an orphanage, evacuate everyone and burn down the building and it would be totally okay. Oh but you say, there was no property damage... except for the all the time it took Paypal to fix the issue and the inconvenience to numerous customers.

I hate it when people treat cyberwarfare as harmless just because it doesn't fit conventional labels. This is the not the old west, you are not cowboys, stop being asshats just because your crime is in binary.

As for your CEO complaint, don't conflate these two separate events. Your argument is a clear red herring. Address the news story on its own terms.