It's odd how people will contemplate past failed societies and file them as some sort of barbaric "other". But this is what lawful corruption actually looks like, right in front of our faces.
Even disregarding the public service aspect, what exactly did he do that warrants even four months in jail? But when "the law" really just serves as a justifier for the powerful, actions that poke holes in the abstractions of power are punished the harshest.
If you were referring to the fact that only his crime was punished while the crimes of those he exposed were ignored, then I understand your point.
[0] Although I was implying that perhaps USians should appreciate the forced government transparency. It's kind of odd to talk about "material damages" due to crimes being exposed - it seems like damages are better ascribed to the original acts themselves.
I hear this a lot, but I don't get how it's relevant. Sure, Russia might be trying to influence elections it should have no say in, but the data they allegedly brought forth is still valid.
Could it be that you believe the narratives you find in major newspapers?
Even accounting for the importance of transparency, it seems weird for the GP to assert this guy didn't deserve "even four months" when a large number of the times he accessed accounts were with no noble intent but with clear maliciousness
So you drank that Kool Aid being passed around by the those with a vested interest to use Russia as an excuse for anything.
While Russia's nefarious intent or not is a subject worthy of debate, I think it's ENORMOUSLY interesting that the source of the idea that Russia is a huge problem and their interference is something we should watch out for is the Clinton campaign.
I think this tells us something interesting about Clinton's foreign policy orientation, namely, she is extremely interested in antagonizing Russia.
This is part of a pattern: Clinton and her foundation have been closely involved with Ukrainian oligarchs, the State Department was involved in planning out the Ukrainian government post-Yanukovych, and Clinton has waxed nostalgic about how we need to bring back our Cold War mentality (I recall her doing this in a Daily Show interview a few years ago, e.g.).
This is the thing to watch out for, regarding Russia.
What a hero, a true Snowden 2.0.
If the US judicial system is serious about that statement they should be addressing the blatant violations of the law perpetrated by the NSA and FBI. As long as our own elite groups engage in hacking crimes, "unauthorized access of a computer" will remain "justified" in the minds of hackers.
If the government wants to send the message that it's not on to break the law then it needs to police itself.
I'm not for lawlessness on the net, but like mentioned here, until the elite is punished for their crimes, people will fight back.
Megabytes? As in just a couple of pictures? That can't be right.
“This epidemic must stop,” Cacheris said.
Funniest thing I've read all day.
If true, this is even more concerning.
Although to call this a symptom of a "hacking epidemic" is ludicrous.
> “This epidemic must stop,” Cacheris said.
Will tough sentencing in US courts really dissuade future Romanian/foreign hackers? I mean the US is always giving out tough sentences for everything, you'd basically factor that in already if were to get caught and they put all that effort into extraditing you to the US. Seems like par for the course.
If it wasn't tough sentencing it would be superfluous charges getting tagged on, so any length is justifiable if you have a motivated prosecutor/judge or a politicized case.
Although I may be reading too much into the judges rationalization.
I think the drug war is fucking stupid, but still.
The name is a portmanteau of Gucci and Lucifer, using the Italian cc- pronunciation of Gucci and not the soft-c of Lucifer. The G is hard.
Unless you're the FBI.
This guy broke into people's accounts by guessing passwords and then used the identities of his victims to victimize others. How are people rationalizing this as OK?
He's certainly not a white-hat hacker. He didn't publish work for the public interest (Snowden). He didn't responsibly report a security vulnerability, as there was no vulnerability beyond public figures using question-answer authentication.
Think about if your accounts were hacked for the "crime" of being a public figure's relative? Friend? I know you think "public figure" only means politician, but to make this thought exercise more real, remember that Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, celebrity startup CEOs (the types of people many of you want to someday become), etc. are public figures as well.
Finally, ask yourself if you can honestly say you've never broken a law; never had a moment that affected others negatively; never did anything that the public could judge you for. If you don't pass all those tests, consider whether anyone could pass those tests, and then consider whether Hillary or anyone else should be expected to. (Unlike you, Hillary and many others probably didn't grow up with internet, or email, or the concept of basic things like legal equality for African Americans - will you find it easy to pass the test of public perception for your past actions 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 40?)
Perhaps someone should pass this on to the NSA?
